Marxist, XLI, 4, October–December 2025
Document
22nd Congress of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
Extracts from the Thesis of the Central Committee
INTRODUCTION
With a spirit of responsibility, pride, and combative yet realistic optimism for our just struggle, we welcome the 22nd Congress of the KKE. We are committed to promoting our Programme for a life free from exploitation and imperialist wars, with dignity and social prosperity befitting the contemporary needs of the working class, other popular forces, and the youth in the 21st century.
A year ago, entering the final stretch toward the 22nd Congress, the Central Committee of the KKE circulated the Central Committee’s Resolutions to the Party for discussion. These resolutions covered the following topics: a) Developments on the fronts of the imperialist war and our tasks, b) The course of party building within the Party and KNE, c) The ideological and political work of the Party and the course of Rizospastis, and d) Conclusions from our action in the workers’–trade union movement and the struggles of the people.
These Resolutions by the Central Committee were essential elements in preparing for a deeper assimilation of critical assessments and conclusions, so that we could better understand the conditions in which we operate and fulfil the Party’s purpose as an ideological and political vanguard, serving as a guide for the working class in fulfilling its historic mission: freeing the working class from the shackles of capitalist exploitation and building a new socialist–communist society.
The Theses for the 22nd Congress, which we are making public, summarize and incorporate the rich discussion that preceded them, through repeated General Assemblies of the Party Base Organizations (PBOs) throughout Greece and abroad. We aspire, through the pre-congress discussion and the work of our Congress, for the Party to take another decisive and solid step in the development of all its contemporary revolutionary characteristics.
The main theme of the 22nd Congress is the Party itself. The Party must fully harmonize its entire functioning and state of forces with its revolutionary programme and statutes at an accelerated and more effective pace. It must be a truly “all-weather party”, ready for anything, not just in words or as a general goal, but in deeds, reflected in its daily actions and contribution, raising the consciousness of working people and guiding our people’s struggle for socialism. Our Party’s capacity and preparedness concern both its strategic programmatic readiness and its current organizational policy and action in today’s conditions, in continuous unity.
A crucial issue is combining our revolutionary programme with daily revolutionary action in all spheres and at every stage of political guidance work. After all, even in a non-revolutionary situation such as the current one, we must carry out revolutionary work in preparation for the future. We must carry out systematic work to convince an increasing number of workers in both the private and public sectors, as well as the broader popular strata, to break free from bourgeois ideology and all its variants (liberal, social democratic, etc.), opportunism and all bourgeois parties, regardless of their guise, and to intensify and strengthen their struggles, demands, strikes and demonstrations to the fullest extent. We must strengthen the revolutionary movement without sparing any sacrifices or limits to our contribution and organize long-term, persistent preparation.
The Party’s overall assessment of its progress, and the contribution of its guiding organs, cadres and members in this progress, is based on whether our political guidance work corresponds to the Party’s revolutionary character, as defined in its programme and statutes. This is an issue that must be reaffirmed at every Congress, enriched with developments and the generalization of the experience of class struggle. While the positive steps taken in many areas of our activity are undoubtedly valuable, we must not allow ourselves to overlook weaknesses, gaps and shortcomings if we are to bring the entire Party into full alignment with our revolutionary programme.
The question that arises and must be constantly on our minds is how the vanguard, revolutionary character of the Party is achieved in practice and within the Party’s functioning. We focus on the functioning of the PBOs because it is at this level that all weaknesses in political guidance are expressed. The readiness, ability, will and selfless work of every communist, wherever they may be and whatever the circumstances, are general, mandatory and uniform features. It is essential that communists emerge as popular leaders in their neighbourhoods, workplaces and schools, making their mark everywhere, and remaining ready to face any difficulty.
Consequently, the Party’s daily work requires a qualitatively higher level of organization. We must engage with the hundreds of thousands of workers, poor farmers and self-employed in the cities who are affected by the capitalist system and the hardships of war, exploitation, heavy taxation and many other issues that they cannot overcome without overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing workers’ power. We must explain this simply and clearly to the broader masses, to the millions of people. We must talk about and promote the characteristics of the socialist society that we are planning to build and start discussing and preparing them today. We must prepare the vanguard, the working class and allied popular forces to gain experience in the harsh conflicts of class struggle.
The KKE operates in Greece, Europe and the wider region under very difficult conditions, within an overall negative correlation of forces, in the struggle for the definitive overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism–communism, the only system that can put an end to imperialist wars, poverty, exploitation, refugees and oppression.
B. GREECE IN THE CONTEMPORARY CAPITALIST WORLD
1. On the Greek economy
The domestic economy is currently in a phase of growth, following the deep capitalist crisis of 2008–2015, the subsequent period of stagnation and the smaller crisis of 2020–2021. Despite GDP growth and a declining unemployment rate over the last four years, GDP remains below its 2008 level, as does total employment. At the same time, capitalist growth remains relatively precarious in the medium to long term, as the domestic economy is closely linked to EU economies and a new recession in the EU is expected to negatively affect Greece’s capitalist economy.
Although the Greek economy has grown faster than the EU average over the past year, it remains at the bottom of EU rankings in terms of labour productivity and investment as a share of GDP. Investment is concentrated in tourism and hospitality, as well as in replacement of constant and variable capital related to changes in labour relations and practices, particularly concerning the digital work card and the purported effort to combat undeclared or unregistered work. The current account deficit, and especially the trade deficit, has widened. Over the past four years, the main trends of growth in salaried employment and the expansion of monopoly groups have intensified.
Bourgeois policies sand capitalist growth in recent years have somewhat altered the sectoral structure of the domestic economy compared to the 2000–2008 period. The strengthening of the tourism sector and the relative decline of construction, despite its strong growth, are the most significant changes in the overall economy, with ripple effects across all related sectors.
Tourism now contributes most significantly to GDP, driving growth in many related sectors (e.g. food and beverages, transport), and remains the main export sector of the domestic economy. The majority of new jobs created over the last five years have been in the broader tourism sector.
The petroleum sector has also recorded high export levels. Electricity and telecommunications have also strengthened significantly, reflecting the green digital transition policy, while the basic metals sector has grown mainly due to its ties with energy (cables, pipes).
Maritime freight transport (shipping) continues to be a key pillar of the Greek economy.
Agricultural production remains important for the domestic capitalist economy, in contrast to its performance in most EU countries, while the retail sector continues to account for the largest share of employment, particularly during the winter months.
2. Shift to a war economy
The country’s involvement in war and war preparation does not concern only the war industry itself (weapons, ammunition, electronic warfare), nor the core group of businesses producing commodities essential for war (e.g. supplies and construction). The war economy ultimately involves the overall preparation for war and the integration of multiple sectors into the war effort. The country is actively engaged in the energy and trade war, as well as in the economic sanctions against Russia, which have a drastic negative impact on energy prices, while it also participates in providing economic and material support to Ukraine.
At the same time, as a member of NATO and the EU, the country is more deeply involved in the broader international confrontation between the two major blocs —the USA–NATO and China–Russia— which extends from rare earths and technological superiority to the prioritization of transport routes. A characteristic example is the intensification of conflicts over control of domestic ports (e.g. Thessaloniki, Volos) and the development of energy routes from the Middle East to the EU (e.g. the Great Sea, Gregy, East Med) and within the EU (e.g. the Vertical Corridor). More generally, the twofold use (political–economic and military) of certain infrastructures (transport, ports, telecommunications, energy pipelines, etc.), along with their geopolitical significance, is reshaping priorities for their development, always shifting their cost onto the working class and the people.
3. Digital transformation and artificial intelligence
Over the past five years, rapid digitization has advanced in both the economy —through the growth of e-commerce— and in public administration, with the digital bourgeois state leading the way. The digital bourgeois state can operate far more effectively for the benefit of capital at the expense of the people, facilitating the implementation of reactionary measures, for example in taxation (myData). At the same time, the transfer and exploitation of data by the bourgeois state for domestic and foreign groups is becoming increasingly widespread.
New technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence, are being exploited by the power of capital —both internationally and in Greece— as tools to increase exploitation, as well as to control, manipulate and repress the people. Capitalism exploits cutting-edge technologies to achieve the complete subsumption of labour to the objectives of capital.
The plans and frameworks for the development of Artificial Intelligence promoted by the EU and NATO, and implemented by the Greek government, confirm this reactionary direction.
Capitalism undermines the potential offered by the deepening of the social character of production, the development of artificial intelligence and automation, and scientifically organized labour, which could shorten the length of the forced working day and improve the content of non-working time across all aspects of social life. It negates the enormous potential to meet contemporary needs, make work creative, provide meaningful education, protect health, and ensure free time rich in content. Consequently, the advent of the era of artificial intelligence today exacerbates the fundamental contradiction between capital and labour.
In any case, the modern working class remains the main productive force and the decisive factor in confronting the contemporary mechanisms of the system of exploitation, in overthrowing capitalism and building socialism–communism. Capitalism, which is in decay, is neither invincible nor omnipotent.
4. Intra-bourgeois contradictions
Against the backdrop of these technological changes, there is a trend toward the further growth of certain large business groups that play a decisive role in the production process and often have a nationwide character, both in terms of production structure and their impact on the working class and popular strata.
The aforementioned changes in the structure of the economy and bourgeois policies are fuelling a series of intra-bourgeois contradictions, which have intensified in recent times. These contradictions concern, among other things, energy and the high cost of green energy in industry; the overall sectoral structure; the dominance of tourism in the economy, often referred to as a “tourism monoculture”, which competes with other sectors and shapes debates about the so-called productive model of the domestic economy; the distribution of state and EU funds among sectors and branches of the economy; and the prioritization of subsidies.
A special aspect of these contradictions is so-called over-tourism, i.e. the excessive influx of tourists to certain areas of the country. This is a complex issue, involving, among other things, the size of tourism in relation to other sectors, the distribution of tourism income between tourism capital and petty-bourgeois strata, and the major negative impact that large tourist flows have on the popular strata living in these regions, including the strain on infrastructure and natural resources.
5. Overall deterioration of the people’s standard of living
Economic growth in recent years has not led to an improvement in workers’ living standards, but rather to a significant decline. Wages in Greece are the second lowest in the EU after Bulgaria, while the country ranks first in terms of monthly working hours. Nominal wages have increased but remain —in nominal terms— lower than pre-crisis levels and far lower when one takes into account the levels that nominal wages would have reached with the increases provided for in the collective labour agreements of the pre-crisis period. Above all, however, real wages, despite the increase in nominal wages, have fallen during the period under review due to massive inflation, which has been caused by many factors. These include the monetary policy of the ECB, huge increases in energy prices, the imposition of high prices by international and domestic business groups that have a dominant position in the market (two groups control petroleum products, three to four groups control food sales, three groups control telecommunications, three groups control shipping, etc.), the government’s tax offensive through excessive VAT, and the tax burden on the self-employed, which objectively increases the cost of commodities. The attack on workers’ income is further complemented by the expansion of the commercialization of an entire category of services, leading to a large increase in their prices, with typical examples being health and education, as well as the increase in rents and housing loans. There is also a declining trend in household savings, while the gap between deposit and loan interest rates is widening and remains one of the largest in the EU.
At the same time, the current phase of capitalist development allows the capitalist system to implement policies of alliance with the middle strata of popular forces. Also, in combination with the reduction of unemployment and the extension of working hours, conditions are being created for the co-option of sections of the working class due to limited increases in wages, etc.
Over the years we are examining, all bourgeois political forces are fully complicit in the current outcome. The “green–digital transition”, the extremely costly “alternative” forms of energy and digitization are all aspects of a unified policy: from PASOK’s vision for a “Denmark of the South” to SYRIZA’s aggressive promotion of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) and the digital agenda through credit cards, leading up to the period of the ND government. All are complicit in the heavy taxation on salaried workers and the self-employed, and especially in the explosion of VAT and the housing problem. The general agreement of the bourgeois parties on the central policies of the EU for “green growth”, competitiveness and the promotion of the single market —and ultimately their role as managers of capitalist power— lies behind their shared responsibility for the relative impoverishment of working people.
The attack on workers’ income and rights is a one-way street for the strategy of capital. The shift to a new increase in military spending, the termination of the Recovery Fund in 2026 and the pressure to attract large investments over the next three years, as well as the goal of prepaying loans to the EU, will lead to an escalation of the anti-people attack, particularly in relation to retirement age limits, the expansion of flexible labour relations and the maintenance of high food and energy prices.
6. Increasing aggression of the Greek bourgeoisie and deepening of Greece’s involvement in imperialist wars
The Greek bourgeoisie, with particular aggressiveness, defends and promotes its strategic interests independently and through the imperialist alliances of NATO and the EU, while also strengthening relations with the USA, in order to enhance Greece’s position in the international imperialist system and the region as a powerful energy and transport hub, claiming a larger share of the spoils of imperialist wars and interventions.
These objectives are currently being pursued by the New Democracy government with the support of SYRIZA, PASOK, and all the bourgeois parties, engaging the country in NATO and Euro-Atlantic plans in the role of aggressor against other peoples. This policy places the Greek people at great risk, leaving them caught in the crosshairs of retaliation by rival imperialist alliances.
Within Greece’s bourgeoisie there are also powerful business interests that are harmed by developments and are dissatisfied, seeking “corrective measures” and expressing concerns about what they describe as the “unconditional” participation in NATO planning, while calling for relations with Russia to be maintained. However, these intra-bourgeois contradictions over the foreign policy of the Greek state do not currently form a cohesive bourgeois political force capable of challenging the country’s stable alignment with the imperialist NATO and EU camp.
The policy of involvement of the Greek bourgeois state permeates all governments and the entire bourgeois political system, acquiring qualitatively more dangerous characteristics each year, and even raising the prospect of the Greek Armed Forces participating directly on the front lines in military conflicts.
Characteristic elements of this policy include:
• The transformation of Greece into a US–NATO launching pad, through the US–Greece Strategic Dialogue and agreements to expand US–NATO military bases,. This process, initiated by SYRIZA, is being implemented by the New Democracy government, with the agreement of PASOK and other pro-NATO parties. Military bases in Souda, Larissa, Magnesia, Alexandroupoli, Aktio and elsewhere are used as forward outposts for the USA and NATO in all imperialist wars in the region, with a particular role in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
• The shipment of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, along with discussions about supplying Ukraine with fighter jets.
• The integration of the Greek Armed Forces into NATO’s planning of the proposed €28 billion “Agenda 2030” armament programme, which continuously burdens the people with new costs. The Greek people have already paid €8.054 billion in military spending for NATO needs in 2022, €6.224 billion in 2023 and €7.126 billion in 2024.
• The dispatch of Greek warships and military units on Euro-Atlantic missions abroad.
• Military agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, as part of NATO’s plans against Iran.
• Participation in NATO preparations for a generalized imperialist war, including the potential use of nuclear weapons.
The KKE, as a matter of principle, condemns and opposes this policy of involvement. It stands fully aligned with the interests of the working class, the popular strata and the rights of the youth, in opposition to the various pretexts used by the bourgeoisie and the prevailing policy to entrap the people, whether under the banner of the so-called national interest, “typical alliance obligations” or similar justifications.
7. The course of relations between Greece and Turkey
Greek-Turkish relations are shaped by a mix of cooperation and confrontation between the bourgeois classes of the two capitalist states, both NATO allies.
The so-called restart of Greek-Turkish relations, initiated at the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July 2023, and the “Road Map” being promoted under US-NATO supervision —with its “Political Dialogue”, “Confidence-Building Measures” and so-called positive agenda (trade and economic agreements focused on the interests of business groups)— serves specific objectives, including:
• Strengthening NATO’s southeastern flank in line with the demands of imperialist competition and the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
• Developing the economic and energy relations between the two states, including joint exploitation and management in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, within the framework of the broader Euro-Atlantic planning for the benefit of the interests of monopolies at the expense of the peoples.
Despite plans for cooperation on joint exploitation and management of the Aegean and parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, competition between the two bourgeois classes will not disappear. New points of contention are emerging, including issues related to Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Parks.
The Turkish state continues to put forward a set of unacceptable claims that challenge the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the Greek islands in the Aegean, reiterating arguments about “grey zones” (islands and islets) and the demilitarization of the islands. It promotes the so-called “Blue Homeland” doctrine, asserting claims to a wider area including the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea. It exploits the Turkey-Libya Pact with the threat of energy exploration in maritime areas that do not belong to Turkey, while portraying the Muslim minority in Thrace as Turkish, in violation of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Turkish consulate and nationalist forces actively intervene in the region, aiming to divide and entrap the people.
The Greek government deliberately fosters a climate of complacency, but the people must remain vigilant, because the haggling in the Greek-Turkish negotiations involve fundamental issues of sovereignty and sovereign rights.
The crucial task is to strengthen the friendship and common struggle of the Turkish and Greek people against the bourgeois classes and their interests, their alliances, and the anti-popular policies of bourgeois states and governments. The KKE advances this cause in cooperation with the Communist Party of Turkey, upholding the goal of “no change in the boundaries and the treaties that define them”, which remains both timely and necessary.
8. The course of the Cyprus issue
Despite the unfounded expectations raised by promoting Cyprus as an energy hub in the region, Turkey’s occupation of 37% of Cypriot territory continues, and the Cyprus issue is further exacerbated amid the maelstrom of imperialist rivalries. Dangerous arrangements are being promoted with the aim of enhancing the island’s status in Euro-Atlantic planning, reflecting broader regional developments.
Claims that Cyprus’s accession to the EU and the strengthening of relations with the USA and NATO would contribute positively to the search for a “fair” solution have collapsed.
The role of the pseudo-state in Turkey’s strategy is being strengthened, serving both as a military base and a tool to claim energy resources in the region. Efforts are underway to pave the way for “direct trade, flights and contacts”, with the complicity of Euro-Atlantic actors, moving toward international recognition.
The partition of Cyprus into two states, shaped by Greek-Turkish bourgeois rivalries and intense imperialist competition, risks becoming permanent.
The approach to the Cyprus issue as an international matter of invasion and occupation has been weakened. The proposal for a “bi-zonal, bi-communal federation”, which has shifted from a compromise position to a principle based on “two constituent states”, amounts to a confederal solution. It objectively facilitates partitionist aspirations and legitimizes the consequences of the invasion and occupation. This approach runs counter to the need to develop a coordinated workers’–people’s struggle of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, for the reunification of Cyprus and its people, to resist nationalism and the cosmopolitanism of capital. The goal must remain an independent and united Cyprus: one state, not two; with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and international personality; a common homeland for Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and Latins; free from occupying forces, foreign troops and bases of any kind; without guarantors or protectors; with the people masters in their land.
9. On the migrant–refugee issue
Under today’s circumstances, the migrant-refugee issue is becoming increasingly complex. The escalation of imperialist war, the predatory exploitation of countries, environmental destruction caused by unbridled business activity, and relentless competition in the global division of labour are driving ever greater migration and refugee movements. The contradictions among bourgeois forces over how to manage the balance between repression and the attraction of labour are intensifying. The insurmountable deadlocks of the system of capitalist exploitation are becoming increasingly apparent.
These contradictions are expressed in the new EU Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which is an integral part of the war economy and preparation and constitutes the guiding framework of bourgeois strategy on immigration and refugee policy across all member states. The Pact prioritizes the intensification of repression, violating every principle of “international law” that had prevailed since World War II under the influence of socialism. Border controls extend to both the external borders of the EU and to internal borders between member states, even leading to partial suspension of the Schengen Agreement. The so-called first reception countries, such as Greece, continue to act as gatekeepers, entrapping migrants and refugees. At the same time, a network of agreements with third countries outside the EU is being promoted, whereby these countries, in exchange for investment capital, undertake to prevent migrants and refugees from entering the EU, through brutal repression, the creation and maintenance of migrant and refugee detention centres (“return hubs”), and the supply of a cheap renewable labour (“circular legal migration”). Policies aimed at attracting labour are accompanied by discussions about the demographic problem and the population ageing.
The refugee–migration issue continues to be instrumentalized in major geopolitical bargaining, for example in the preferential treatment of Ukrainian refugees compared to those from other war-torn countries, in relations with Turkey and African countries such as Libya and Tunisia, and in the context of the Palestinian issue.
At the same time, migration is central to bourgeois political processes in many EU countries and is being used to reshape the bourgeois political system. Racist and xenophobic hatred is cultivated, and far-right and fascist forces are strengthened. Repressive measures against immigrants and refugees form part of a broader framework of repression, authoritarianism and the terrorization of the people, in the context of war preparations. They serve the broader objective of subordinating the working class and popular strata to dangerous imperialist plans.
The Greek bourgeoisie remains faithful to this approach on migration and refugees. The New Democracy government, building on the work of the previous SYRIZA–ANEL government, continues to play a key role in advancing EU policies. The recent racist and inhumane law of the ND government (Plevris law) on the deportation and imprisonment of immigrants and refugees opens up extremely dangerous paths. At the same time, transnational agreements on labour importation (so far with Egypt and Bangladesh) and the framework for the so-called hiring of workers and seasonal workers serve the interests of capital in key sectors of the Greek economy, including construction, tourism and the primary sector. Migration and refugees remain central to the foreign policy agenda and are linked to broader geopolitical conflicts and processes, such as the Greek-Turkish relations and relations with Libya and Egypt.
Under these circumstances, the Party has a major responsibility to promote the common struggles of Greek, migrant and refugee workers, and to carry out deeper ideological work so that the phenomenon of migration is better understood, while countering bourgeois ideological constructs and the poison of racism and xenophobia. The task set at the 21st Congress remains: to develop action defending the rights of immigrants and refugees, both in terms of solidarity against intensifying repression and in opposition to capital’s attempts to exploit them to further reduce the price of labour as a whole. It is also essential to engage even more systematically in encouraging migrants and refugees to join trade unions and struggle alongside Greek workers, both for the problems they face due to the system of exploitation and the broader issues of the working class. This task has taken on new dimensions today, in light of attempts to import cheap labour through transnational agreements, which our Party has rightly characterized as modern-day slave trade agreements.
C. PROCESSES IN THE GREEK BOURGEOIS POLITICAL SYSTEM
1. The conditions under which these processes are unfolding
Developments in the economy, the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions and the escalation of military conflicts, competition between sections of capital, and military preparations constitute the ground on which processes within the bourgeois political system are also unfolding.
This confirms the assessment that we as a party have held for a long time: that a broader discontent is growing within the working class and among the popular forces as a result of a series of developments in the capitalist economy. The effects of the “maturation” of “new” forms of flexible labour relations, new methods of intensifying capitalist exploitation, the decline in real workers’ and popular income, the increase in the cost of living, and the exacerbation of a series of problems such as housing, health, etc. are now being experienced first-hand. At the same time, distrust of certain “institutions” and functions of the bourgeois state has grown, uncertainty and concern about the future have increased, and there is growing fear of war, even though it continues to be underestimated as a real danger to the country.
Although this broader discontent was expressed in a very massive and militant way in the recent demonstrations marking the two-year anniversary of the crime in Tempe, it remains shallow and, to a significant extent, politically limited, focusing mainly on specific issues of individual responsibility of certain politicians, widespread corruption, and the lack of the “rule of law”, seeking a solution only in the overthrow of the New Democracy government, in Mitsotakis’ resignation, or in the imprisonment of certain guilty parties, etc. Bourgeois forces and business interests that have scores to settle with the New Democracy government and its current leadership are also contributing to this discontent and opposition to government policy and are trying to influence its orientation.
Although, to a certain extent, under the influence of our own forces, slogans such as “their profits or our lives” were adopted and the long-standing responsibilities of all bourgeois governments were recognized, this discontent does not signal an overall challenge to the capitalist system, capitalist property or the power of capital. All this reflects a negative correlation of forces and shows that the development and level of class struggle are lagging behind the needs of the period.
However, from the perspective of the bourgeoisie, the focus is on the future, particularly on the possibility of mass opposition to the bourgeois political system under conditions of generalized imperialist war, a new deep economic crisis and a sharp intensification of intra-bourgeois contradictions. Today, the debate on the reform of the political system is distinct from the similar debate that has been going on for about twenty years.
2. The basic elements of the processes in the political system
a. At present, significant sections of the bourgeois class continue to support the New Democracy government as the best manager of capitalist interests.
At the same time, however, there is dissatisfaction with the priorities in the “development plans”, as a section of capital considers itself to have come out on the losing end, and reservations are also being expressed about the severing of all relations with Russia as well as about developments and compromises in Greek-Turkish relations.
A special issue is the plans for constitutional reform that are currently in the works at the initiative of the government. Bourgeois analyses point out that, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 1975 Constitution, a broader debate should be opened on the need to radically modernize the bourgeois Constitution and adapt it even more closely to the current and future needs of capitalist management. The issue of constitutional reform is also an area in which broader convergence and consensus among bourgeois parties is sought. This can also become an arena of confrontation and the formation of artificial dividing lines between, on the one hand, those who will defend supposedly progressive provisions of the current Constitution or propose other reactionary ones under this guise, and, on the other hand, the “neo-liberal” government that seeks to change them. However, the government and the New Democracy party still show cohesion, despite all the tendencies and movements challenging its leadership that are emerging internally.
b. Concerns are expressed about the so-called gap in the bourgeois political system in relation to the formation of an alternative bourgeois government proposal, intended to channel the discontent that is objectively shaped by the implementation of capital’s strategic choices into the bourgeois political system.
The concern focuses in particular on the situation of the existing political actors of social democracy: the tendency of SYRIZA and the forces that emerged from it, mainly the “New Left”, to contract; the great difficulty of PASOK in emerging as the dominant force of alternative governance; and the fact that the broader working-class and popular forces that traditionally formed the basis of social democracy appear dissatisfied and disillusioned, feeling betrayed by the course taken by the actors in this political space due to the policies they pursued in previous years, either as government or opposition forces. At the same time, powerful sections of the bourgeoisie are expressing reservations about decisively supporting forces that they consider weak, unreliable and largely ineffective as an alternative government solution. In this context, various scenarios are being discussed for the reform of the broader social democratic space, the role that various personalities (such as the former president of SYRIZA, Alexis Tsipras) or even the formation of new political actors.
At the same time, all alternative plans for the reform of social democracy come up against the objective reality of the capitalist economy, which is also responsible for the inability of social democratic political actors to formulate proposals for bourgeois management that would co-opt broader workers’–people’s forces, as was the case in the past.
c. The situation in which social democratic political forces find themselves does not mean that the “social democratic” and “reformist” current has diminished, even if at the moment it does not find sufficient expression in a particular party. Social democracy has a strong social base within sections of the working class as well as among sections of the popular forces affected by the capitalist management policies currently in place. For this reason, despite the blows it has suffered, it maintains significant support in the trade union movement of the working class, as well as in several middle-strata organizations. It also retains significant support in local administration (municipalities and regions), which it uses to reshape the political landscape more broadly. There remains a strong expectation for a “progressive alternative” government solution within the country, a “less anti-popular economic and political management”. Under the banner of “justice” and the “rule of law”, strong illusions and delusions are maintained that there can be a “fairer management” of the capitalist system, a “more equitable functioning” of the bourgeois state. Despite the relative —compared to the past— discrediting of the EU as a capitalist alliance, the belief persists and is reproduced that Greece is an exception to “European normality” and that the EU remains a factor providing “security” for the country. The negative experience of the social democratic governments, whether PASOK or SYRIZA, is seen as the result of broken promises, betrayal and deception, rather than as a consequence of the scientific laws of the capitalist system and the strategy of capital, which social democracy also serves in its entirety, and the illusion that the pursuit of maximum profit by business groups can be reconciled with the interests of the popular forces. There remains the possibility of a mass reformist current forming in the immediate future. In this context, the forces of opportunism within the movement play a special role, which, by focusing their action on the fragmented goal of “bringing down the Mitsotakis government”, are essentially backing the strengthening of reformist illusions and delusions, contributing to the continued entrapment of the working class and popular forces.
d. With the direct and indirect support of sections of capital, a false “anti-systemic pole” is being formed within the political system. The main elements of this pole are:
• Strongly critical rhetoric regarding the New Democracy government and the other “systemic parties”, i.e., those that have participated in governments.
• The glorification of the role that bourgeois justice can play, the defence of the bourgeois Constitution and laws, and the functioning of the “separation of powers”.
• The centralization around one figure and the promotion of supposedly “self-made” businesspeople or scientists, who are allegedly independent and accountable to no “party mechanism”.
• The promotion of various “parliamentary stunts” as a criterion of militancy.
• Anti-communism and the slander that the KKE is a compromised, systemic party “that backs the ND government”, etc., which sometimes takes on the character of provocation.
This constitutes an overall reactionary and dangerous rationale for the people and the youth, which ultimately leads to the defence of this system, since the problem presented is “the malfunctioning of its institutions”, thus reversing reality.
This line is followed by the “Course of Freedom” party of Z. Konstantopoulou, the forces rallying around the “Democracy Movement” of S. Kasselakis, the nationalist “Greek Solution” party of Velopoulos, etc. This effort had the direct support of the bourgeois media, owned by large businesses and safeguarding their interests. Within this context, forces derived from opportunism and the far right are reviving, as was the case with the “movement of the squares” during the crisis. The aim of this pole is to fish in troubled waters, contain popular discontent and contribute to the formation of new alternative political actors within the system in a reactionary direction.
Part of this effort to form such a pole is the utilization of the mass mobilizations over the crime in Tempe. Behind the calls for an “non-partisan and independent movement”, the effort to create a contrast with the organized workers’–people’s movement, and the slogans of “justice” lie the interests of certain large business and political actors, who want to exploit individuals speaking on behalf of the deceased and their relatives. In this direction, certain opportunist forces also play a special role, attempting to embellish —as they did during the period of the memoranda—the reactionary direction of such plans or to equate an anti-systemic stance with a fetishization of conflict forms against the forces of repression.
e. In response to the attempt to reform the bourgeois political system, the KKE is developing its ideological and political intervention, highlighting the dead ends for the people that arise when the weakening of some bourgeois political forces is channelled into supporting others.
It emphasizes the class-based and, consequently, anti-popular character of the bourgeois political system, parliamentary processes and governments in the context of capitalism, as well as bourgeois institutions as a whole, such as justice.
It reveals the harmful role of social democracy in trapping workers’–people’s forces over time, drawing on examples from the recent and historical past. A section of workers’–people’s forces with social democratic views approach the Party’s forces in the labour–trade union movement, join them on certain battle fronts, express themselves in trade union elections through the lists supported by the communists, and follow the Party with great interest. Obviously, there are opportunities for these forces to break out of the deadlock; however the basic prerequisite is the deepening of the ideological and political struggle and the promotion of the KKE’s programme, so that illusions are dispelled, drawing on the experience gained from participation in struggles and the processes of the movement. They KKE opposes harmful notions that bourgeois parliamentary elections every four years are the highest form of democracy, that so-called governability and participation in or support for bourgeois governments within the framework of capitalism, in the name of “political stability”, constitute a step towards a way out in favour of the interests of the people.
A crucial indicator of this entire effort is the broadening of agreement and the rallying of vanguard workers’–people’s forces behind the Party’s Programme; that is, the struggle to concentrate forces in an anti-capitalist and anti-monopoly direction, with the prospect of socialism. This is, after all, a condition —as experience has taught us— for countering the opportunist pressures that are objectively shaped by developments, so that the Party does not retreat in the face of a reformist and social-democratic current. This action by the Party helps to hinder such processes within the bourgeois political system, preventing the healing of ruptures that are forming in the consciousness of the working class and the people, in their trust in bourgeois politics.
The KKE emphasizes that a true anti-systemic stance involves questioning and confronting the capitalist system, the bourgeois state and the bourgeois political system as a whole, and not defending bourgeois institutions, justice, and the Constitution; that real anti-systemic stance is not about stunts in Parliament but about the development of class struggle, the struggle for workers’–people’s interests, and the concentration of forces in an anti-capitalist and anti-monopoly direction —in other words, the path to a radical change in the correlation of forces to the detriment of capital and in favour of the working class and its allies.