Why Socialism is superior to Capitalism- The achievements of Socialist construction in the Soviet Union

Why Socialism is far superior than Capitalism: The achievements of Socialist construction in the Soviet Union 

By Nikos Mottas.

During the last 25 years, after the victory of the counterrevolutionary forces in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the public political discussion has been dominated by the concept of the “end of history, end of ideologies”. This is certainly a very convenient concept for the dominant class, the bourgeoisie, in her effort to convince the world that: 1) Socialism has irreversibly failed, 2) Capitalism is the final winner in the succession of History's socio-economic transformations, 3) Every argument for a non-capitalist society, where the means of productions will be socialized in a centrally-planned economy, is “unrealistic” and a “utopian fantasy”.

Anticommunism, of course, consists a core part of the above bourgeois principle. For more than two decades, the bourgeois forces and their mechanisms (historiography, media, etc.) in all over the world have unleashed an anticommunist crusade, mainly through demonizing and slundering the Soviet Union and the socialist construction of the 20^th century in general.

Ceausescu Reloaded: Romania's capitalist hell makes people to reminisce the era of Socialism

OUR COMMENT.

Almost 27 years have passed since the counterrevolutionary events in Romania and the execution of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena. On December 25, 1989, after a hasty, parody trial before a Kangaroo court, the Ceausescu couple were executed in Targoviste, north of Bucharest. According to the head of the firing squad, Nicolae Ceaușescu sang "The Internationale" while being led up against the wall. The execution of Ceausescu marked the end of the counter-revolutionary overthrow of Socialism in Romania and the beginning of a “new order” in the country.

Ceausescu is an exemplary case of how western media manipulate the image of a politician. When, for example, Romania did not participate in the intervention of the Warsaw Pact armies in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the West praised Ceausescu as a “good pal” within the eastern bloc. When Romania accepted to participate in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympiad (which was boycotted by the other Socialist countries), western media again praised Nicolae Ceausescu for his “disobedience towards Moscow”. However, this changed when the Romanian leader distanced himself from Gorbachev's counter-revolutionary line of “compromise” with Imperialism. Then, the directed western media propaganda started to present Ceausescu as the “Dracula”, demonizing his leadership. The “good guy” of the eastern bloc rapidly transformed into a “brutal dictator” in the eyes of the so-called international community.

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part IV "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

IV. POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES.

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America. 

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats# against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. 

Nostalgia for the USSR- People in former Soviet republics say life was better in Socialism

A new survey, conducted by Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM), M-Vector, Ipsos, Expert Fikri and Qafqaz in 11 countries of the former Soviet Union, at the request of Sputnik news agency and radio, shows that the residents of 9 out of 11 surveyed former Soviet countries aged over 35 believe that life in the USSR was better than it has been since the breakup of the Soviet Union. 

Also read: Life was better under Communism" says the majority of Russians, Romanians and Eastern Germans.

MOSCOW (sputniknews.com) - Some 64% of respondents in Russia who lived in Soviet times believe that the quality of life in the Soviet Union was better. About 60% of respondents in Ukraine agreed with this statement. The survey showed that the highest rates of agreement with this statement are found among respondents in Armenia (71%) and Azerbaijan (69%). Those respondents who do not remember living in the USSR, those aged 18-24, believe that life has improved since the collapse. Some 63% of young people in Russia think so.

Declaration of the CC of the KKE: On the 70th anniversary of the Democratic Army of Greece 1946-1949

Athens, February 2016

We are inspired and learn from the 100-year history of the KKE, from the 3-year epic of the DSE.

The CC of the KKE, the entire party and KNE, honours the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the democratic Army of Greece (DSE).

1946 was a year of important developments directly connected to the creation of the DSE, such as:

The 2nd Plenum of the CC of the KKE (12-15 February 1946), which began exactly a year after of the signing of the Varkiza Agreement (12th of February 1945).The 2nd Plenum, even if in a contradictory way, was the one that decided to conduct the armed struggle.

The attack of a group of partisans on the gendarmerie station of Litohoro, on the night of the 30th and early in the morning of the 31st of March 1946, took place on the eve of the parliamentary elections.

The remorse of a dissident: Alexander Zinoviev on Stalin and the dissolution of the USSR

SPECIAL TO IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM.

Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) was a Russian philosopher, sociologist, mathematician and writer. He is an extraordinary case of a dissident in the Soviet Union who later apologized for his anti-sovietism and anti-stalinism. In his youth, in 1939, he was arrested for allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate Joseph Stalin. As a head and professor of the Logic Department at Moscow State University, Zinoviev acquired a dissident reputation. In 1978 he left the Soviet Union - he lived in Western Europe until 1999. 

Having the opportunity to live both the socialist system in the USSR and Western Europe's capitalism, Zinoviev made a u-turn in his thoughts after the counterrevolutionary events in the Soviet Union (1989-1991). He profoundly regreted for his previous anti-soviet stance and even asked from the Russian people to forgive him for that. 

He wrote in one of his books: 

"Life was better under Communism" says the majority of Russians, Romanians and Eastern Germans

SPECIAL TO IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM.

First of all, let us say that the proper phrase is "under Socialism". During the 20th century, the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe were in the process of socialist construction. According to the Marxist-Leninist theory, "Socialism" consist the first stage (phase) of Communism. 

Having said the above, let's go to the core issue. The people who have lived both under Socialism and Capitalism give their answer to the various bourgeois and petty bourgeois unhistorical slanders. Various polls in former Socialist countries prove that the majority of people, in Russia and Eastern Europe, think that life was better before the counter-revolutions and the restoration of Capitalism. Under Socialism their major problems had been solved: Free education, free healthcare for all, social security, jobs, free vacation and holidays for everyone, etc. The restoration of Capitalism brought an unprecedented barbarity in almost every sector of public life: Social inequalities, unemployment, privatization of major public sectors from healthcare to education, etc. 

On March 2016, a survey conducted by the All-Russia Public Opinion Center (VTsIOM) showed that: 

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part III "Socialist and Communist Literature"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

III. SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE.

1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM.

A. Feudal Socialism.

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.*

Communist Party, Turkey (KP): Statement of the Central Committee regarding the latest developments in the country

Source: kp.org.tr.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party has gathered on 17th of July and assessed the latest developments in the country deeply and also discussed the Party's situation and  missions. 

The Statement of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Turkey on July 2016

1.  July 15th coup attempt has not brought ideologically conflicting centers subject to each other, but involved at least two and even more state cliques, which have identical class identities and ideologies. It is not possible that these cliques would be totally unaware of each other's plans and actions just like it is being impossible to dissociated them. However the attempt on 15th of July is not a bloody scenario totally planned by Erdoğan as some claimed so, but is a real coup attempt.

Ernesto Che Guevara- Transcript of CBS 'Face the Nation' Interview (1964)

The text below is the trascript of an interesting interview that Ernesto Che Guevara, then Minister of Industry, gave to CBS Television Network in New York. 

Source: Guevaristas.org.

“FACE THE NATION" as broadcast over the CBS Television Network and the Sunday, CBS Radio Network December 13, 1964 – – 12:30 – 1:00 PM EST.

GUEST: MAJOR ERNESTO GUEVARA, Minister of Industry of Cuba.

NEWS CORRESPONDENTS: Paul Niven, CBS News, Tad Szulc, New York Times, Richard C. Hottelet, CBS News. PRODUCERS: Prentiss Childs, Ellen Wadley. DIRECTOR: Robert Vitarelli.

MR. NlVEN: Major Guevara, in your speech to the General Assembly the day before yesterday, you accused the United States of helping Cuba’s neighbors prepare new aggression against her. We, in turn, have often accused your government of abetting subversion in other Latin American countries. Do you see any way out of this situation, any way to improve relations?

MAJOR GUEVARA: I think with regards to solutions, there are solutions, and I think there is only one. we have said repeatedly to the government of the United States that we do not want anything but to forget us, that they do not consider us even for good or evil.

Aleka Papariga- The importance of the critical assessment of the socialist construction in the 20th century

The importance of the critical assessment of the socialist construction in the 20th century for the strengthening of the labor movement and for an effective counter-attack.

By Aleka Papariga*.

Source: International Communist Review, Issue 2, July 2014.

When we made public the subject of our 18th Congress, which, besides the mandatory overview of our work, included as a special subject our conclusions from socialist construction, several friends of the Party wondered whether it was advisable, under the current conditions and while the signs of the economic capitalist crisis had already become visible in the international scene, to focus on such an important issue which, in their opinion, might not have been at the top of the agenda.

It is not necessary, of course, to remind the reaction raised in the bourgeois press, the ironic and bitter comments of well-known journalists, who were annoyed by our decision to deal with this issue as they knew beforehand why we took such a decision. Their reaction is quite understandable from their point of view; they have a sharp instinct, they catch everything that can give strength and dynamic to the revolutionary movement.

From the very first moment that we realized that the infamous course of perestroika was nothing else but the beginning of the counterrevolution and the temporary defeat of the socialist system, we understood that we had to bear the brunt of giving answers to all progressive people –and to ourselves as well- who were reasonably wondering what happened. Even more so, since it was proved that we were not at all prepared for such a tragic development; we had not anticipated it and, unfortunately, we did not have the appropriate reflexes in order to react, even just before the lowering of the red flag from the Kremlin.

V.I.Lenin- Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- 

Imperialism and the Split in Socialism.

Published in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata No. 2, December 1916. Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to the Sbornik text. 

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 105-120 / Web source: https://www.marxists.org.

Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?

This is the fundamental question of modern socialism. And having in our Party literature fully established, first, the imperialist character of our era and of the present war [1] , and, second, the inseparable historical connection between social-chauvinism and opportunism, as well as the intrinsic similarity of their political ideology, we can and must proceed to analyse this fundamental question.

We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command   the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves—until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.

Friedrich Engels- The Principles of Communism

FRIEDRICH ENGELS: THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM

October-November 1847.

Selected Works, Volume One, p. 81-97, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969. Web Source: Marx2Mao.

* * *

Question 1 :  What is Communism? 

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

Question 2 :  What is the proletariat? 

The proletariat is that class in society which draws its means of livelihood wholly and solely from the sale of its labour and not from the profit from any kind of capital;[2] whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose whole existence depends on the demand for labour, hence, on the alternations of good times and bad in business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the nineteenth century.

What kind of 'Left' does Jeremy Corbyn represent?

COMMENTARY:

Let's get directly to the subject: Why so much noise about the UK's Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn? First of all, Labour Party is a bourgeois party which poses no threat to the capitalist establishment. We don't speak about a revolutionary party of Marxist-Leninist principles, but about one of the two pillars (the other is, of course, the Conservative Party) of the British bourgeois political system. There is nothing revolutionary in a purely social-democratic party like the UK Labour Party. Having said that, let's go now to it's leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 

What is the kind of "Left" that Corbyn represents? Like his party, is he, or not, fully committed to the capitalist system? The answer is absolutely clear: Corbyn is a bourgeois politician, a social-democrat with some so-called "progressive" ideas. The fact that he is "more progressive" than Tony Blair or David Cameron doesn't make him a choice for the country's working class. In the history of the UK Labour Party we have seen numerous ‘left-wing’, ‘progressive’ members, scores of leaders and senior MPs who have had what they referred to as ‘socialist’ politics- even more radical than Jeremy Corbyn. However, that doesn't change the political nature of the party as a vehicle of Social Democracy. 

Nikos Mottas- Venezuela and the Opportunist Theory of “21st Century Socialism”

Venezuela and the Opportunist Theory of “21st Century Socialism”.

By Nikos Mottas.

Translated version of an article published on atexnos.gr.

Rapid developments have taken place in Venezuela during the last months. From last December's electoral victory of the right-reactionary opposition until the recent assassination of a retired Army General, we have seen a series of events which lead to the destabilization of Nicolas Maduro government. Eighteen years since the rise of Hugo Chavez in power, in 1998, the “Bolivarian Revolution” trembles dangerously, while the conservative opposition is on the counter-attack and a number of external agents (US government, OAS etc.) are variously trying to intervene in the country's internal affairs.

The crisis in Venezuela has two sides: On the one hand, the government and its people are facing a multidimensional attack from imperialist centers which aim in exacerbating the situation to such extend so that a possible (external) military intervention would be justified. The attack on Venezuela must be examined as part of the broader framework of inter-imperialist, inter-bourgeoisie contradictions and antagonisms which- fostered by the US policy- are taking place in Latin America. That comes out also as a result of the developments in Brazil (the 7^th largest economy worldwide) where the inter-bourgeoisie confrontation and the scandal-mongering political orgy led to the expulsion of President Roussef.

V.I.Lenin: "A United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary"

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- On the Slogan for a United States of Europe.

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 44, August 23, 1915. Published according to the text in Sotsial-Demokrat. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 339-343.

In No. 40 of Sotsial-Demokrat we reported that a conference of our-Party’s groups abroad had decided to defer the question of the “United States of Europe” slogan pending a discussion, in the press, on the economic aspect of the matter.

At our conference the debate on this question assumed a purely political character. Perhaps this was partly caused by the Central Committee’s Manifesto having formulated this slogan as a forthright political one (“the immediatepolitical slogan...”, as it says there); not only did it advance the slogan of a republican United States of Europe, but expressly emphasised that this slogan is meaningless and false “without the revolutionary overthrow of the German, Austrian and Russian monarchies”.

What really happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989?

This month marks the 27th anniversary of the end of the "Tiananment protests" in China. The western media and historiography usually describe the 1989 events in Beijing as a "bloody massacre". But, what really happened in the Chinese capital 27 years ago? On this occassion we republish two interesting articles which debunk the dominant western point of view. 

Tiananmen Square Massacre is a Myth, 

All We' re 'Remembering' are British Lies.

By Gregory Clark.

Source: IBTimesUK, June 4, 2014.

The original story of Chinese troops on the night of 3 and 4 June, 1989 machine-gunning hundreds of innocent student protesters in Beijing's iconic Tiananmen Square has since been thoroughly discredited by the many witnesses there at the time -- among them a Spanish TVE television crew, a Reuters correspondent and protesters themselves, who say that nothing happened other than a military unit entering and asking several hundred of those remaining to leave the Square late that night.

Yet none of this has stopped the massacre from being revived constantly, and believed. All that has happened is that the location has been changed – from the Square itself to the streets leading to the Square.

Contemporary Problems of the Class Struggle and the Role of the Communist Party

Fundamental Principles of the 

Revolutionary Workers’ and Communist Movement.

By Dimitris Gontikas* / Source: International Communist Review, Issue 3, 2014.

Every Communist Party which remains fixed on its mission and resolutely focussed on its central task to prepare and organise the working class and to guide its struggle for the fulfilment of its historic mission, is obliged to guide the working class on the basis of the fundamental principle of scientific socialism: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”.

It is obliged to unrelentingly and consistently defend this principled position from every form of undermining. It must defend this by struggling continuously for the continual correlation between theory and practice.

The history of the revolutionary and labour movements teaches us that neither willpower nor declarations are sufficient to safeguard and secure a revolutionary struggle-line and the existence of the party as a revolutionary vanguard.

There is a necessity not only for secure theoretical foundations but also for the continuous enrichment of theory through the study of the developments, with a heightened class criterion, the study of the strategy of the opponent, the generalization of experience, as well as the open ideological front against every revisionist attempt. Ideological struggle should reach the level of an open break with the current of revisionism and opportunism within its ranks.

Basic points of the Leninist criticism in relation to the "parliamentary road" to socialism

The theses of the KKE for the 10th annual conference "V.I.Lenin and the contemporary world" which was held on the 22nd of April 2016 in Leningrad (Source: inter.kke.gr).

• The entire history of the political labour movement from the 19th century until today has as its basic arena of controversy the path that should be taken in order to create a classless society.

• Two basic views emerged over time: the opportunist view about the possibility of reforming, "conquering" and utilizing the bourgeois state for socialism and the revolutionary view regarding the need to smash the bourgeois state. Lenin himself set the following demarcation line: "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat."

'Captain-Yiotis' remembered: Charilaos Florakis, 1914-2005

Nikos Mottas writes about the legendary Greek Communist leader, partisan-fighter in WW2 and Greece's Civil War, long-time (1972-1991) General Secretary of the Communist Party of Greece, CHARILAOS FLORAKIS.

By Nikos Mottas.

It was the 22^nd of May 2005 when the tireless communist, the militant guerrilla captain, the popular leader, comrade Charilaos Florakis passed away. At 91 years of age, he was completing a life full of struggles; a life given to the ideals of a better world, for the perspective of Socialism and Communism. His life was given to KKE, to the Party he loved and gave everything.

The life and activity of Charilaos Florakis has been core part of KKE's history, of the most glorious- but also difficult- peoples struggles in Greece during WW2 occupation, during the Civil War as well as the country's modern history. Comrade Florakis, with his firm faith in the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, was never absent from Greek working class struggles.

Charilaos Florakis' political activity began in the pre-war decade of 1930s, as a member of the Communist Party's youth wing (OKNE) and later as a student and vigorous worker at the so-called “TTT” (Posts, Telegraphs, Telephone Offices). At an early age, as a teenager, he understood the signs of the ongoing class-struggle in the Greek countryside of '30s: