This article has yet to be finished. Despite the amount of information available, this article is nowhere near complete. Feel free to check in every now and then to see the new updates.
Many people have it in high regard, especially here in Greece, but is it as valid and correct as it is considered to be? Or is it just a party with a false line, well hidden behind their slogans?
Historical development
Revisionist Era
First of all, before we try to do outright criticism, we should see how the party developed its current ideology.
It all begins in 1949, when the Hellenic Civil War ended. A USA puppet regime got installed in the country, which clamped down on the KKE and everything related to it. [1] Thus, the party went into exile.
In 1991, the USSR was overthrown. Months before this, Aleka Papariga became KKE's General Secretary. As the USSR was on its way to dissolve, KKE exited Synaspismos, a coalition with other left-wing parties made in 1989, and it purged the reformists, many of which went back to Synaspismos.
Aleka Papariga, general secretary of the KKE from 1991 to 2013 and the main synthesizer of the KKE Model.Dimitris Koutsoumpas, general secretary of the KKE since 2013.
After that, and until 2013, when Papariga got succeeded by Dimitris Koutsoumpas, KKE formed its current ideology, staying mostly the same ever since. During this period, KKE denounced its past line and the denounciation of Zachariadis. At least his remains were returned here.[7]
Conclusion from the Historical development
You may think, "but they did renounce their past revisionism", right? That's good, right?
No. Because they instead turned into a dogmatic party, turning down many opportunities for cooperation.
That is what we will analyze in this essay.
Political line
Actually Existing Socialism
China / Vietnam / Laos
If you don't know already, KKE's stance on socialism is, let's say, ... weird.
I'll cite this very nice excerpt from KKE's conclusions of its 21st Congress. [8]
“Many parties retain the title “communist”, but their ideological–political and organizational formation is not consistent with the communist characteristics, the ideology of scientific communism, the revolutionary strategy–Programme that corresponds to a revolutionary workers', Leninist party.
[...]
The CPs' approaches are often dominated by bourgeois and opportunist ideological influences, turning any invocation of our world view from a theoretical basis and a scientific methodological tool for understanding and changing society into a “wish list”.
Briefly, the overall negative picture remains, both in the leading capitalist countries (USA, countries of the EU, UK, Japan, China, Russia) as well as in countries and regions that are hotbeds of imperialist military interventions.”
I'd say they do not really like China and its economic model. In fact, they consider it a capitalist and, even worse, imperialist state, as most anti-revisionists (e.g. Maoists and Hoxhaists) do. This is their first ideological deviation from Marxism-Leninism.
China has neither become capitalist, nor deviated from Marxism-Leninism to opportunism and there is plenty of arguments to support this position. China's primary contradiction back when Reform and Opening Up was initiated was how to build socialism with underdeveloped productive forces and not how to socialize the means of production. After all, what means to socialize, if there aren't any?
However, how has China continued being a socialist state? This begs a deeper question. What is a socialist state? Let's see this 1928 Stalin quote:
We often say that our republic is a socialist one. Does this mean that we have already achieved socialism, done away with classes and abolished the state (for the achievement of socialism implies the withering away of the state)? Or does it mean that classes, the state, and so on, will still exist under socialism? Obviously not. Are we entitled in that case to call our republic a socialist one? Of course, we are. From what standpoint? From the standpoint of our determination and our readiness to achieve socialism, to do away with classes, etc.
So has there been any socialist mode of production? If we want to be pedantic about it, the answer is no, never, even the USSR didn't even have a socialist mode of production. What it did have though, was it socialist essence. This is, to put it lightly, focusing on the values of socialism, and not its methods, which is what dogmatists do. China clearly retains this essence by upholding a people-orientated approach[9] and as such we can and should call it socialist.
As for the DPRK, I could not find anything specific besides this article, which merely denounces the efforts of the USA to overthrow the DPRK, saying that "KKE supports the position that it is the sole responsibility of each nation to decide what economic, social and political regime it will have, as well as change it with its organization and struggle".
As for Laos and Vietnam, I did not really find any statement of support or opposition, but I suppose they do oppose them to some degree, as they have similar economic models to China.
Cuba
Finally, KKE fully supports Cuba and denounces the US efforts to overthrow its government.[10] In the Communist Youth of Greece - Odigitis festival of 2022, there was even a box for donations to the Cuban government. Will this be for long, I don't know, as Cuba has also initiated economic reforms.
Imperialism, the "Imperialist Pyramid" and Geopolitics
The Leninist essence of imperialist + my understanding
The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. When we say monopolies, we mean on a global scale, in the whole world.
The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities. Obviously, capital flight (offshores) to tax heavens does not count as capital export. Capital export is things like investments.
The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels).
The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.[11]
In order for a country to be imperialist, it needs to have all of these these 5 characteristics in their full form.
If I could divide the world into categories based on the above explanation of imperialism, I would divide it into these categories:
Imperialist countries, such as the UK and the entire Anglosphere (USA, Canada and the others), other settler-colonial states (which are created by imperialist countries as an extension of them and thus are imperialist) such as "Israel" and then leading EU members which are Germany and France, as well as the Nordic countries.
Non-imperialist capitalist countries which benefit from the imperialist ones or ally with them, which are the countries of the European Union besides Germany and France. While they are not imperialist in terms if material conditions, the EU (founded and led by an imperialist country, Germany) acts as an imperialist entity and hence why these countries benefit from imperialism. There are also India and Turkey, which while not imperialist, co-operate with the imperialist camp.
Non-imperialist capitalist countries opposed to the imperialist ones. These are countries such as Russia which are not imperialist and happen to oppose imperialist interests. They are useful in countering imperialism, though.
Anti-imperialist capitalist countries. These are countries which are predominantly left-wing (but do not espouse Marxism-Leninism, and are not Dictatorships of the Proletariat), such as Venezuela or Bolivia, which adhere to Bolivarianism.
Dictatorships of the Proletariat, which are the 5 countries of China, Cuba, DPRK, Laos and Vietnam.
On the broader sense, however, we have two big groups: the imperialist countries (the first group) and the non-imperialist countries (the other four groups).
We also see two camps: the imperialist one (the first two groups) and the anti-Imperialist one (other three groups).
"The Imperialist Pyramid"
KKE does not believe whatever I said above. In fact, it believes that every country which has commodity production and does trade is capitalist and therefore imperialist, as they consider imperialism to be a global system applying to all capitalist countries, rather than being the most advanced stage of capitalism which also impacts other countries via colonialism and neocolonialism. This is called the imperialist pyramid and was coined by Papariga in an article of her in the magazine of the Communist Party of MexicoEl Machete.[12]
Let's review this article.
When Lenin spoke about a handful of countries that plunder a large number of countries, he was highlighting with many examples and details, a variety of forms of looting regarding colonial, semi-colonial and non-colonial countries. A small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid, as finance capital (one of the 5 basic characteristics of capitalism in its imperialist stage as the merger of banking and industrial capital) spreads its tentacles to every country in the world.
The position regarding a “handful of countries” defines various forms of relations between the capitalist countries which are characterised by unevenness, this is what the pyramid describes in order to illustrate the global capitalist economy.
Above all, Lenin clarified that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, it is the global capitalist economy, it is the prologue for the socialist revolution in every country.
Imperialism is a stage of capitalism, not the "global capitalist economy". It is a stage in which only specific countries are. I'll explain below what this means.
The re-division of the world at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century which Lenin referred to was between the strongest capitalist countries, but the other capitalist states were not at all uninvolved and passive regarding the game concerning the distribution of the markets and the formation of the generally negative correlation of forces. The strong capitalist countries divided up not only the colonies but also the non colonized countries, while next to the major colonial powers there were small colonial powers via which the new colonial expansion began. Indeed he mentioned small states that maintained colonies, when the large colonial powers could not agree over the division.
Whereas indeed there were the larger colonial powers (e.g. UK, France) and some smaller ones (e.g. Belgium), and small countries were involved in this re-partition, it is important to note that the small colonial powers and weaker countries in general were subordinate to the stronger colonial powers. For example, Belgium was a UK protectorate. Austria-Hungary at the time was a German puppet.
The capitalist restoration provided the opportunity for imperialism to unleash a new wave of attacks with less resistance, with the assistance of opportunism which had strengthened, while new markets were formed in the former socialist countries. A result was that the unity of the leading powers against socialism relaxed, something which had previously relegated the contradictions between them into the background. A new round of inter-imperialist contradictions flared up for the division of new markets, which resulted in the wars in the Balkans, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. States, which are not incorporated into the imperialist inter-state unions, took part in these wars, proof that the imperialist exists as a global system, and all the capitalist countries are incorporated in it, even countries with elements of backwardness and remnants of pre-capitalist economic forms. The leading powers are at its summit, there is a tough competition between them and whatever agreements they come to have a temporary character.
At the end of the 20th century there were three imperialist centres as they were formed after the World War, the European Economic Community which later became the European Union, the USA and Japan. Today the number of imperialist centres has increased, while new forms of alliance have also emerged such as the alliance centred on Russia, the alliance of Shanghai, the alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS), the alliance of the countries of Latin America ALBA , MERCOSUR etc.
You cannot tell that western (real) imperialist countries contradict each other. The 2003 invasion of Iraq wasn't opposed by Germany or France, for example. The NATO intervention in Libya was not opposed by any imperialist country.
Every NATO country sends weapons to Ukraine by now.
There are also no such things such as Russian or Chinese imperialism. I'll use things already existing here in the wiki.
Russia does not fit Vladimir Lenin's definition of imperialism and lacks finance capital and division of the world's resources. It is far behind the US in everything. Just because it happens to have a strong raw material and petroleum export industry doesn't make it imperialist. It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500, for example. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth' of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. The export-import difference is -$93,4 billion. So, we can realize how Russia isn't imperialist.[13]
In addition, KKE believes the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war is an inter-imperialist conflict. You can disagree with Putin's decision, you can dislike Russia, but you cannot say this is an inter-imperialist conflict, based on the evidence presented above.
China is also not imperialist. Despite the Western media accusing China of "debt trap diplomacy," China gives loans at low interest rates and often allows countries to restructure or even never repay loans, unlike the neocolonialIMF.[14] China has forgiven tens of billions of dollars of debt held by African countries.[15] It has also forgiven 23 interest-free loans to 17 different countries.[14]
It is also noted that in a 2005 presentation to the Congressional U.S.-China Commission, U.S. State Department official Princeton Lyman assessed how China’s model of socialist state loans don’t serve the function of profit, stating that:
China utilizes a variety of instruments to advance its interest in ways that western nations can only envy. Most of China’s investments are through state-owned companies, whose individual investments do not have to be profitable if they serve overall Chinese objectives. Thus the representative of China’s state-owned construction company in Ethiopia could reveal that he was instructed by Beijing to bid low on various tenders, without regard for profit. China’s long term objective in Ethiopia is in access to future natural resource investments, not in construction business profits.
A 2018 study in the Review of Development Finance also found that Chinese investment in Africa raises incomes in the African nations that receive the investment, in a similar way to foreign investments by other nations. The author state that these results "suggest that the win-win deal China claims when investing in Africa may hold, and Chinese investment contributes to growth in Africa. Put differently, Chinese investment is mutually beneficial for both China and Africa."[16]
While not a Marxist-Leninist, Yanis Varoufakis, a Hellenic economist, has debunked this myth in a lecture at Cambridge University. Note that he is a very acclaimed economist and widely praised.
Back to Papariga's article:
The course of the US economy is dependent on China to a great extent as well as on the opposed interests in the EU. The battle of the dollar, euro and yen is visible.
Once again, we can clearly see how KKE claims that the USA and the EU are opponents and not allies, which is a clear denial of reality.
Our reference to this does not at all imply that we agree with positions concerning “ultra-imperialism”, as some mistakenly accuse us of. On the contrary! We always highlight that inside the imperialist system, which we liken to a pyramid, strong contradictions continue to develop and manifest themselves between the imperialist states, the monopolies for the control of raw materials, the transport routes, the market shares etc. The bourgeoisie can form a joint front for the most efficient exploitation of the workers, but it will always sharpen the knives, when there is imperialist “plunder” to be divided up. Another ridiculous accusation is that the reference to a “pyramid” is a “structuralist approach” to imperialism. Lenin as is very well-known had used the schema of the “chain”. The schema which we sue on every occasion is a way for us to help the workers understand the reality of imperialism as monopoly capitalism, capitalism which is rotting and dying, in which every capitalist country is incorporated based on its strength ( economic, political, military etc.). Something of course, which comes in to clear conflict with the so-called “cultural approach” towards imperialism, which like Kautsky did, detaches the political line of imperialism from its economy. As Lenin stressed, such an approach will lead us to the mistaken assessment that the monopolies in the economy can co-exist with a non-monopoly, non-violent, non-predatory manner of activity in politics.
That's a clear misrepresentation of Lenin's sayings. Lenin said imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a mode of production which is applied to countries. It is not a global system as KKE claims, although it has a global dimension (imperialist countries need countries to exploit, so if the imperialised don't exist neither will the imperialists). Let's take an example: the US. Why has it become imperialist? Because it has neocolonies to exploit, via the IMF and World Bank. That means, that it has ground to extract capital, form cartels and so on. We realize that imperialism has a global dimension, but isn't a global system in the sense that the imperialised countries are imperialist, just less Imperialist, as KKE says.
Uneven development becomes even more apparent not only between the strongest capitalist countries in comparison to the weaker ones and also in the hard core of the strongest countries. It is characteristic that in Europe the chasm between Germany on the one hand and France-Italy on the other is widening. But the most important and characteristic phenomenon is the reduction of the shares of the USA, EU and Japan in the Gross World Product. The Eurozone no longer maintains the second position, it has fallen to third place, while it has been replaced by China in second place. The share of China, India in the Gross World Product has increased while the shares of Brazil, Russia and South Africa remain stable.
As regards the capital which constitutes the FDI stock, the trend for the strengthening of capital originating from or heading to the emerging economies of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is strengthening. China is being reinforced as a destination for DFIs, and its share is being strengthened in relation to FDI inflows, particularly after the outbreak of the capitalist crisis in 2008. As an exporter of capital it is increasing its participation in the global FDI outflows, which it doubled in the years 2007-2009 and has maintained high levels since.
In contrast the share of the developed capitalist economies related to the inflow and outflow of capital in the form of FDIs is tending to be limited, after the outbreak of the crisis. Of course, They did not lose their primacy (maintaining a distance from the countries of the previous group) as in the middle of the crisis, the lion’s share is directed to or originates from the USA and the countries of the EU.
A similar trend has been formed regarding the shares of the import and export of commodities. The strengthening of China’s share has been stable regarding the entirety of commodity exports as well as imports. The corresponding share of India has been strengthened but at a much slower rate, while Russia, South Korea and South Africa are moving in a consistently upward trend.
The only member-states of the OECD which outstrip the USA in productivity (volume of production per time unit) are Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg and Germany, while France, Belgium and Holland are approaching it.
It is underlined in the theses of the 19th Congress that the changes in the correlation of forces between the capitalist states increases the possibility of a total repositioning of Germany regarding the issue of Euro-Atlantic relations and the realignment of the imperialist axes. Decisive factors for this development are on the one hand the relations of inter-dependence of the EU-USA economies, on the other hand the competition between the euro and dollar as international reserve currencies and the strengthening of the cooperation between Russia and China.
Once again, according to what I said above, there is a made-up contradiction between the USA and the EU, which is false as the imperialist camp is led principally by the US and then (according to some including me, though this is disputed) by Germany, who is the "leader" of the EU.
Those who talk of subordination and occupation do not acknowledge the export of capital from Greece (a characteristic feature of capitalism in the imperialist stage), which was significant before the crisis and continues undiminished in the conditions of the crisis. The export of capital is being carried out for productive investments in other countries and of course in European banks until conditions are formed so that they can re-enter the process of ensuring the maximum possible profit. They see a shortage of capital and not over-accumulation.
They do not see the issue of over-accumulation because they will be forced to admit the character of the capitalist economic crisis, something which blows to smithereens their pro-monopoly political proposal. The bourgeois parties as well as the opportunists, despite the various differences they have, support the safeguarding of the competitiveness of the domestic monopolies which inevitably brings the reactionary restructurings to the forefront, ensuring cheaper labour power, intensification of state intimidation, repression and anti-communism, and at the same time particularly focus on expanding Greek capital in the wider region (the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea area). This is amongst other things a vicious circle which leads to a new and deeper crisis cycle.
Lenin and his work on imperialism adds that the comparison cannot be made between developed capitalist countries and backward capitalist countries but between capital exports, an issue which opportunists everywhere do not want and do not dare to acknowledge because their view regarding the occupation of Greece, that Greece is a colony, is refuted by this criterion alone.
As a Greek myself, this text is an outcast. If you want to find a sheer example of neocolonialism, you can see the EC-ECB-IMF Troika in Southern Europe. Greece (at least during the previous decade) was a German neocolony. Many ministries had Troika officials control what they do, and Greece was generally dependent on individual German politicians, such as Wolfgang Schäuble.[17] Thus, it is idiotic (and a position of centrists) to say that Greece was (and is) not a colony. This, in fact, is a good argument for a position I'll talk about later.
Furthermore, the KKE does reductive analysis by "comparing" countries solely by capital export, thus ignoring the other 4 criteria of imperialism. Thus, this position is automatically dogmatic.
Let's look deeper on the capital export issue.
First of all, it's who exports. Is it an imperialist country? And secondly, to whom does this capital go? An imperialist country?
All this evidence confirms from this standpoint that the contemporary struggle must have an anti-monopoly, anti-capitalist direction, in no instance can it only be anti-imperialist with the content the opportunists give to this term, who identify imperialism with an aggressive foreign policy, with war, with the so-called national question – detached from class exploitation, from the relations of ownership and power.
It is a fact that the accession of a country into an imperialist inter-state alliance, and indeed one with a very advanced form such as the EU, limits certain capabilities for tactical manoeuvres on the part of the bourgeois class. It minimizes, for example, the margins and the options for handling monetary policy as this is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Central bank. But this issue is not only related to the period of the crisis, as they had signed it a long time ago, 20 years before the outbreak of the crisis in the Eurozone., agreements between the member-states according to which they consciously cede nation-state rights, the primacy of European law is recognized regarding many issues, irrespective of the fact that the Eurozone, more generally the EU does not have a federal form. And this is precisely the trend which is expressed by the class interest of the bourgeoisie for the promotion of elements of federalization of the EU in the instance when the related inter-imperialist disagreements are overcome.
The situation in Africa, in regions of Eurasia and the Middle East bear out the fact that all the capitalist countries are incorporated in the international imperialist system, irrespective of whether they have the ability to carry out their own expansionist political line. In any case, both the 20th and the 21st century demonstrate that even the USA, the first imperialist power cannot independently handle global imperialist affairs if it does not have the multi-facetted assistance and support of its allies, if it does not at least make temporary alliances. Greece is not just a member-state of the EU and NATO, a country which has an alliance of strategic importance with the USA, due to its geographical position, which is found where the three continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa meet, it constitutes a significant military launching pad and supply base for military operations, a country oil and gas pipelines pass through or nearby. Through the entire 20th century and the 21st when it was necessary for it to contribute to military operations and the maintenance of the imperialist peace, and with the provision of its military forces, as was the case in the wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, it demonstrated readiness, and in the instance that a military operation is carried out against Syria.
Consequently the position of the KKE that Greece belongs to the imperialist system, is organically incorporated and plays an active role in the war as an ally of the leading players is absolutely vindicated. This is the choice in the interests of the bourgeoisie that has twice invited British and US imperialism to smash the armed people with military forces, weapons and direct military operations.
Greece does indeed belong to the imperialist system, which is proved even more today, with its participation in the imperialist invasion of Yemen and its support for "Israel". However, just because Greece exports capital doesn't mean it's imperialist. Greece isn't imperialist but is an ally of the imperialist countries. Materially, it is the same as the example of Russia (though Russia is against the imperial core).
The contemporary opportunists when they want to underline the need for their own bourgeois class not to be the poor relation in the division of the markets, remember the national question, however when the issue is the struggle for socialism they then proclaim that either socialism will be global or that it cannot be realized in one country, they eliminate the national terrain of struggle, i.e. they excommunicate the need to sharpen the class struggle, the need for the subjective factor to be ready in the revolutionary situation.
The struggle for the liberation of man from every form of exploitation, the struggle against the imperialist war, cannot possibly have a positive development, when it is not combined with the struggle against opportunism. Regardless of the political strength of opportunism in each country, it must not be under-estimated or judged using parliamentary criteria, as the root of opportunism is to be found in the imperialist system itself, because the bourgeoisie when it sees that it cannot stably manage its affairs supports opportunism as a widespread view and as a political party, in order to buy time, to regroup the bourgeois political system, to undermine the stable rise of the revolutionary labour movement. The concentration of forces, the alliance of the working class with the poor strata of the self-employed due to the objective conditions must develop in a stable anti-monopoly anti-capitalist direction, to be directed towards the acquisition of working class power. The anti-monopoly anti-capitalist direction expresses the necessary but advanced compromise between the interest of the working class in abolishing every form of capitalist ownership, large, medium, small and the wavering strata due to their nature (because of their position in the capitalist economy) which have an interest in the abolition of the monopolies, socialising the concentrated means of production, while at the same time they are permeated by the illusion that they have an interest in small-scale private ownership, they cannot understand that both their medium-term and long-term interests can be served by socialist power. The illusion that any other compromise can succeed in the conditions of monopoly capitalism, i.e. the imperialist stage of capitalism, is damaging, utopian, ineffective.
A diagram of the KKE's perception of imperialism that I made. Note how China is on the top.
The KKE in the conditions of a non-revolutionary situation seeks not only to prevent the downward spiral, not only to win even some temporary concessions, but to prepare the subjective factor, i.e. the party, the working class and its allies for the realization of its strategic tasks in a revolutionary situation. In these conditions, which cannot be predicted in advance, the deepening of the economic crisis must be taken into account, the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions which reach the point of military conflicts, it is possible that such pre-conditions and developments will be created in Greece. In the conditions of the revolutionary situation, the role of the organizational and political readiness of the vanguard of the labour movement, the Communist Party, is decisive for the rallying and revolutionary orientation of the majority of the working class, especially of the industrial proletariat, to attract the leading sections of the popular strata.
A more accurate perception of imperialism / the imperial core.
The material conditions were favorable for a revolution. Interestingly enough, KKE did not do any of the above. It's not really something worth wondering why. Why would they get in danger? Which is also an argument for the point I'll analyse later.
The essence is, if you don't ally with either side, who are you going to ally with? Are you going to end up isolated and cause a disaster of dimensions unknown?
LGBTQ+
Well... that is controversial at least.
Some Marxists (much of the ProleWiki community as well) say that the KKE has conservative stances on LGBT issues. Pro-KKE Marxists deny this.
KKE did not vote for the Cohabilitation Agreement for homosexuals in late 2015 and will not vote for the Homosexual Marriage. Why? I'll show you what they said.[18][19]
Probably some of the most bullshit positions ever seen, such as:
Without any doubt, the institutionalisation of civil marriage for same-sex couples now comes to advance the recognition of their shared parental responsibility as we already foresaw in 2015 when the Civil Partnership Agreement was extended to same-sex couples. But this recognition of the joint parental responsibility of same-sex couples can only come about by overriding the objective complementarity of woman and man in the reproduction of the species, in procreation.
[...]
Our Party considers that parenthood is the relationship between the parent and the child, which at the individual level reflects existing social relations. The basis of the KKE's position is the rights of the child, i.e. the child's social need to have ties with the mother - the father. This need has an objective basis. The laws that are enacted must assist this right, not undermine it.
A dialectical - materialistic approach to the relationship between motherhood and fatherhood does not imply either absolute biologism or a denial of this complementarity. The maternity-paternity relationship is an exclusively human characteristic, over and above the instinctive protection that every mammal provides for its offspring. This complementary relationship has a natural basis - because man reproduces naturally - and from the very first moment it takes on a social character.
No one said that a child should necessarily be in a nuclear family. A family? Of course. But I never understood why should you have specifically a mother and a father. You can have two parents who love you very much and you can still be a healthy adult when you grow up.
Many people say that kids adopted by same-sex couples will be mocked, and that's the reason why it should be prohibited. This argument makes, of course, no sense. If these kids are mocked, it is a problem of the society itself, which has not learnt to accept these kids.
Plus, especially in the last paragraph, we see the absolute epitome of biological essentialism. Adopting a child is a way more humanitarian action as not only do you not increase the population (we're overpopulated and running out of food, as said, even though the latter is a distribution issue) but you also give a child a family. Let's suppose that the nuclear family is the most healthy family and that any other form of family is "inferior". Even then, it's best to be in an "inferior" family rather than having no family.
We believe that the main issue associated with civil marriage today is the social responsibility of motherhood and fatherhood, legally enshrined as shared parenthood. As long as the economic motive for marriage weakens, as long as it is increasingly based on the free choice of cohabitation (especially for working-class, popular forces), only the institutional regulation of joint parental care remains at the core of marriage as a necessity. Parental care concerns overall responsibility for the child (upbringing, education, health, shelter and includes the administration of the child's property, if there is such a separate one), either in the form of natural parents or in their substitution by adoption (i.e. by a legal act transferring maternity or paternity or both to adoptive parents).
That's plain wrong. Two people can marry because they love one each other and want to make that permanent. I am not for marriage if you ask me, there's no need to, but still, why not extend it to homosexual couples since it exists?
The KKE is opposed to civil marriage for same-sex couples, because it guarantees parental status to persons of the same sex, and leads to the exclusion of either motherhood or fatherhood. It establishes dual parental motherhood or dual parental fatherhood respectively. The concept of dual same-sex parenthood in fact cuts off the concept of parental responsibility from its objective social and biological basis. This is why in 2015 the KKE criticised, objected and voted against the civil partnership agreement for same-sex couples, predicting that it would be a precursor to civil marriage and childbearing.
The non-institution of civil marriage in same-sex couples does not constitute inequality, since the transfer of parental responsibility of one of the divorced couples to the new spouse of the other does not apply to the children of divorced heterosexual couples either, even if they live together, and even if the child receives emotions or substantial care from him/her. In the case of a divorced heterosexual couple with children, the children's relationships with their parents' new partners does not lead either to the exclusion of motherhood or fatherhood, or to parenthood 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. A child's relationships with his or her [sic] mother and father should not be hindered by dysfunctional relationships between them when they are not living together. But even this is not a matter of exclusively interpersonal relationships, because these too reflect social ones. The state must shape the conditions (economic, broader social, legal, cultural) to ensure that maternal and paternal responsibility is effectively realised. For this reason, even in childbearing there are certain social criteria in each period and country.
Why is excluding motherhood / fatherhood a problem? That's a reactionary, biological essentialist position. Plus the second paragraph makes literally no sense to me.
The mental and physical - spiritual health and social development of children can clearly not be guaranteed by a system that measures the needs of workers and children, as well as pensioners, on a cost-benefit basis from the point of view of capitalist competitiveness. Therefore, in these circumstances we cannot make comparisons between 'happy and balanced' children of heterosexual couples and 'unhappy' children of those living with same-sex couples, and vice versa. On the contrary, what urban-driven research also confirms is the fact that successive deep and globally synchronized economic crises - and not only - are accompanied by an upsurge in teenage prostitution, boys and girls, violence and delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism, various other kinds of addictions (e.g. gambling, internet).
I do agree with that, but how is it related to any of the above?
The Church's opposition to the civil marriage of same-sex couples is from the point of view that it considers homosexuality a "sin", claiming that it "contradicts" the "God-given" complementarity of man and woman and the "God-given" institution of marriage, in order to form, as it says, conditions of love and balance between the spouses and in their relationship with their children.
But also the disagreements of bourgeois powers on the relevant law are expressed, in order to defend marriage as the "institutional cocoon" of the nuclear family as a fundamental economic-social unit.
The KKE, as a revolutionary workers' party, in the 105 years of its history, has proved that in a general direction it has fought vigorously ideologically - politically and practically through its forces for the formation of the new man, who conquers communist ethics - and not only ideology - who fights with his weaknesses, who does not theorise his individual specificity (even in relation to his sexuality) and does not develop his "ego" at the expense of the class and revolutionary collectivity.
The KKE achieved its greatest such conquests in conditions of sharpening class struggle, such as during the period of the DSE, in prisons and exile, by making a breakthrough on the question of respecting and promoting women in social action, in the class, political struggle, and in the protection of children. Such conquests are a legacy for the class struggle in today's new, complex and contradictory conditions, a source of communist consciousness and morality for young people and young women, for the defence and development of the revolutionary workers' identity of the Party.
They now play the oppositionist cassette about the working class and the struggles and all. Also, how is wanting more LGBTQ+ rights (aka equality) individualism? This makes no sense. I do agree with what is said about the nuclear family, but still this is reactionary.
In the direction of misinterpreting the position of the KKE, forces are leading the way, which in the name of "individual rightsism" obscure the relationship between individual and social rights, deny the social content of every individual right. No individual right can be detached from exploitative, capitalist relations. The whole of bourgeois institutions, including legal, juridical ones, are rooted in the capitalist economy of class inequality.
At the same time, these views are exploited to cultivate at the individual level a "blurred", fluid, classless identity of the individual without any objective basis.
The social democratic forces, which present themselves as defenders of the 'individual right', in practice legitimise the extreme exploitation of women and the commercialisation of the body through commercial surrogacy, as confirmed by the relevant SYRIZA law proposal. At the same time, from government positions they even contributed to the cover-up of police arbitrariness against people of same-sex sexual orientation.
SYRIZA and PASOK, New Left[Note 1], as they have supported the government of the New Democracy on key issues (ultra-memoranda, Recovery Fund, imperialist plans of the US - NATO - EU in Ukraine, support of Israel in the massacre of the Palestinian people, etc.) so now they play the role of the "left" supporter of government policy, reproducing the dominant direction of the commercialization of human reproduction, established in the US, in the EU with the backing of NATO. As for the far-right formations, by recycling anachronistic views on the family, they are a "useful alibi" for the New Democracy.
Identity politics are tailist and divide the working class. The current neoliberal government does use LGBTQ+ rights as an opium of the masses, the so-called pinkwashing. However, that still does not mean that this law is not progressive and that it should not be voted for.
By the way, the thing they say about "Israel" is ironic, as they support a two-state solution. Hypocrites.
The things said until the end are about perceived "misinformation" and the conclusion of the plan of vote.
Do note that when I was writing this essay, the article was not available in English, thus what you see is pulled and translated from the Greek version.
On 15 February, the Parliament voted on the law I mentioned. Interestingly enough, KKE did vote in favor some articles, such as Articles 4 and 5, which concern surnames and Articles 8 and 9, which are against discrimination. It did declare present in Article 7, which is about protection against dismissal and voted against all other articles.
And as if this wasn't enough, we've got an article of a Politburo member, Makis Papadopoulos, which is 10 times worse than what you read before.[20]
Basically it echoes conservative points about AI (that "it is developed by the bourgeois to fully submit labor to capital" ), LGBTQ+ (that it is an EU-NATO agenda and controlled by George Soros, J.P. Morgan, etc) and that they will create the "Human 2.0" which will be a cyborg and other conspiracy theories. Pretty much reminded me of MAGACommunism. What is next, this?
The next thing that KKE will promote (probably).
It is worthy to translate an article commentating[21] the text I talked about:
You see, reading the following passage one would be much more likely to believe that it is a work of Velopoulos[Note 2] or Niki[Note 3], rather than of the Communist Party of Greece. On some points, Konstantinos Bogdanos[Note 4] may agree. And yet, guys, life is full of plot twists. Especially on the -political- planet Greece.
Now to some tweets commentating said article:
The sprayed retrofuturism of KKE is the most cult thing I have seen in my life, what poppies, what Gardelis[Note 5] movies and stupidities.
Damn the whole lord of the rings will sit down to write the KKE to justify his homophobia, what dragons will be born, what Cthulhu, what reptilians then humans, the Iliad and the Odyssey he prefers to sit and write rather than just vote for and hang out on his skin
"Human 2.0", a living humanoid robot (cyborg), a neutral human body - biological laboratory, amenable to unlimited technical changes and direct governance commands
I am a Human 2.0, a living humanoid robot, with a neutral human body - biological laboratory amenable to unlimited technical changes and direct governance commands.
You can see how much KKE is mocked, and if you ask me, it is fairly mocked. You can't just write such idiotic conspiracy theories which are literally found in Conservapedia.
Small businesses
This is a weird one because they do say they support small businesses, thus the petty bourgeois. Now, this is ironic as they criticize China for, well, having private property.
Plus it supports the self-employed, who while not technically exploiters, as they are employer and only employee, which means that while they do not exploit anyone, are anti-social labor and reactionary as deemed by the Communist Manifesto.[22]
That also doesn't mean they can't ally with the progressive forces (along with the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie).
This is the article I found. I really can't say a lot about this, it might be an entryist position as well. Anyway, I'd say they are revisionist on this (also ironic).
Drug use
If you personally ask me, I wouldn't do drugs, they're bad for people. However, if you use them for personal use, that's not an issue for me and should not be a criminal punishment.
It's a take some will disagree, but I am not for the complete legalisation of drugs. However, I am for decriminalizing drug use. At the end of the day, the drug user does not harm anyone, so why should he be punished? It's his life and he does whatever he wants with it.
I will now cite the entire text of the KKE titled "No to all drugs!":[23]
In reference to today's International Day Against Drug Abuse, the Press Bureau of the CC of the KKE issued the following statement:
“The International Day Against Drug Abuse finds us facing yet another huge problem for the people and the youth, the dangerous policy of the SYRIZA government who with the agreement of the other parties (ND, KINAL, etc. ) intends both legally and ideologically to legalize drugs and let users off the hook.
This policy is that which:
Declares cannabis is not a drug, with the result that the use of cannabis is increasing continually, the age of first use by students is constantly decreasing, the addiction of young people to it is rising and the Indicator for those seeking therapy for drug addiction with the main addictive substance being cannabis in our country, is today at 46%, from the 25% that it was at in the previous 5-year period.
Continues to support as the main therapy model the heroin replacements (methadone, buprenorphine) which already in a number of EU countries are the main addictive substance for which users seek therapy. In addition, already in 5 EU countries the number of deaths from heroin replacements are greater than those from heroin itself. The 'highly-publicized' replacement programs that supposedly would solve the problem certainly have not solved it and given their compete failure, they now advertise as a solution the Supervised Consumption Spaces (SCS).
In a step-by step way, it promotes a compromise with drugs within the SCS that essentially marginalizes users, reduces motivation for therapy, encourages the use and the strengthening of social tolerance for drug distribution The next governmental step will be to ready the “home-based naloxone program “ that will train the user and his family to use at home with special packages of the substance provided by the state.
Confronting these policies that aim mainly to push young people to the margins of life and social action, the KKE struggles for:
People to play the leading role in social life, with clear consciousness
To be able to struggle and to create based on their needs and not be dragged into a false world with the use of drugs.
The KKE demands the creation of a Single Organization for Prevention – Treatment – Social Rehabilitation, public and free, strengthening of the “dry” treatment programs and the Prevention Centers and puts forward demands for an anti-drug policy that has as its central element, the reduction of demand, in which the central role will be played by Primary Prevention.
The KKE calls upon the people and the youth to struggle against the legalization of drugs, the vindication of cannabis, the legalization of drug use within the Supervised Consumption Spaces. The stance of the KKE against all drugs to be a voting criteria for the people and the youth facing the upcoming national elections.
For the KKE the struggle against all drugs is an issue of primary importance and in this context, it will continue to take on militant initiatives within the labor, mass and youth movement.”
The heroin replacements could do as a therapy. It's more gradual and proven to work more efficiently. The "dry" treatment programs, on the other hand, not only are anachronistic, but they are also inefficient and can be harmful in the long term.
Plus, KKE -from what I get- is against the decriminalization of drug use, which is also reactionary, compared to the current situation in Greece.
I'll add a thing: as a communist, what should you examine? These policies, or a better alternative for eliminating drug use (which is eliminating capitalism and its alienation, which causes it).
If you want to see a point of view other than mine about drugs, you can read ProleWiki administrator Forte's essay On drug use.
KKE: An ally or a traitor?
A traitor. A traitor of communism and the workers. Will this change? I don't know.
They claim to be anti-revisionist, yet they are the very essence of revisionism in the present day. They are pure hypocrites and they should all get ousted and that the KKE should change radically, and move to (real) Marxism-Leninism, or the KKE should be destroyed and replaced by an actual revolutionary communist (Marxist-Leninist) party.
References
↑William Blum (2003). Killing Hope: 'Greece 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state' (pp. 33–37). [PDF] London: Zed Books. ISBN 1842773682
↑«Η καθαίρεση του Νίκου Ζαχαριάδη (επέμβαση του ΚΚΣΕ στο ΚΚΕ)», Εκδόσεις ΠΡΟΣΚΗΝΙΟ-Άγγελος Σιδεράτος, Αθήνα 2003
↑Orestis Schinas (25 October 2014). Η αριστερή αντιπολίτευση σε ΕΔΑ και ΚΚΕ. Eleftherotypia.
↑Heinz Timmermann (1979). Die Kommunistischen Parteien Südeuropas: Länderstudien u. Queranalysen (pp. 264, 267). Nomos-Verlag-Ges.. ISBN 978-3-7890-0470-4
↑21st Congress of the Communist Party of Greece, Second Text (2017-04-02). [https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/CHAPTER-C/ "CHAPTER C
THE SITUATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT (ICM) AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE KKE. THE CURRENT PHASE OF THE ICM"] Communist Party of Greece.
“[...] 2.The Communist Party of China should take a people-centric approach for the public interest. [...] 8."Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development". [...]”
“But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.”
↑Ficawoyi Donou-Adonsou, Sokchea Lim (2018). On the importance of Chinese investment in Africa.. Review of Development Finance. doi: 10.1016/j.rdf.2018.05.003[HUB]
“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.”
