B. The front against the opportunist “leftist alternative” for “another europe”

In the eyes of the peoples the legitimacy of the European Union wanes. Slowly, but steadily there is a tendency g towards more and more acute social and political conflicts. The opportunist thesis, that the unified internal market and the EMU after it would be the expression of an objective step forward, an adaptation to globalization with progressive elements for all, was not proved to be true in praxis. In the same way as the older slogan of the development of the EEC of monopolies into a “EEC of the peoples” became depreciated, so the “one-way street of Maastricht”, the euro as the device to take the edge off unequal development, the “grey” acceptance of restructuring measures in working conditions and in the liberation of markets have been proved false.

The ideological adoration of the institutional procedures of the “European unification”, which would be allegedly a one-way street, because they are an expression of the “inevitable tendencies” of history, is layed bare. It has been revealed as a justification of the coalition of European capital. It reappears however, as the “anti-neoliberal leftist alternative strategy” for the people’s of Europe, as an opportunist thesis to overcome the ethnic state organization, to overcome the claiming of changes at a national level.

The ideological bankruptcy of socialdemocracy as the manager of imperialistic EU obliges the old and new opportunist forces under the title of a “renewed European Left” to try to reclassify themselves mainly through rallying in the “Party of the European Left” (EL).

This Party had to make some verbal adaptations and some seeming differentiations from socialdemocracy. For instance, at its 1st Congress it adopted the thesis of “global change” with the EU in the first role: “On the global political stage, Europe and the European Union, as it exists today, are (for us) the minimum political field as an expression of class struggle.”

In another wording the management policy of socialdemocracy is repeated, something which objectively spoken is disorientating, it keeps people away from class struggle at the national level and consequently takes the nerves out of the possibility to change the balance of power at the European level. At least it conserves the people’s hesitations and their already weak disposition for sacrifices, which would be imposed by class struggle. Furthermore it is responsible for the political impasse of the spontaneous element existing in the abrupt increase of reactions amongst the people.

In fact it leaves the exploitative nature of capitalism out of harm’s way, since it attributes all capitalism’ sufferings to “neoliberalism”.

The EL puts forward as the alternative strategy a sort of “anti-neoliberal” management of the EU. Its distinguishes itself from the leadership of socialdemocracy criticizing the latter that it did not put into practice an anti-neoliberal policy in the European version of globalisation.

It proclaims the unification policy as a means to promote the European capitalist market regulation policy without fighting, though, against the capitalist restructures, against “healthy” (capitalist) competition and against (uneven) capitalist development. It proclaims the possibility of a social policy in favour of working people without touching the economic power of capital nor its European strategy.

In the best case it is a utopian nostalgia of the capitalist “welfare state” of the past, a cerebral transfer of the latter to a European interstate (or federative) level. It is a utopian nostalgia of the system management applied by socialdemocratic and liberal bourgeois parties alternately in a completely different time, when capitalism,after the war, had to rehabilitate. That policy failed three decades ago. The restructurings of the so-called “neoliberal version of the EU” is a need of the system and not the result of a political balance at its limits.

The strategic (programmatic) impasse of the EL appears at the level of economic-social policy, not only in the “Athens Declaration”, but comparatively as well in the “Theses to the 1st Congress” or in the work project for a “European social model”.

As regards the huge social problem (right) to employment, the EL supports in its Declaration “the setting up of programmes to support employment, for new jobs and a reduction of working hours”. The programmes for “new jobs” are supported by the EU establishment as well and the “reduction of working hours”, without explicitly fighting against their arrangements, is in fact an anti-workers adaptation to the new levels of productivity. (Not even the proposal of a working group to “reduce the maximum working time per week” has been taken on board).

The “democratic control” of the European Central Bank is a complete rupture of the economy-policy relation, unless it refers to the relation of its administration with the countries in the EU bodies. As regards the claim “to end the Stability Pact”, this stays within the framework of liberal and socialdemocratic thinking on problems. It is part of political practice of German, French, Italian and other governments.

Equally ambiguous is the thesis in favour of a “strengthening of public services at a local, regional, national and European level”, because nowhere there is a reference that the strategy of monopoly reinforcement is put into question.

The thesis “against privatizations and neoliberal orders, which promote the commercialization of social goods, like water, energy, civilization, education and healthcare” is the utmost of refurbishing the obsolete socialdemocratic system management.

Their proposals referring to extreme poverty management and to keep a state sector in energy, in water-supply, in education, in the healthcare system, of course in coexistence with a strong private sector, stays within today’s policy of liberal and socialdemocratic parties.

Equally contradictory is the following standpoint in the EL theses to its 1st Congress: “It is the European social model that can overcome the dramatically increasing unemployment and uncertainty. The EL is not so much against the proclaimed goals of the Lisbon Strategy, but against the fact that these goals are subject to the policies of capitalist competition and the logic of liberation”. In this thesis the reactionary, anti-workers and anti-popular content of the Lisbon objectives is hidden cultivating the illusion of the possibility that they can be realized in a popular way. The EL, the socialdemocrats and forces within the World Social Forum reveal more or less openly their opposition towards the working class movement, they reject the vanguard and revolutionary role of the latter. They refrain from any criticism to the employers’ unions of compromise. They prefer the term “new social movements”. They put forward the “outbursts of the crowd” opposed to the movement of the alliance of the working class with other social strata and in confrontation with the role of the revolutionary vanguard in the anti-imperialist, antimonopolistic movement, in the struggle for socialism.

Their proposals on “reorientation of the European unification”, on a “new social agreement”, a “new social contract” and a “new social policy”, on a “redefinition of the EU goals”, on a “shifting of the axis of European policies” have only one programmatic, strategic denominator: to hide the imperialistic character of the EU as an inter-state political mechanism of big capital, to impose “class cooperation” and subjugation to capital’s interests.

The thesis in the Decision of the Conference (Rome, 25-10-2004) of the EL as regards the Draft Constitutional Treaty about “new fundaments for a new Europe, removing Europe from the unbridled sovereignty of predatory and war-mongering capitalism and giving her the opportunity to reconcile with social progress, democracy, an ecologically sustainable society and cooperation between the peoples” is false and leads astray.

To face today’s poverty, unemployment, loss of social rights, the rapid degradation of environment, the restriction-repression of democratic rights and imperialistic wars is exactly the opposite of what capitalism needs, of its strategic options at the state and European Union level.

The needs, the claims and interests of vital importance, the expectations of the working class and the semi-proletarian masses can neither be reconciled with the strategic goals of capitalist monopolies, nor of the EU, which represents their general interests. Therefore, there is no possibility of that system being managed in an alternative popular way.

Our opinion on the alternative

KKE considers as main task the confrontation with the forces of class collaboration, with the ideology and policy of incorporation and subjugation to international imperialist organizations in the name of the “objectivity” of the unification procedures. Furthermore the struggle to free the workers movement from supporting a certain type of imperialist union against another in order to strengthen insubordination, disobedience and rupture with the EU, NATO and other imperialist organizations.

KKE is of the opinion that the stance towards the EU has decisive importance for the programme of a workers party, particularly of a communist party which proclaims socialism. The alignment with the one-way logic of the EU, cancels any declaration in favour of a radical policy at the national level, any declaration for demarcation from socialdemocracy and opportunism.

The “neoleftist” alternative to govern the EU in a “anti-neoliberal” leads at exactly the same impasses like the socialdemocratic governance at the national state level.

The vision of a Europe of the peoples can become reality by radical changes at the level of power in each state of Europe separately. The uneven economic development and consequently the uneven developments of the correlation of forces in each country in Europe (whether or not an EU member, whether or not part of the hard core), the uneven level of political stability of capital’s power varying from country to country, are factors of fundamental importance to set priorities as regards strategy and class struggle of each communist party in its own country.

Europe’s future is inseparably linked up to the future of the anti-imperialist movement and the organization of the anti-imperialist struggle in each member-state. The antiimperialist struggle is objectively more and more linked up to the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, of which it is an organic part. In this process, can and must come together forces at the national and European level that may have differing opinions as to the way in which the confrontation and the rupture with the EU should take place, or that may disagree with the experience of the building of socialism, or with the way in which the transition to socialism should take place. If they are prepared to fight actively against the interests of monopolies and of imperialism, against the EU, NATO and foreign bases, then their struggle will undermine the fundaments of capitalist domination and create prerequisites for the working class and its allies to claim the political power.

The more the anti-imperialistic, anticapitalist movement will gain strength, the more the political strength of the EU will get weaker and the possibilities for a shift at the level of state power will increase.

A factor of decisive importance for that perspective is the capacity of the people’s movement to change radically the correlation of forces within as many countries as possible, whether small or big. It is also the capacity of communist and workers’ parties to form a revolutionary strategy based on the marxist-leninist cosmotheory, which fights back and questions capitalism.

KKE’s position on disengagement from the EU

KKE considers that the disengagement from the EU should become goal of all European peoples and movements in order to rally forces in that direction. Concentrating forces for that goal will contribute to create a very strong opponent to capital, something that lacks nowadays both in the level of the people’s movements and at the level of power as well.

Disengagement from the EU doesn’t mean national isolation or breaking of international economic relationships. It means detachment and at the same time seeking economic relationships based on mutual benefit.

The tendency towards detachment from the EU will be developed simultaneously with the tendency towards cooperation of the countries that have left the EU, towards cooperation and ties too with other countries, that move in the same direction. Those tendencies are guaranteed by the fact that class struggle is internationalized.

KKE considers that this line of action weakens imperialism and strengthens the efforts for an independent development and an equal cooperation of those countries, where the working class will gain the power. The more the communist and labour movement will grow within the line of non-discipline and confrontation with the EU and its policies, the more in each member-state more favourable political conditions will be created for loosening the ties with the EU and finally disengagement from it. This will also lead to more favourable conditions for economic cooperation with countries fighting against the imperialist plans of the USA, like Cuba. Some developments in other continents, e.g. the American continent, confirm this. The fact that Venezuela was freed from USA’s “embracement” contributed to the development of economic relations with Cuba and this in its turn was of mutual benefit to both peoples. Defending a socialist country, like Cuba, also depends on the stance of the international communist movement: whether it is a stance of acceptance or of struggle against any imperialist organization, like the EU, a stance of putting forward claims and pressure.

The more the tendency of leaving imperialistic organizations becomes a general trend, the more the need for bilateral, multilateral and regional cooperation on an anti-imperialist basis will be realized. Of direct and critical importance is the question what each movement does to accelerate those tendencies and to weaken imperialism with its organizations.

There is only one way to go as regards the tendency of European monopolies to grow with the help of common state policies, that is as regards the tendency of Europe’s capitalist unification, at the cost of its peoples: to free people from capital’s exploitation and consequently from having unequal rights and being dependent, which are features of the imperialistic system and its organizations. A complete safe-guard of sovereign rights, economic relations of mutual benefit, protection of the weakest country, its economy and people against exploitation: those are goals, which have no place in the alliances of capitalist states, in their imperialist organizations, whether they are built up in Europe or in another continent or in some region.

Creating worker’s states, socialist states is a prerequisite for the future cooperation of the peoples of Europe in all fields – economic, cultural, political.

Today, the communist movement is more mature, it has learnt from its mistakes, and will have the capacity to work out the directions of cooperation of popular economies, of socialist economies in such a way, that the indispensable sufficiency of each country separately and on the other hand the advantageous exchange of raw material and products, technology, scientific and cultural achievements can be realized. Furthermore inter-state planning in such a way, that raw materials can be saved and more productivity of work can be realized to the extend in which it is influenced by production and climate circumstances.

The possibility for scientific knowledge, technological achievements and more generally cultural achievements of one people being transferred to another bridging capitalist backwardness, can become reality at the favour of the majority of the people (and not only of a numerically limited social group or class) only in circumstances of a socialist way of production, of a social organization based on social well-being and not on capitalist profit.

Coordination and common action of communist and workers’ parties

In opposition to the EU’s intervening in the political system of each country and of the reformist bloc set up by the EL, it is absolutely necessary to open a discussion on the coordination of class forces at the national, European and international level how to fight against the strategy of the EU and other imperialist organizations.

Projecting socialism as is the only alternative solution to today’s imperialist system, the common action and cooperation of communist and workers’ parties could stimulate the effort to build up a reinforced international anti-imperialist movement based on the working class movement, on movements representing other popular strata, peace movements, youth movements, women’s movements and any other campaigns with a progressive radical direction.

The coordination and common action of communist and workers parties will be the lever for the peoples to influence positively international evolutions and to contribute to the strengthening of the anti-imperialist movement in such a way that:

Forces against monopolies and imperialism rally together at a national, regional and international level.

They can fight against capital’s forces in a decisive way at all fronts: political, social, cultural as well as against the military interventions.

They can help the working class movement and its allies to formulate their claims of political struggle, claims which are determined by imperialism’s historical position as the highest stage of capitalism, meeting today’s needs of working people and demonstrating the historical necessity of socialism.