177

p The CPG rejects the idea that the collapse of the specific regimes in the socialist countries means the decline of Communist theory and ideology. It stresses that its world theory is the socio-political, economic and philosophical theory founded by Marx, Engels and Lenin, scientific socialism, Marxist-Leninist theory moves dialectically, in the basis of reality as it evolves, that is, of scientific progress, social developments, the generalized study of new phenomena, closely linked to the accumulated experience of the international revolutionary movement.

p The theory of scientific socialism draws its strength and vitality from the fact mat it expresses the interests of the working class and the true needs of all working people. The transformation of the theory into a system of doctrines and stereotypes which do not correspond to evolving reality is contrary to its founders’ creative spirit and to the inherent requirement of the theory itself for constant development.

In today’s circumstances, the CPG must preserve and intensify its efforts to develop theoretical and research activity which will allow it to help to provide answers with regard to the form of socialism which the 20th Century has known, the collapse of the specific form of socialist construction, the cause of this collapse, the roll played by the communist parties and the responsibilities borne by mem for it. The party’s theoretical and research activity must be scientifically adequate and based on the collective elaboration and thought of the Party’s members, friends and followers, as well as of scholars and intellectuals who wish to contribute to the 178 revitalization of the vision, concepts, values and ideals of socialism. Advantage should be taken of multifaceted cooperation and the exchange of theoretical views with other communist or socialist-oriented parties which understand the need for a scholarly, scientific stance vis-a-vis the socialism we have known and which at the same time seek ways of approaching it in our time.

The international situation

p After the events in 1989, new developments occurred on the international level, including new dangers of instability and military confrontations: the negative developments in the Soviet Union, the situation of disintegration in Yugoslavia, the danger of destabilisation in the Balkans and the contesting of borders.

p The balance between the forces of imperialist hegemony and infringement of national and democratic rights on the one hand, and those of peace, international security, a just world order and of the socialist perspective on the other, has shifted more dearly now to the detriment of the latter.

p The current inter-imperialist contradictions are rapidly becoming more acute and may constitute a great danger for humanity. The USA makes use of the new balance of forces to impose a "new world order”. Being militarily superior, it is attempting to achieve hegemony in the economic, commercial and cultural fields as well, to crush the peoples’ resistance and completely defeat socialism.

p The EEC, both during the Gulf crisis and during the crisis in Yugoslavia, has proved it does not put up any substantial resistance to the US designs, as some forces had thought, nor can it overcome its internal contradictions, which are becoming more acute now that Germany has been strengthened and is attempting to create its own zone of influence in the Balkans, in Central and Eastern Europe as far up as to the Baltic countries.

p The dismantling of the Warsaw Pact and the weakening of the Soviet Union have given the imperialist forces of the USA, Japan and Europe the opportunity to interfere directly in the political and economic problems of the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, thus enhancing secessionist trends.

p The climate being created in Europe is reminiscent of the period between the two world wars, when "might is right" governed international relations and borders changed according to the 179 alliances and the interests of the great powers. Two world wars were waged, exactly because the inter-imperialist contradictions had become acute to the extreme, whereas the existence of the USSR and the system of socialist states helped to make it possible for Europe to live in peace and security for 45 years.

The Gulf crisis has proved that the UN is not in a position to play the role required in the current circumstances. The change in the balance of forces permits mighty imperialist circles and the great powers, such as the USA, to impose their domination on a world scale, making use of the privileges offered to them by the structure and the functioning of such institutions. However, particularly in the current circumstances, where the danger of destabilisation, military confrontations and multiform interventions is real, the peoples and states must persist and intensify their efforts so that the existing international organisations and institutions may acquire a democratic way of functioning that secures the substantial participation of all countries in the decision-making process. Real democratisation of these organisations, however, will come as result of change in the balance of forces in favour of peace, progress and socialism.

The developments in the EEC

p Our position is that the developments in the EEC are uncertain. We give certain characteristic expressions and proofs:

p a) The continuing fall in the rate of EEC development and the extended economic depression. For 1993 — the first year of Integration of the single European Market almost no - or negative development at all its foreseen whilst in 1994, a possible imperceptible increase. The high level of unemployment; with its constant tendency to rice, constitute a supreme expression of this depression. This year it will surpass 11% on an average. In certain EEC countries/ such as Spain and Ireland, the percentage of unemployment is dose to 20%, whilst in the region of the former East Germany, 50% of the unemployed will find it difficult for many yean to find work. Even if the rate of development were to go beyond 3%, the unemployed would not be absorbed, and the underemployment of the work force would not be abolished.

p b) The important inner-imperialist contradictions and disputes in the background of the adverse economic tendencies which 180 dominate in their countries, directly affect of the course of European unification as it was planned by the Treaty of Maastricht. Characteristics are the disputes, in the framework of GATT ( General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), the strong reaction of France and, more generally, of the fanners throughout the whole of Europe.

p There can be no talk today about formation of the Single Monetary System on the basis of Maastricht There are no firm exchange rates, apart from a small group of countries which are linked on German mark, (Dutch Florin, the Belgian and Luxembourg Franc).

p The delay in the ratification of the Treaty ot Maastricht leads to complications. The "cohesion found" cannot function in accordance with the decisions.

p c) Day by day the elements of a growing political crisis become obvious A panorama of politico-economic corruption, parasitism and rotteness stretches from Europe to Japan. In certain countries such as Italy, it acquires an explosive character. In Germany the development of neo-nazism opens new cracks on the political edifice.

p d) The course of European unification begins to be affected by the apparent redefining of American policy. For the first time following of American policy. For the first time following the decade of the ’50s, the USA are searching for the "golden cut”, on the one hand, to get free of some of their commitments in Europe, without, of course, putting at risk their active role, and on the other hand, to exercise a more aggressive policy in the world, with priority for South-East Asia.

Of course, the leading forces in the EEC will not abandon the efforts to implement the Maastricht choices. Already the various Community directives and austerity programmes are being promoted, in the name of convergence.

The developments in the former Soviet Union

p “Perestroika”, as formulated in 1985 to be a policy for the upgrading and restructuring of socialism, has come to a tragic end. The effort made to find ways to overcome the negative phenomena in, the socio-economic development of socialism is evolving into a process that places the very existence of socialism at stake.

181

p The question is to what extent all the theoretical aspects of this policy to restructure socialism in the USSR were correct; which are the factors that have contributed to a political, social and institutional crisis emerging in the process, a crisis which is evolving into a regression to the capitalist system.

p The restructuring process in the Soviet Union brought to the surface long-standing problems that had accumulated over many years, contradictions within various strata, groups and inter-ethnic relations. This process has proven to be far more complex than had been initially estimated. The CPSU leadership pursued a policy which shifted away from its initial declarations. Decisions were not implemented in a uniform way by all cadres and organisations. The restructuring process evolved into a struggle over the settlement of numerous contradictions, the main one being the clash between a socialist and non-socialist orientation for society. It was not a disagreement over one or the other model and type of socialism but over the form and character of ownership and the character of political power.

p With the CPSU leadership responsible, a period of indiscriminate confrontation, nihilism and even of slander against the past of the country and the party itself resulted in completely shaking its prestige, particularly in the eyes of the younger generations, who had no experience of the conditions that prevailed during the construction of socialism.

p An attempt made to implement a policy accelerating socio- economic development, without a concrete plan for intermediary objectives, successive stages and phases, resulted in unforeseen difficulties emerging and becoming more complicated. The policy of “Perestroika” provided for multiple forms of socialist property ownership, in the process, however, these were abandoned and part of the CPSU leadership adopted views in favour of the uncontrolled development of a market economy. The principles of planning and management were violated. The ground was left free for the development of a shadow economy and profiteering.

p The intensity of the social differentiation that followed, the emergence of class contradictions, the formation of poles of wealth and poverty, combined with the over-increasing alienation of the working people from management and administration, led to a search for ways to seize political power and to secessionist 182 tendencies.

p Local republics changed their claims for more autonomy, more rights for the management of their wealth, into a movement opposed to the centre and to socialist political power.

p With the acquiescence of even the central power, socialist legality, the new laws that had just been passed and even the Constitution itself were violated.

p One of the aspects of " Perestroika " was the new political thinking in inter-state relations, in the relationship between class and global problems, the aim being to give priority to the prevention of a thermonuclear war. In the process, the dialectic relationship and interaction of class issues with global ones shifted unilaterally and in absolute terms in favour of the latter. The Soviet Union gradually weakened its internationalist solidarity and showed signs of continuous retreat under the pressure of the West. It entertained illusions that imperialism could distance itself from its inherent agressiveness. The Soviet Union reduced its presence on the level of the ideological struggle, which flared up as the result of the collapse.

p One of the fundamental causes for the failure of “Perestroika” was, in fact, the abandonment - with the leadership responsible - of the CPSU’s leading and vanguard role, while trying to solve problems, such as those of bureaucracy, the side effects stemming from the monopolising of power and its increasing alienation from Soviet society. The initiative passed into the hands of political forces and, in particular, those of public figures who used demagogy and took advantage of the difficulties of “Perestroika” in order to exercise their opposition policy.

p The leadership of the CPSU tolerated the undermining of its ideological foundations. It was transformed into a party of groups and tendencies as a result, and in the recent period it became a mere observer of events.

p The loss of the CPSU’s prestige and influence is not due only to its relinquishing its leading role. It had for many years distanced itself from the active social forces, the working class. It had become bureaucratic, monopolised power and identified itself with the state.

p Individuals with selfish aims had penetrated its ranks, some of its cadres had lost the respect of public opinion, because of actions 183 incompatible with the values and morals of a communist. During difficult times it was unable to restore its prestige, to inspire trust and be convincing with regard to the need to defend socialism.

p The theory of scientific socialism and the experience of the building and evolution of socialist society, as well as recent developments in the Soviet Union and other countries confirm that socialism should use the best elements of bourgeois democratic achievements and struggles and of the democratic traditions of the people. New forms of democracy - qualitatively beyond comparison with bourgeois forms - are created and developed in socialism, based on the predominance of social forms of ownership and on the constant conscious effort to have the people participate in all issues of concern to the new society. The existence of forms of social ownership and the political power of the working class and its allies do not leas automatically to the desired development of all forms of democracy. On the contrary, experience has shown that phenomena of alienation, indifference and apathy, bureaucracy, sabrogation and the violation of socialist democracy and legality do appear. Many of these phenomena resulted from the identification of the party with the state and by the undermining of the working class by its own party.

p Socialist democracy, the socialist concept of democracy, is based on a new organisation of labour which ensures a constant improvement in productivity and competitiveness through the use of modern technology, the continuous perfecting and developing of the productive forces and of the working people themselves as individuals.

It is based on the constant extension of the working people’s rights,so that they take and feel that they are in charge of things in their own country.

On the crisis in the CPG

p During the period from 1989 to 1991 an extremely sharp ideological and political confrontation broke out within the CC On the one side were the views of those who supported the existence, modernization and renewal of the Party on the basis of its fundamental principles and features as a party of the conscious political vanguard of the working class which struggles for the interests of all working people. On the other side were those who, in the name 184 of renewal, supported the transcending of the Party’s character, its social-democratization and its dispersion within the framework of the Coalition.

p The confrontation spread throughout the Party, developing into a deep crisis with phenomena of factionalism, open breaches of the Constitution and the slandering of Party cadres. Those cadres in the leading group of the factional movement used support from outside of the Party in order to intervene in inner-Party differences from outside. Nihilism, talk of mistakes and a rejectionist stance with regard to the Party’s historic course were concealed, and the whole problem was presented as being a conflict between “conservatives” and “renewalists”. These cadres purposely involved the Party’s financial activity in the ideological confrontation, in order to strike at its ethical foundations as well. They instigated a boundless unprincipled confrontation which hurt the image and prestige of the CPG, due to methods which they used.

p In the work of the Party, even today, criteria of immediate effectiveness continue to have exaggerated priority. At the same time, theoretical work is underestimated in the Party, the promotion of its strategic pursuits and programmes reduced, and the linking of the immediate struggle to long-term tasks is lax. With the repeated parliamentary elections the tendency to overestimate central political initiatives and moves has developed in our ranks, without this being dealt with concretely. Awareness has dwindled as regards basic factors which help to improve the influence and prestige of the CPG, such as the course taken by the class struggle and social alliances, political and ideological work with the people, persistent informative work.

p The new evolving situation which took shape during the eight years when PASOK was in power, under conditions of acute multifaceted crisis, was not examined in depth. The confrontation was limited mainly to certain aspects of PASOK policy concerning income and the standard of living of the working people. There was a weakening of criticism of general aspects of its policy, such as the swelling of the public sector due to partisan favoritism, the expansion of the shadow economy and its social policy, which was carried out with a parallel increase in deficits and the public debt.

p The results of this policy affected the shaping of the conditions of the struggle and exacerbated the development problems of the 185 country. Underestimated was the fact that the PASOK governments led to a reinforcement of reformist concepts and illusions and promoted the incorporation of the popular masses in the political management of the system as well as the corruption of values on the Left as well.

p In general, the fact that the conditions for the development of social democracy in Greece had taken shape was not perceived in time. A deeper understandingof developments would have helped the CPG to develop a more successful and more responsive ideological and political work and practice in the mass movement. This would have made it easier too highlight the role of the working class and the decisive significance of social alliances. It would have repelled the logic of bi-party system and power monopoly from better positions. The rallying of left-wing forces was not dialectically linked to the general effort to rally the forces of the entire progressive sphere, especially at the grass roots level.

p In the last few years the Party’s ideological struggle gradually began to weaken. At the same time, organisational laxity and alienation from the problems of the mass movement, trade unions and other organisations appeared. This problem was not dealt with.

p The systematic ideological and political work in conjunction with the direct and active participation of all communists in mass organisations could to some degree have prevented our ranks from succumbing to the pressure of reformist ideas.

p The revisionist tendency put to good use the problems faced by the mass movement phenomena and practices which violated its independence of partisanship and fractionalization, bureaucracy and centralism, in order to promote Utopian views such as the disengagement of social movements from class and political confrontations and from parties.

p The new organisation which emerged is quite unrelated to the Coalition of the Left and Progressives as regards both its composition - given that the CPG and other smaller forces are not taking part in it - and its programmatic positions and practices. Its positions have been subjected to negative changes and have regressed from the programmatic documents and the electoral platforms of the original Coalition. Certain positions of this new organisation concerning the way out of the crisis, development, the market 186 economy and international developments have departed from leftwing radical perception. They constitute a conservative retrogression and retreat. They do no take into account the character of social and political confrontation in our country, or of the class and political causes behind the current problems in the Greek economy and society.

p In the place of scientific socialism they propose an assortment of a so-called new left-wing theory, with its main feature being a blend of conflicting ideas borrowed from the theory of the classics, social democracy and bourgeois thought and ideology.

They downgrade the vanguard role of the working class in the struggle to cope with the immediate problems and for socialism. Invoking the internal differentiations of the working class, they have adopted the idea of class collaboration and general consensus.

The principal tasks of our party

p The replacement of capitalism by socialism - a superior social system and transitional society moving towards Communism -is not a spontaneous development It does not take place by means of orders nor is it a result of heroic action and self-sacrifice by a vanguard. It does not mature solely as a result of confrontation focused on the immediate problems of the working people nor solely through the awareness of blatant injustices in the distribution of income. It entails the upgrading of the criteria for quality of life^ocial and political democracy and the rights and role of the working people in directing and managing society. It demands a deeper awareness of the need to eliminate all possibilities of the working person being used as an object of direct or indirect economic, social or political exploitation for profit or wealth or to reap personal gain from the exercising of power.

p This will be a task for conscientious action by millions of working people and their allies headed by the working class.

p One of the main prerequisites for the solution to this problem is to increase the force and influence of both the Party and the working class within the trade union movement, the mass movement and other social strata.

p In order for the Party to be restructured on a solid base, its allround growth and strengtheningmustaboveall be firmly grounded in today’s problems and the needs of the labour and popular 187 movement and in the development of struggles.

p The distancing of significant sections of workers, working people, farmers, small businessmen and women from the trade unions and other mass movements, as well as the decline in the youth movement are associated, up to a point, with the crisis in the CFG and with the weakening of socialist ideals in their minds. This is why the upturn in the labour and mass movement will depend, among other things, on the resoluteness of communists in fighting to revitalise the ideas of socialism in our country. This duty places on our Party the responsibility of providing solutions to certain critical problems. These solutions will make it possible for it to regain and consolidate its role.

p The following problems have major priority:

p Strengthening the Party’s ties with the working class and its movement by popularising its positions regarding the way out and the development of our country and by promoting developmental economic and sodal demands within the mass movement through democratic procedures.

p The formation and building of the socio-political front of forces that fight for and have interests in the change in the direction of socialism.

p Strengthening the ideological foundations of the Party’s unity.

p Bringing new members into its ranks. The swift reconstitution and growth of KNE (communist Youth of Greece).

p Ideological unity on the basis of our world theory does not conflict with the need to study all currents of progressive thought which are developing both in Greece and abroad critically. It is linked organically with the continuing effort to develop our theory and to study new issues which our theoretical positions may have up to now overlooked or to which they have responded inadequately or mistakenly.

p Ideological unity does not mean equalizing everything, or demanding completely identical and uniform viewpoints. It does not prohibit different points of view and approaches, or disagreements on theoretical, political and organisational matters, particularly during this present complex period. We are going through a phase in which theory is being subjected to critical examination and development This is why important issues have remained 188 open.

p The crisis which developed in the Party was due not to the fact that different viewpoints appeared in the fields of ideology and theory, but to the fact that these views disputed the Party’s own world view, the theory of scientific socialism, and the role and character of the Party as well as its principles of functioning.

p When ideological differences tend to dispute the fundamental principles of the Party, then unity of action becomes lax and is obliterated.

p The slogan "unity in difference* which was used by the group of cadreswho withdrew from theParty did not express theneed for different approaches and subtleties to be respected and studied. It was leading the CPG towards being turned into a party that tolerated different ideologies, trends, groups and parties within itself.

p Ideological unity is gained in actionjt is promoted through the theoretical generalisation of the experience accumulated in social and political struggles, assisted by scientific research.

Downgrading it and neglecting the constant effort required to win it may bring about phenomena of crisis, disorganisation and failure to achieve goals, aspirations and objectives.

The position of CPG on the EEC

p The character of the unification and the EEC

p In EEC documents, but also in its more general literature, in the Communist Parties documents, the terms “integration” and “ unification” are used. The term "unification” corresponds more to the meaning that expresses a procedure towards the achievement of aims and targets, whilst the term “integration” seems to identify with the result of this aim. For us, what is chiefly significant is not whether the one, or the other term is preferable, but the extent to which it clarifies their content.

p Internationalisatkm is not a neutral procedure independent of socio-political factors and contradictions. It develops with leaps and bounds in the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism, in conditions of the imperialist stage of capitalism and, especially now, in the conditions of the world hegemony of imperialism following the overthrow of the relationship of forces in 189 Europe. The intemationalisation takes place through the development of specific class contradictions, measuring up and contradictions, reproduction of the problems, bringing new ones to light. Thus, we must confront it through the specific system of international relations, on the basis of the dialectical mutual influence of the economy and policy.

p The Community appeared at a specific historic-political moment, following the Second World War which brought about significant changes in the international relationship, with the appearance of a formed socialist system in Europe. In the same period, appears other imperialist organisations -NATO, OECD and the West European Union (WEU). The foundation of the EEC was done with the economic and political encouragement of the USA, which viewed a competitor of theirs, but, on the other hand, the creation of the Community aided the activity and cohesion on NATO in the region. The EEC was founded to serve the gigantic needs of West European capital, in a period when imperialism set, as its immediate target, to organise its reaction to the new-born coalition of the socialist countries of Europe, to put a brake on and strike blow against the labour movement rising in the capitalist countries.

p Capitalist unification is not characterised solely by the tendency towards uniting together, co-operation and for concentration. There is also the tendency to being contrary and for concentration together to slacken. The whole progress of the EEC confirms this. In the course of this progress, problems appeared on all the levels of co-operation with a more problematic course taken by political unification.

p The contradictions are expressed also on a world level between the EEC, Japan, and the USA.

p In the conditions of today, the role is especially significant of a different form of capitalist unity which in front of the EEC and its legislated framework is unofficial and loose. This fact does not prevent it from playing a determining role in the world economy and politics. We are referring to the “club” of the seven most powerful imperialist countries.

p The EEC is a form of the joining together of the capitalist countries. It is not possible for the communists to confront it with imperative conditions, as, applies more generally to socio-political 190 phenomena. The tendency towards unification is objective, but the forms in which it is expressed cannot be considered as given, non reversible and accomplished facts.

p On the contrary, we confront them with the conditions of the class struggle, overthrow, from the point of view of our strategic goal. The class struggle is a given, imperative process. That, for us is the main question.

p Nor do we agree with the opinion that the EEC will finally lead, to the one or the other degree, to union together, to the shaping of a harmonious whole of the sectors which comprise it, that is, the member-countries. That it leads to the passing over of the national state in the shaping of an autonomous supra-national centre, that the economies will converge into a united European economy with complete embodiment of the national economies in a single united European economy. Certain people arrive at the point of projecting the view that even the meaning of nation, of the national state, is finally outdated and that Europe is entering a phase of dissolution of the nations.

p In such an event, the capitalist system, will have the possibility to survive for long years and to feel secure. The opinions appear not to recognise the basic contradiction of capitalism. They underestimate the whole network of contradictions which develop in the conditions of imperialism both inside a country as well as on a world scale. They ignore, or underestimate, the importance of the law of unequal development, the role of the inter-imperialist contradictions which, especially today, because of the overthrow of the "counter -weight" of the socialist system in Europe, corrosively affect the course of unification.

p The following view is also developed: the EEC, irrespective of its character and nature may finally objectively, play a progressive role in the broadening, interdepedence and deepening of international relations, to press for the toning up of the programming of production, distribution and consumption, in the context of the international division of labour, with the transfer of authorities from the national to the supra-national centre. This is projected as an argument in favour of reduction of the authority and intervention of the national state which is considered outdated.

p The EEC, from its very nature and character cannot negate the laws of motion of the capitalist system, however much it manages 191 to give it a certain push forward in the development of science and technology lag behind the needs of society and the potentials of science. The backwardness and non-correspondence of the productive relations, the contradiction between the social character of production, constitute decomposing factors in the process of unification. It is indicative that in the recent period, thinking is developing in the Community around return to state-monopoly arrangements and interventions which were restricted or abolished in favour of the market as they underline. Still, even if the dogmatic stand for a "little bit of State and more for the market”, if a better combination of the State and the market were preferred, the situation would not change and the capitalist economy would continue to be anarchic and uncontrolled.

p Some comments on the position that the "EEC prevents isolation and demolished walls, objectively constitutes a positive factor in the mternationalisation of relations”. The history of the EEC but also of the present phase in which an attempt is being made following the Treaty of Maastricht, demonstrates the contrary: The EEC imposed, on its members, restrictions on their economic exchanges, in some instances mainly for economic but, in others, for political reasons, as happened in the case of the socialist countries. Irrespective of which was the priority motive, is certain that the EEC in the past, as also today, raises barriers to the broadening of relations.

p The international division of labour -in the conditions of imperialist hegemony, cannot evolve into a harmonious whole in which all the countries are incorporated. Nor can a pan-European capitalist division of labour function harmoniously and still less can it do so on a world scale, however much, and even if, the socialisation of production is strengthened given the backwardness and non- correspondence of the relations of production and the anarchy which characterises the capitalist system. In the last analysis the EEC stands as an obstacle to the development of the production forces, of the utilisation of science and technology to the benefit of the peoples and social progress. It leads to the concentration of capital, the entrenchment of Europe; it feeds and sharpens the crisis, interstate contradictions and nationalistic clashes and local wars.

p The EEC constitutes a form of capitalist unification, with a tendency to remove authorities from the national state towards a 192 super-national centre, with inter-state agreement for cooperation. We do not make the term “super-national” absolute. It is not a question of a centre via which the role of the State is generally refuted; on the contrary, it is reinforced-albeit on a different levelin the framework of the EEC.

p The central organs of the EEC need the aid of the state, also of the member countries. The EEC centre functions as an inter-state agreement in which the leading forces of certain countries -forces of the powerful imperialists. That is to say, we have to do with is not a dear super-national, superstate, autonomous organisation which stands above the member-countries, which act on the basis of the general interest, as it is presented by the defenders of the EEC. If s in this framework that we must view the ascertation made about a crisis in the representative institutions of capitalism. The meaning of nation, of national policy, of the national State has not become outdated, nor is such a tendency appearing that it will evolve thus is the foreseeable future. On the contrary, the difficulties and contradictions of unification demonstrate that there are moves to the contrary, that the EEC inter-State centre is in need also of national state intervention. And this is why in indirect and direct interventions are exercised for political and social acquiescence, for the reshaping and reconstruction of the political system in the various countries so as to prevent the development of the class struggle and the radicalisation of the masses.

The effect, of international factors on the internal developments in each country, is significantly increasing in comparison with the agains the EEC for a Europe of equal economic relations and mutual cooperation, can more speedily bring results, with the fewest possible sacrifices and difficulties, when the struggle becomes a pan-European struggle. When the change in the relation of forces is realised simultaneously and in more countries. This, however, does not mean that today the ability and responsibility is abolished of the Communist Parties, the labour and popular movement in each country, to draw up their strategy, use the opportunities which its country offers, and with its struggle to bring about the prerequisites for a rupture with the system of imperialism on the level of each separate country.

Greece and the EEC

p The participation of Greece in the EEC constituted, and still 193 constitutes, a basic factor of the sharpening of the huge problems facing Greek society in liaison with the policy of the governments of New Democracy, (ND) and PASOK which follow a policy of adjustment to the reime of the regime of the Community at the expense of the working people and development.

p Greece has a peculiarity which plays, a special role in the shaping of a social conscience: its long years of dependency on the imperialist system, which is today becoming even deeper in the context of the EEC. For our country, its participation in the EEC means multiple consequences. The cost of adjustment for Greece is much greater than in the countries which rule over it. From the economic, social and political point of view, Greece is isolated within the walls of the EEC. Its participation in the EEC not only does not ensure equal participation in the international division of labour.

p What is important indeed, is how quickly or slowly the prerequisites are created for a different place for our country in the international division of labour. The longer the creation is delayed of the social and political prerequisites, necessary for Greece to enter on the road of progressive, anti-imperialist change, the more the obstacles will become even greater since its embodiment will have proceeded ahead. The sooner the prerequisites are created, the relatively more case it will be for a way out of the deep crisis via a progressive development programme.

p From the time the Greek state, with the one or the other slogan, efforts have and are made to justify the country’s dependence on the big powers and imperialism, with the argument that Greece is a poor, weak country which cannot stand alone on its own feet. The dilemma of "an isolated Greece" or "a Greece inside" the EEC and the other international imperialist organisations, is a false dilemma. The CPG has never supported a policy of isolation of the country. Greece’s participation in the EEC with its undertakings and restrictions for example, it raised barriers to the development of its relations and its exports of products. Greece, inside of the EEC and with its compliance with its choices ,instead of opening the horizons of international relations with countries and peoples of the region and more broadly -to the benefit of peace and international co-operation, with be obliged to consider the forces of imperialism as “friends” and “enemies” of the imperialists as 194 enemies.

p The more compliance and subjection to the EEC continues, the more the country’s development potentials will be destroyed which, despite the long crisis and the plundering, are still preserved to this day.

We must not underestimate another aspect of the problem, the harmful spread of the mentality and conception of a contemporary rajah mentality cloaked by the European vision and European unification.

Europe, the Left and the Communist Parties

p The Maastricht Treaty is the product of acquiescence on a European level, of the liberals and the social-democratic forces. The differences between mem do not threaten the EEC.

p On the contrary they provide opportunities -for the time being of course- to control the alternation in governing and in the central organs of the EEC so that the procedure may go forward meeting much less stronger obstacles raised by the struggle and the rallying together of the peoples. Social democracy in Europe and on an international level, as a formed political force constitutes a force of support for the capitalist system and for European capitalist unification. In a word, it does not constitute a different road, - another road it proclaims. Its firm course towards the Right is not explained by the nature and character of social democracy. In itself the capitalist system in conditions of a lasting and extended crisis does not have the margins to implement, in the same way as it did in the past, the policy of the "carrot and whip”; that the margins for social manoeuvres and concessions to the workers. Whilst the necessity for deep-going changes and breaks to strike against the foundations of the capitalist system, is immediate and urgent, exploiting the changes in the former socialist countries, social democracy adjusts itself to a conservative policy the limits of which are not easily discerned from the corresponding conservative policy of liberalism. Its choice in the direction of a turn to the Right becomes possible because of the changes which have taken place inside social democratic parties with greater prevalence of representatives of multinational capital in their leaderships.

p Social democracy promises materialisation of EEC integration at lower cost for the workers, with the slogans of full employment, 195 a more just distribution of the income and wealth, the granting of social services and quality of life. Its declarations are tested in practice in the countries where it governed or is governing, and they are tested as the opposition, in France, Spain, Italy and Greece. They, their declarations constitute social and political demagogy. Social democracy which believed that after the developments of 1989, it would have the chance for plunder in the communists’ political area of influence, it sees that where it is judged as a government it loses a part of its own forces.

p Becoming conscious of the problem, a section of it is manoeuvering, raising the question of reconstruction and renewal — trying to forestall the damage, and revive hopes — precisely as happened with the proposal of the French man Rocard. The proposals and considerations which are developing do not refer to changesof orientation on the part of social democracy represent but some superficial changes of personnel, methods and style of power, so as to dispel. The discussions and approaches which take place do not go beyond the confines of assent with liberalism. In the nucleus of certain thinking and movements, it is likely that a tendency will be expressed for consensus between the two streams and parties.

p It is obvious that the role of the Left in Europe must be formed distinct and in contradiction to the social democracy.

p We do not ignore the fact that a significant section of the workers who follow it, believe in it or are influenced by social democracy, adopt left slogans and ideas and regard themselves as left.

p As we also know that there exists - apart from the social democratic parties, parties which declare that they have a socialist orientation. From the ideological point of view they are parties related to social democracy but they maintain they a positive stand towards the current problems facing the working people. They also declare changes. It is possible that such Parties will appear, in the course of things, especially in those countries where the political system is in the process of formation, where struggles which affect the order and the relationship of forces. Such people will find their way towards the Left only if they become conscious of the character and the true role played by social democracy. Only if they come close to the ideas and slogans of the Communist Parties, and of the Left.

196

p The opposition to the Treaty of Maastricht, from the viewpoint of a Europe built on the principles of peace, equal cooperation, and democracy with the prospect of socialism, is, in our opinion a defining line. If the Left moves behind it, sooner or later, it will lose its identify, and will pass into the waiting room to be embodied in the area of social democracy, with or without organisational autonomy.

p Only the total opposition to the EEC, the activity against its choices with the prospect of the creation of the prerequisites for a more general break, can in the difficult conditions of today, blunt or restrict the negative consequences. But small changes and improvements cannot be an end in themselves. The straggle of an antiimperialist, and radical Left must be devoted to today and, simultaneously, see today from the viewpoint of the future.

All the historic course course followed by the movement, as also it contemporary course, shows that without the Communist Parties and even still more, in opposition to them, the Left cannot exist. The Left, in with all its shades, is not identical with the Communist Parties. But the Communist movement, to be Left with all the significance of the word it must remain an anti-capitalist force as it always was.

The Communist Parties and the Left

p The international developments in 1989 gave the opportunity to tine forces which, in one way or the other, defend or support the capitalist system to launch an attack in many forms, through which it attempted to dissolve the Communist Parties. The developments which varied from one country to another, were determined, by the options themselves, made by the Communist Parties. The road to their recovery began, their activity was revived and their refoundation started.

p The anti-imperialist radical Left in Europe will exist with prospect, as long as it has, a concentrated and organised Communist movement with a strong Communist Party in each country. The CPs constitute a vanguard force in the ranks of the Left which fights for the immediate and long-term interests of the working people. We are opposed to every thought and practice which, objectively, leads to the diffusion of the CPs in the framework of a policy of co-operation or alliance. Such a development will damage not 197 only the CPs, but also the Left itself. The course followed by the Coalition of the Left and Progressives which was formed in Greece in 1989, following its split and the CP of Greece’s withdrawal from it, and its evolution into a Party, proves that the above evaluation is correct. Their stand against the communists has proved that, irrespective of intentions, it leads the Left on to a road of painful struggle and in other instances, into the arms of the establishment. The presence of the CPs in a anti-imperialist Left constitutes a guarantee that every effort will be made for the ideological and political differences to develop into objective dialogue, and not touch on the independent responsibility of the Parties, nor constitute an obstacle to the firmness, the development and the broadening of the alliances on a national and European level. Without ignoring the mistakes in certain cases, without falling into the trap of beutifulying the situation, we insist that: Experience has shown that the communists have the most complete conception of the necessity of alliances and of the way differences which arise are solved. For the CP of Greece, the policy of alliances does not have a chance character but constitutes a policy of strategic significance.

p Today, other forces are appearing in the European area, which represent themselves as the alternative Left solution-with a position of critical support of the Maastricht Treaty. In Greece the “Coalition” appears with this ambition. In our opinion, such Parties adopt certain very characteristic positions. One to then is that the circle of the CPs has dosed. They set also the limits against the CPs and the Communist movement Some of these forces - such as the “Coalition” - have proceeded to and open or concealed anticommunism, and they feed the more general anti-communist propaganda. Their political position are, on many question identical with those of social-democracy, which is why they consider that through the overcoming of the historical schism, with social democracy, a new Left political force will be formed. It is a matter of a “Left” without a Left identity which, from its very nature cannot express social forces, and as a political area, it forces the danger of being finally crushed by social democracy. We do not judge things by their intentions but from the point of view of their objective tendencies.

p The vision, of the communists and progressive people, cannot be a vision of a capitalist, united Europe. The CPG’s answer to the 198 EEC —to the unification in whatever forms this may appear on the continent —is a superior form of internationalisation— a socialist Europe. In such conditions, the principles of equal co-operation, peace, and security of social justice, democracy and respect of personal and collective rights.

Our Party will devote all its strength to common action, by the Parties which take a stand against the Treaty of Maastricht and from the standpoint of a different Europe, which does not go through the organs of the EEC.