Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(1)

In 2010 the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) made an analysis(“The International role of China” by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE,responsible for the international section of the CC , published in Communist Review 6th issue 2010¹) of what she saw as the ACTUAL character of China, so to what China has developed TODAY. Probably one of the reasons was that the KKE had to explain to the workers of Greece if the economic agreements between China and Greece and the investments of China in Greece (= capital-export of China!) in 2010, had something to do with “internationalist solidarity” or an “anti-imperialist alliance” or a “step towards world-revolution” or a “support for the revolution in Greece”, or a “support” of the Chinese Communist Party for “the authority in the public opinion” of the Greek Communist Party.....

The comment in the press of the KKE about the Greek-Chinese agreements:

The package of agreements that were signed between the Greek and Chinese governments (...), (t)he notorious Chinese investment plan of 5 billion is nothing more than a shot in the arm for the Greek ship owners by the Chinese governmentin order that they have hundreds of ships built in China, and that Greece becomes China’s stepping stone into Europe. The concession of infrastructure, ports, railways, shipbuilding facilities to Chinese transnational corporations so that they can be used to transport goods, will create very few jobs in the face of the unemploymentwhich the mass elimination of medium and small businesses will cause. The expansion and strengthening of the activity of transnational capital in vital areas of infrastructure has as a result even cheaper workers without labor rights, with wages at Chinese levels. The big businessmen who control the olive oil exports will be the ones who profit from the exportof this product to China and not the poor farmers whose position will continue to deteriorate.(...) Development which benefits big capital is the bearer of poverty and unemployment for the people. It undermines the productive capabilities of the country, and entangles it in dangerous inter-imperialist rivalries.²

“The investments and the loans of the business consortia of China, the EU, the USA and Israel, have nothing to do with the needs of the people.

The rights and wages of the workers, the protection of the environment will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of competitiveness and for the promotion of our country as a centre of the transit of products. Public land and property will continue to be sold off, while the transport problems of the residents of Attica will intensify, the uneven development of the regions and sectors of the economy will sharpen.

The genuine ending of unemployment, the creation of full-time and stable jobs can be secured only by the centrally planning of the people’s economy, which will stimulate domestic industrial and agricultural production in order to meet the needs of the people.”³

The KKE made a CONCRETE analysis of the ACTUAL character of China

And so the KKE made their analysis about the ACTUAL character of China, and the ACTUAL ideological and political line to which the leadership of the CCP has submitted the CCP, an analysis out of which I give here some parts:

The rise of a new global power, China, has provoked a great deal of interest from analysts and ordinary workers all over the world. This interest is even more intense amongst politicized people, who understand the era of social revolutions which began with October 1917 in Russia and which led to a series of important socio-political struggles and revolutions in the entire world, among them the Chinese revolution. The interest concerning the rise in China’s power is contradictory, as the increase of its power is taking place under the red flag and with the CP of China in power.

Nevertheless, one of the “lessons” of the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union is that communists should not have accepted unquestioningly whatever the CPSU said but that every CP, while remaining true to the principle of proletarian internationalism, should study with its own resources the developments, the experience of the international communist movement and must attempt to form its own opinion concerning these things, utilizing Marxist-Leninist theory as its tool. The KKE reserves its right of criticism within the international communist movement with the aim of strengthening it and the strategy of the communists. The KKE confronts deviations from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the laws of socialist construction, while maintaining bilateral relations with communist parties which have different approaches.

On this basis the KKE, while it continues to maintain bilateral relations with the CP of China, systematically follows developments and forms its own assessments which it expresses both publicly and to the CPC. As is well-known, the KKE already from its 17th Congress (2005) noted the expansion of capitalist relations in China. In the period since then this tendency has been reinforced and is even more evident. (...)

1.China, particularly from the 1980’s and onwards, has linked its economy with the international capitalist market. This is a fact which is not denied by the Chinese leadership, but is indeed extolled by it. It participates actively in the global capitalist allocation of roles as a massive “factory’ with a cheap labour force, with high rates of profits for those capitalists who have the ability to invest there.

2.As a result of this change in direction, China has been embraced by other strong imperialist powers, above all by the USA, and also by Japan, the EU, due to its dependency on them as a global exporting power. It is an integral part of the international imperialist system. This relation of dependency and inter-dependency is expressed by the fact that China possesses American bonds.

3.As long as China strengthens economically, so will its needs for raw materials and fuels increase. For this reason inter-imperialist competition over the control of the energy sources, in Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America is sharpening at global level.

As Lenin wrote “The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. And they divide it “in proportion to capital”, “in proportion to strength”, because there cannot be any other method of division under commodity production and capitalism. But strength varies with the degree of economic and political development”⁴

The competition for the share of the markets is particularly fierce. This is demonstrated by the recent effort of political-economical circles in the USA to push forward legislation which provides for sanctions against those countries which it considers that they artificially keep their currency undervalued, in order for their exports to have competitive prices, in this way taking control of markets and removing their competitors. (....)

Today, with the development and predominance of capitalist relations of production in China, with its participation in imperialist organizations such as the WTO and its assimilation into the imperialist system, its stance does not differ from that of the imperialist powers. Whatever disagreements it has with the USA are related to the “division of the loot”, while there exists “harmony” over the question of labour rights, which are being reduced for the “good” of the market economy, and also against states whose action offend any of the leading imperialist powers’ monopolies.(...)

In recent years China has developed coordination and cooperation with states which seek to upgrade their international position (Brazil, Russia, India ), known as BRIC, as well as partnerships-alliances in regional unions, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (together with Russia and the Central Asian former Soviet Republics). Can these alliances and partnerships be considered to be a blow against the “unipolar world" of the USA?

First of all we must make it clear that a “unipolar world” does not and has never existed.(...)
As long as the contradiction between capital-labour is not resolved at a national, regional and global level, as long as the new rising powers are driven by capitals desire for new markets and raw materials, we will not have radical changes. The states that are gaining ground in the international imperialist system cannot play the role which the USSR played in the past, because they operate on the basis of additional profit for their own monopolies. This is true for China and cannot be denied just because it uses a red flag and the ruling party has the title “communist”.

In addition, (....) we should not forget that this is only one aspect of imperialist reality. Behind this there is the aspect of tough rivalries and contradictions between these powers e.g. Between Russia and China over the energy resources of Central Asia or Chinese ambition in the Russian Far East etc. The same is true for the relations between China and India, where aside from the unresolved border question (e.g. in August of 2010 India sent two divisions to the state of Arunachal Pradesh in order to reinforce its border with China⁵), there is also a fierce competition for hegemony in the region of Eastern Asia. It is characteristic that, as is well-known, India’s Ministry of Defense held in 2009 and 2010 repeated meetings concerning the modernization of the Chinese armed forces, setting corresponding goals for the armed forces of India⁶.

The trend of altering the relations with the USA is developing also within the states of Latin America, with Brazil being in the forefront. Thus, these states seek to strengthen their relations with China, Russia, India and the EU. Competition and cooperation coexist in the imperialist world, where the interdependence and forging of alliances go hand in hand with rivalries and counter-alliances. (....)
(O)n 11th December 2001 it became the 143rd member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), (...)

Within the WTO, China highlighted secondary contradictions which exist in the global imperialist system. In his report to the 16th Congress of the CP of China, Jiang Zemin spoke of the “difference in development between the North and South”, as well as of the “pressure of economic, scientific-technical and other supremacy from the developed countries”⁷. According to certain estimations China constantly seeks to be presented as a representative and leader of the developing countries.⁸

Despite the enhancement of China’s international position economically, the leadership of China insists on presenting it as a “developing country”⁹. This claim is based on three arguments a) in 2008 GDP per capita in China was only 3,300 dollars, the 104th in the world. B) Of the 1,3 billion people in China, more than 700 million are farmers. C) Industry, Agriculture and the service sector in China constitute 49%, 11% and 40% respectively of the GDP; while in other countries with a higher level of capitalist development, industry and agriculture have lower percentages. In 2009 GDP increased by 9.5% in industry, by 8.4% in services and only by 4.2% in agriculture.

The rankings of the UN and the OECD are problematic and do not reflect the reality of China; likewise the labelling of China as a “developing country” by its leadership. These phenomena of a “developing” capitalist economy are due to the deep unevenness between the eastern and western part of the country. A more accurate picture would be given by relevant data concerning the eastern part of the country¹⁰. And of course what is true for capitalism in general applies also for the developed eastern section: The concentration of the means of production in a few hands and the increase of social inequality.

From this standpoint the alliance of China with other powers (e.g. India) with similar uneven capitalist development does not place in the same position as very backward societies in Asia and Africa. Nevertheless in the name of “backwardness” “patriotic dreams” are created, which are utilised in the effort to entrap the labour movement, the CPs, other radical forces, which are invited to forget for the present the class struggle and the need to build another society and devote themselves to the job of “strengthening the international position of their countries”. The pursuit for “national development” is often combined with a selective “anti-imperialism”, which concentrates its fire only on the USA, which it characterizes as an “empire”, and possibly on some of the powerful states from Western Europe. (...)

If communists forces give up on the slogan of internationalist proletarian solidarity and support the idea of the separation of the world into “North-South” or the idea of the “golden billion”, they will easily fall into the trap of “unity” with the so-called “nationally oriented capital”, that is to say with the bourgeois class of their countries (or with a section of it), which seeks a better position within the global capitalist system for itself. In that case, as communists, they will have consciously or unconsciously revised the central Leninist thesis concerning “imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, which refers to the entire reactionary era of capitalism, and consequently to every capitalist society, whatever their strength in the global market. For that reason, this is one more issue where the stance of China, which seeks to present itself as the leader of the “developing” countries”, contributes to this disorientation and to the creation of confusion within the international communist movement, since the leader of this effort is a large country which is governed by a party which bears the title “communist”.(....)

Can the “participation of China” in the international market be considered to be a compulsory exchange of commodities between different economies which is forced to do due to the international correlation of forces? No, because we are talking about the export of capital, which is being accumulated in China through capitalist relations of production.

It is well-known that socialist construction in the USSR was based above all on the socialization of the concentrated means of production, on central planning and corresponding economic measures in its international economic relations, like the state monopoly of foreign trade, which was established in April of 1918.

Even under the conditions of the NEP (which some like to invoke when referring to contemporary China) the state monopoly became even more important as a bulwark against the increasing capitalist tendencies.(...)

The reality in China is entirely different from that of the USSR during the NEP. In China:

1. There is no monopoly in foreign trade. Thousands of foreign companies that operate in China cover the largest proportion of the Chinese exports, which of course are dependent on their plans, based on their profitability and not on a centrally planned economy.
2. 440 private foreign banks operate in China, and they have acquired at least 10% of the shares of the Chinese state banks and since 2005 there has developed a domestic private banking sector.¹¹
3. An important percentage of industry is private or privatized (in the form of stock companies), while the private sector is estimated to produce 70% of the GDP.
4. Chinese legislation, especially in the economic and commercial sector, is fully harmonized, thanks to the assistance of the WTO, to the norms of the global capitalist economy.(...)

In conclusion, the dominance of capitalist relations in China, which is a fact today, slowly or quickly, will lead to a bigger compliance of the political system, the dominant ideology and all the elements of the superstructure whose capitalist character will be reflected in its symbols. The intensification of class contradictions will ripen and so will the need for the revolutionary labour movement to be represented by its own party against capitalist power.¹²

The choice for the point of view: “China is (still) socialist” OR “China is TODAY a part of the imperialist world” will influence the strategical analyse of the actual tasks for communists

Another objective of the making this analyse is to come to the overall analysis of the actual political-economic situation of and in the world out of which will pulled the conclusions about the strategy and the tasks of the communists.

The following analysis, “1914-2014: Imperialism means war.” Written speech of the KKE at the International Communist Seminar (ICS) Brussels, 27-29 June 2014¹³, out of which I give now some parts, can bee seen as such:

Certain political forces identify imperialism with the military aggression against a country, with the policy of military interventions, blockades, with the effort to revive the old colonial policy. (...)

However, in this way, they conceal that imperialism, i.e. monopoly capitalism, is related to every capitalist country today. The bourgeois class of every country participates in the various imperialist unions and in the nexus of international relations amongst the capitalist states in order to advance their interests and on the basis of the strength (economic, political and military) of each bourgeois state. (...)

Today there are countries which are at the summit , in the first positions of the international imperialist system (it is illustrated with the schema of a pyramid in order to show the various levels occupied by the capitalist countries) a handful of countries one could say according to the Leninist expression. But this does not mean that all the other capitalist countries are victims of the powerful capitalist states, that the bourgeois class of most countries has submitted to the pressure, despite its general interest that it has been corrupted. This viewpoint does not take into account that it is the conscious obvious choice of the bourgeois classes for their countries to participate in this nexus of uneven interdependence and consequently it leads the struggle of the peoples in mistaken directions, like the anti-German direction in Europe and in the American continent only the anti-USA direction.

In contrast, the KKE assesses that the contemporary struggle must have an anti-monopoly, anti-capitalist direction, in no instance can it only be “anti-imperialist” with the content the opportunists give to this term, who identify imperialism with an aggressive foreign policy, with unequal relations, with war, with the so-called national question – detached from class exploitation, from the relations of ownership and power.(...)
The USA remains the first economic power, but with a significant reduction of its share in the Gross World Product. Until 2008, the Eurozone as a whole maintained the second position in the international capitalist market, a position which it lost after the crisis. China has already emerged as the second economic power, the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has been strengthened in the international capitalist unions, such as the IMF and the G20. The change in the correlation of forces among the capitalist states brings about changes in their alliances, as the inter-imperialist contradictions over the control and re-division of the territories and markets, zones of economic influence are sharpening, chiefly of the energy and natural resources, the transport routes of the commodities.

The inter-imperialist contradictions, which in the past led to dozens of local, regional wars and to two World Wars, continue to lead to tough economic, political and military confrontations, irrespective of the composition or recomposition, the changes in the structure and the framework of goals of the international imperialist unions, their so-called new "architecture". In any case, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", especially in the conditions of a deep crisis of capital's over-accumulation and important changes in the correlation of forces of the international imperialist system, in which the re-division of the markets rarely occurs without bloodshed.”¹⁴

The relationship capitalism-crisis-war leads to the increase of armaments, the creation of new military alliances, the modernization of older ones, like NATO.

Certain forces that see imperialism only as the “empire” of the USA and on this basis salute the emergence of new rising capitalist powers in global affairs, as well as the emergence of new inter-state unions. These developments are welcomed as the beginning of the emergence of a “multi-polar world”, which will “recompose” and give “new life” to the UN and other international organizations, which will escape from American “hegemony”. These approaches end up discussing how peace will be ensured in the framework of capitalism.

In fact, several political forces of different ideological orientation recognize the new intra-imperialist contradictions and the realignment in the world system and describe as “democratisation” of international relations, as a “multi-polar world” the tendency of the correlation of forces to change, as they had been shaped after the overthrow of the socialist countries and the enlargement and intensification of the activities of the NATO and EU over the last 20 years. This new balance of forces includes the reinforcement of Germany, Russia, China, Brazil and other states as well.

Their various proposals, such as the enlargement of the UN Security Council with other countries, or the upgrading of the role of the EU in the world or even that of Russia and China in international affairs, cannot align these developments on another basis. Because they cannot stop the intra-imperialist contradictions, which manifest themselves in the fields of natural resources, energy and transport networks, as well as in the conflict over the market shares. Competition between monopolies leads to localized or generalized military interventions and wars. This competition unfolds with all means that are possessed by the monopolies and the capitalist states which express their interests; it is reflected in interstate agreements, which are constantly disputed because of uneven development. That is imperialism, the source of war aggression of a smaller or wider scale.(...)

The race of the emerging capitalist powers in their effort to gain ground at the expense of older ones is being carried out in many regions, which have a crucial significance for the division of the plunder of the enormous wealth and energy deposits, market shares, the transport routes for commodities.

Of course, in every instance, these contradictions which are accompanied by imperialist interventions can be hidden under various pretexts, like the war “against the weapons of mass destructions”, ”for the promotion of democracy”, “against extremism and religious sectarianism”, ”against piracy”, for the “colour revolutions” etc.

These pretexts can not change the essence… (...)

The confrontation might to various extents embrace the entire region that extends from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa, to the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Caspian Sea. However, it may also break out in other regions as well, such as Africa, the region of Central and Eastern Asia, the Korean Peninsula, the Arctic etc.

The KKE also with the decisions of the 19th Congress is preparing and orienting the working class-popular masses regarding the possible involvement of our country in an imperialist war. The Programme of the KKE, which was adopted at the 19th Congress, notes that: «The dangers in the wider region are increasing, from the Balkans to the Middle East, for a generalized imperialist war and the involvement of Greece in it.

The struggle for the defense of the borders, the sovereign rights of Greece, from the standpoint of the working class and the popular strata is integral to the struggle for the overthrow of the power of capital. It does not have any relation with the defense of the plans of one or the other imperialist pole and the profitability of one or the other monopoly group.»¹⁵ (...)

(H)istory has taught us that even in conditions of occupation, the dissolution of the nation-state formation, the working class can not fight against occupation from the same standpoint as the bourgeois class and can not ally with any section of it. War and occupation are the extension of capitalist exploitation for the working class and poor popular strata, creations of the economic and political sovereignty of capital. The working class struggles against destitution, the oppression and violence of the occupier, the intensification of exploitation, against the international imperialist agreements. Its “homeland” is a homeland freed from the capitalists, outside of the imperialist coalitions, a fatherland where it will be the owner of the wealth it produces, where it will be in power. (...)

The ΚΚΕ has drawn the necessary conclusions from the armed struggle carried out during the Second World War against the fascist triple (German , Italian , Bulgarian ) foreign occupation of the country . Despite the preponderance of the armed sections of EAM - ELAS , which was led by the KKE, our Party, unfortunately, was unable to link the anti-fascist struggle , the struggle against foreign occupation with the struggle to overthrow the rule of capital in the country. That was because there was not a unified strategy within our ranks. Today, drawing valuable conclusions from the history of our party , we develop such a strategy, having before us the dangers of engagement of our country in new , local, regional , or more generalized imperialist wars .(...)

The stance towards the war is the stance towards the class struggle and the socialist revolution, a struggle for the transformation of this war into an armed class struggle, the “only war of liberation”, as Lenin characterized it. The analysis of Lenin is valuable which, developing the theory of the weakest link, i.e. seeing the possibility of a major sharpening of the contradictions happening previously, the creation of a revolution situation in a country or group of countries, scientifically grounded the possibility of the revolution initially prevailing in one country of a group of countries. Consequently the consultation, the common slogans and common activity with the revolutionary movement of other countries in such a war constitutes an important precondition for the prospect of the outbreak and victory of the socialist revolution in more countries, the possibility of another kind of cooperation or union of states, on the basis of social ownership, central planning with proletarian internationalism.

At the same time the KKE strengthens its struggle against opportunism, because as Lenin noted the “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism”¹⁶(...)

In conclusion, our struggle for a society where the means of production will be the property of the people (and not the property of the very few), where the economy will operate planned centrally and controlled by the workers themselves, with the aim of satisfying the needs of the people (and not the increase of the capitalists’ profits) is integrally connected to the struggle against the imperialist war and the "peace" imposed by the imperialists with the gun to the people's head, which prepares the new imperialist wars. (....)

Because Lenin’s theses continue to be relevant which note that “In such conditions, the slogans of pacifism, of international disarmament under capitalism, of arbitration, etc., are not only a reactionary utopia but the downright deception of the toilers, intended to disarm the proletariat and to divert it from the task of disarming the exploiters.

Only a proletarian communist revolution can lead humanity out of the deadlock created by imperialism and imperialist wars. No matter what difficulties the revolution may have to encounter and in spite of temporary failure of waves of counter-revolution the final victory of the proletariat is inevitable.”¹⁷¹⁸

Is the outcome of the discussion about the ACTUAL character of China decisive in the struggle against revisionism?

The analysis of th KKE about the ACTUAL political positions of the CCP and about the ACTAL political-economical situation in China is criticised in the "circles of self-declared communist organisations" as being influenced by Chruchov-Breznjevian "left"-formulated, revisionism:

El artículo del camarada Vagenas, muy crítico con China, nos indica que la dirección del KKE todavía es presa de las viejas concepciones soviéticas sobre China, surgidas principalmente a raíz de la crisis del movimiento comunista internacional que se produjo en la segunda mitad del siglo XX, y que se saldó con la ruptura política entre el Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (PCUS) y el Partido Comunista de China (PCCh). Por decirlo con otras palabras, la dirección del KKE demuestra que aún no ha roto, en esencia, con las concepciones jruschovistas y brezhnevianas sobre China, cosa que en apariencia contradice el carácter de partido marxista-leninista, libre de desviaciones ideológicas, que tanto reivindica.

(....)que los marxistas que, reconociendo el papel positivo desempeñado por Mao Zedong en el pasado, defienden en mayor o menor medida la China actual y las decisiones políticas de Deng Xiaoping, son una rara avis. Como ya dije, las raras excepciones en el movimiento comunista internacional, son por ejemplo el PTB o el PC de Gran Bretaña (marxista-leninista) liderado por el camarada Harpal Brar.¹⁹

A so-called “neutral” position in this discussion, but talking about existing “left-opportunist” position of “all is imperialism”:

Una serie de partidos comunistas de inspiración “prosoviética” y de obediencia ciega a Moscú, han pasado del “oportunismo de derechas” jruchovinano-gorvachoviano a un “izquierdismo dogmático” que impone un “corsé de hierro” a la política de alianzas para la lucha de clases, que reduciría estas al partido y sus “organizaciones de masas” afines y una política internacional de “todo es imperialismo”, que pretende poner en un mismo plano el Eje imperialista tradicional, (EEUU, Unión Europea y Japón) y a los países emergentes que limitán el campo de actuación de este Eje, los llamados BRICS, (Brasil, Rusia, China y Sudáfrica).

El partido que encabezaría esa nueva corriente en el seno del Movimiento Comunista Internacional, (MCI) sería el Partido Comunista de Grecia que, según García, quiere volver a imponerse al MCI como un nuevo “Partido-Guía”. (....) Sin embargo a pesar de haber hecho autocrítica de su apoyo al revisionismo soviético, principalmente a partir del XX Congreso del PCUS, García defiende que el KKE reproduce los mismos comportamientos del PCUS de Jruchov y Breznev con un discurso “izquierdista”. Estos comportamientos se pueden ver, según el artículo, en la pretensión del KKE de ser reconocido como “Partido-Guía” a nivel internacional y en reproducir las mismas acusaciones que los revisionistas soviéticos vertían contra la Revolución China.

(...) Personalmente creo que es un artículo bastante interesante que saca importantes temas de debate. Se puede estar de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con el artículo pero seguro que no deja a nadie indiferente.²⁰

Positions as now formulated by the KKE, were earlier already criticised as being "utopian-socialist" and “not-Marxist” by cadres of the WPB/PVDA/PTB, as the WPB-cadre Peter Franssen.²¹

The choice of point of view, “China has to be defended as 'real existing socialism' against every imperialist-bourgeois ideological attack“ OR “the Chinese politics of "reform and opening", started by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, has made of China TODAY "just" a centre of imperialism (in competition or alliance with other centres of imperialism)”, in this discussion, in the "prelude" of a possible imperialist war with global consequences, in which revolutionaries HAVE to develop strategical positions, can result in a "scission" in the international "circles" of communist organisations, similar to the "scission" in the Second International in the "prelude" of the First World War. In next articles I will analyse and write about the discussions and contradictions in the international circles of parties, organisations and yet-not-organised individuals who all present themselves as communist, revolutionary or/and Marxist and all are declaring to want to make a clear distinction between revisionism (bourgeois capitalism protecting line formulated in Marxist-sounding phraseology) and real Marxist analysis out of a proletarian class-position in order to develop real revolutionary strategy.

1http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2011/2011-03-04-china.html, The International role of China by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE,responsible for the international section of the CC , published in Communist Review 6th issue 2010

2http://interold.kke.gr/News/2010news/2010-10-06-kinezoi2.html, Statement of the Press Office concerning the agreements with China, Athens 4/10/2010

3http://interold.kke.gr/News/2010news/2010-10-04-kinezoi/index.html, The KKE Statement Concerning the Visit of the Chinese Delegation to Greece, 4/10/2010

4V.I. Lenin “ Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, Collected Works, Synchroni Epochi, vol.27 ps 378-379.

1. 5“India has sent 2 divisions to its borders with China”, http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/vprint/50479 .

6“India is increasing its military strength in response to China”, http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/opposite/indiareadiesforchinafight/index.php?print=Y

2. 7Report to the 16th Congress of the CPC, http://russian.china.org.cn/news/txt/2002-11/19/content_2050838.htm .

3. 8A. Liukin: “The Chinese “vision” and the future of Russia”, http://www.mgimo.ru/news/experts/document151024.phtml .

4. 9“China: increase in the rate of its economic development”, March 2010, http://www.imperiya.by/economics2-7364.html .

5. 10Over 80% of the population lives in the Eastern regions which account for about 10% of China’s territory. Source: Russian geographic website: “Description of China”, http://geo-tour.net/Asia/china.htm .

6. 11“The financial market of China”, http://www.globfin.ru/articles/finsyst/china.htm .

12http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2011/2011-03-04-china.html, The International role of China by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE,responsible for the international section of the CC , published in Communist Review 6th issue 2010

13http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/1914-2014-Imperialism-means-war-00001/, 1914-2014: Imperialism means war. Written speech of the KKE at the International Communist Seminar (ICS) Brussels, 27-29 June 2014 The written contribution of the KKE on the questions of the outline that the organizers posed: The characteristics of imperialism today.

14 Programme of the KKE. Adopted at the 19th Congress (11-14/4/2013)

15 Programme of the KKE.

16 V.I. Lenin . “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.”

17 V.I. Lenin. “Programme of the Russian Communist Party (B)”

18http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/1914-2014-Imperialism-means-war-00001/, 1914-2014: Imperialism means war. Written speech of the KKE at the International Communist Seminar (ICS) Brussels, 27-29 June 2014 The written contribution of the KKE on the questions of the outline that the organizers posed: The characteristics of imperialism today.

19https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”

20http://lamanchaobrera.es/en-defensa-del-pueblo-chino-respuesta-a-elisseos-vagenas-1o-parte/, En defensa del pueblo chino: Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1º Parte), 10 abril, 2014 | Sección: Comunismo, La izquierda, Opinión

21The text that is been put on the website o f the Workers Party of Belgium, http://www.wpb.be/, on Thursday, 17 November 2005, 12h40, "Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China". (The website wpb.be has been closed, therefore I putted it myself on the internet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NZDehsll_dDToNYzkh1POex98FvdQmvSIHgvtrvOAtQ/preview?pli=1#