Most important reason of EXISTENCE of the EU: increasing continually the level of exploitation of the European workers.

Karl Marx:The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ―an immense accumulation of commodities, its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity[1]”.
The analysis of a commmodity, it is presumed to be known, otherwise best to be red in the book “Capital” itself.
But I think that there is a Bourgeois economic concept which (only) illutrates reasonally well the “accumulation of commodities” and that is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). And when I am right, GDP is the accumulation in one year – in a country, in a continent or in the whole world of products and services, produced in that country, continent or in the world and sold at their prices).

Evolution of GDP (of the World or here the EU) gives an image of the condition of capitalism
Since say 1974, (the so-called “oil crisis”), global imperialism is in a structural overcapacity-crisis. Allthough competition can -for imperialists – solve temprary that problem (by destruction of capacity – best when it is  forced by the competitor of course). De falling demand, because of the impoverishment of the workers is temporarely “solved” by allowing to pay with your future income (credit). But this makes life more expensive because together with the price of the product, an interest has to be paid (on the cedit). The continued increase of GDP (and increase of the growth itself) , since WO II stopped. See the grafic 1 that shows the decrease of the growth of the GDP (until 2007).  

It is clear that the overall decrease of the GDP-growth is continuing after 2007.(see grafic 2)

Allthough capitalism has perfectioned the CAPACITY of the production of “wealth”, and the possibility or the CAPACITY (when that wealth would be distributed among the people) of continued increase of GDP/cap, it becomes clear that capitalism has reached the limits of its possibilities. (see grafic 3)

You see the effect of capitalism on “accumulation of commodities” (illustrated by GDP) from the beginning of capitalist development and the change into imperialism and  the effect of the 2 world-wars. Then you can see the enormous growth, in the years after WO II (with of course the effect of influx of extra-surplusvalue build on extra-exploitation of the workers in the “Third World” - the effect of colonialism), then the outbreak of the crisis in 1973-1980, with some conjunctural hiccups but a fundamental decrease of the GDP-growth/cap.

Of course this is NOT what each person (cap) is possesing or owning of that GDP. In fact, the TOTALITY of the World-GDP is initially in posession of or owned by the capitalists and “can” -if there is enough purchasing power – be BOUGHT. The GDP/Cap is theoretically what could be distributed equally to everyone. Of that enormous amount of “commodities” a part has to be spent for the “cost of wages“, the payment of the workers involved in the production. In the cost of wages is included all payment of social security.
All what increase the payment for the cost of wages (in what form ever) is decreasing the  amount of surplus-value.

Because, since the outbreak of the crisis in 1974 the overall RATE of GROWTH of  GDP is decreasing, (because the crisis there is development of overcapacity, which means existing production-capacty not to be used, because of deminishing capacity to BUY by the people (allthough the NEEDS are NOT decreasing) So overcapacity means a decrease of general purchasing power but NOT a decrease of general NEEDS.
Because there is a tendency, by the capitalists, even in a period of overcapacity to increase the surplus-value, the capitalists are pressing for an increase of the rate of exploitation (higher productivity or less wage). 
Less wage means less components of that wage: so ALSO less social security (pensions, health care,....) You see that (grafic 4)althtough there is (temporarily) from 1991 until 2006 in the EU a slight growth of GDP, in the same period the “social expenditure” is decreasing – and so the level of exploitation is INCREASING.

Increasing the level of exploitation of the European workers is the FIRST reason of existence of the EU
Increasing the level of exploitation (and decreasing the “social expenditure” is one aspect of it) is the overall policy of the EU. Because the EU is the state-instrument of the (european part of the) capitalists in its monopolist (imperialist) stage.
The grafic 4 of a (still) growth of GDP against a decrease of “social expenditure” is made based on documents of the EU itself.

Allthough GDP is still increasing, there is less growth. Therefore (to maintain the same level of surplus-value extracted out of the workforces) the ESSENTIALS of Europe's policy  is to raise the level of exploitation of the workers and so increase the productivity and decrease the payment for the workforce (wage and  taxes on wages, and all contribution for vital - vital for the workers - services and funds.
And so you see thatsocial expenditure” is already decreasing (grafic 5)a long time, before the ACTUAL austerity-plans everywhere in Europe.

What is included by “Social Expenditure”
And now about the different types of social expenditure (for example pensions) as % of GDP (and of social expenditure)

As you can see (in grafic 6) is “pensions” the biggest part of “social expenditure”.So that is the reason that EVERYWHERE in Europe, member-state governements are implementing pension-plans which has one objective: lessen the needed funds out of which pensions has to be paid. (and THAT is the objective for example for the “increase of the age of pension”)
You see for yourself that “sickness/healthcare” will be subject of the next attack. And the “disability-plans” in the member-states where those are strongly developed (as WAS the case in the Netherlands before the annulation of the “Wet ArbeidsOngeschiktheid” (WAO) and IS now the case of Belgium with its developed system of “brugpensioen”)
Also in the memberstates where there is (still) a good sistem of “replacing income in case of unemployment”, this will be under attack.
The overall already since long time decrease of social expenditure is the result of the already implemented austerity plans (like those in Germany on, for example, “unemployment”)

The essentials behind the decrease of social expenditure: decrease of cost of wages in all its aspects. That is what Marx called: increasing the level of exploitation
And when social expenditure is decreasing..... the social protection RECEIPTS can decrease also,...and that is another wish of the capitalists.
You can see that in the whole EU there are similar systems of social protection receipts.(grafic 7)

They were the “gift” of the capitalists after the Second World War to the workers so that their class-struggle would not develop in a revolutionary direction to change the base of the system. (the example of the Soviet Union was close, and there was a lot of sympathy of the workers for that alternative system. The system of social receipts for the development of a system of social expenditure is principally the same in whole Europe.
But concretely each nation (or what now is a member-state of the EU) had his “own” system. So now it just looks like as if it is just the respective member-state's “national governement” who is....
-         limiting unemployment-payment in the time,
-         lowering the payment as alternative income in case of unemployment as well,
-         sometimes increase the age of pension,
-         or stopping all possibility of “disability-subsidy” (sometimes called “pre-pension” or in Dutch “brugpensioen”).

But it is all part of the overall policy of the state of the European monopoly-capitalists: increasing the level of exploitation.
And this can only be stopped if the European working class decides to break the power of those monopoly-capitalists, expropriationg them and to build a socialist planeconomy that produces in function of real NEEDS.
Fighting (in defense) against deterioration of once achieved reforms AND then just in each member-state of the EU apart AND NOT building of ONE European workers mass-struggle-organisation with an anti-imperialist program of “expropriating” all privatised sectors and former (member-)state-enterprises or -services and all monopolies and monopoly-capital financial institutions to make of them unified public European enterprises under control of a voted, working and periodical public justifying “parliament” (with abolishing of all installed but non-voted European institutions,.... is what Lenin called “economism”.
Of course this includes the building of ONE European organisation of the van-guard of the working-class a European Communist Party (and NOT a multitude of “national” -member-state communist parties).

(the data on which the grafics are based you can find them on: Eurostat Website: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat or on the site of OECD)

[1]             The beginning of the book of Karl Marx “Capital -A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, Book One: The Process of Production of Capital”.


The creation of myths by the actual leadership of the WPB (PVDA/PTB) after the cremation of Ludo Martens

The “renewal” of the WPP between 2004 and 2008 is ideologically and politically based on “The Resolution of 1999. NON-agreeing with that resolution could be one of the reasons of being expelled out of the party as the by Boudewijn Deckers leaded installed leadership in 2004 argued against Nadine Rosa-Rosso and Luk Vervaet.
Now, in the “in memoriam” texts and speeches, the ACTUAL leadership is insinuating and suggesting that Ludo Martens was the main-responsible for that “Resolution of 1999. Or that he AGREED with the political and ideological line of that text.
The political bureau of the WPB wrote:
“What is perhaps less known is that Ludo himself has put the first stone for the serious party-renewal. In 1999, before he went to Congo, he made after de bad election-result an elaborated document about the profound sectarism in the party. The party must get rid of “always knowing better” and the “pedant pointing finger”, was his opinion, and has to become a modern open party without denying her principles. It is that renewal which between 2004 and 2008 is more profoundly worked out and is accepted on the party-congress in 2008. In the period afterwards the party tripled her membership to 4.5000 members.[1]
And the actual WPB-president Peter Mertens said in an interview:
“Ludo was a revolutionary. Ludo was noting much. He noted what the people told him. Always noting. Nothing allow getting lost (...) And Ludo was really listening. He wrote it down. He took people serious (...) It is so that the party-renewal has started. In 1999. We were with the elections again walked against the wall. And that opened the debate. What had to change in the party? Hoe we have to overcome deep-rooted mistakes? How can we become a party which has really influence on the things? We have, on advice of Ludo, spoken with 470 people. And the first, who read all that material, was Ludo himself. He has taken it very serious. And our co-operators said: away with that pedant pointing finger, away with dogmatism, away to thing in black-white, away from sectarism. Becoming a party which has really influence on things. A flexible, open party. But also a party fix to principles.[2]
With the ACTUAL orientation on a program of REFORMS, Ludo Martens certainly would not agree! In a book, which is been always promoted as a PARTY-document (so as a collective point of view of the whole party) “From Tien An Men until Timisoara – struggle and debates within the WPB” he wrote about the limits of the propagation of reforms by the vanguard-party in the class-struggle.
Now, from 2004, the WPB is propagating radical national income redistributing reforms as they should be the most radical possible program-points of the class-struggle. This was NEVER the point of view of Ludo Martens.
“The Marxist-Leninist doctrine underlines four essential aspects of democratic reforms under capitalism. They are in the first place the result of popular struggle; in the second place they are granted to deceive the masses and to push them in reformist direction; in the third place is every democratic measure limited, incomplete en can in any moment again been cancelled and finally the revolutionaries can use the bourgeois democracy to propagate the necessity of the socialist revolution and in this way she can play a positive role.[3]

In the SAME text Ludo was warning for a revisionist orientation when just focussing on the struggle for “possible” democratic reforms.
“It is useful to study the class-position of revisionists who openly stepped into the imperialist camp: they have cancelled class-analysis and the principle of the class-struggle, as well in the imperialist as in the socialist society. They are for all communists the teachers by negative example.
The still remaining members of the Belgian Communist Party are confirming that Lenin was wrong to speak about bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy; that the democratic rights in the West were fully and only the result of the struggle of the workers-movement and that it was not correct to name them bourgeois and that the extension of the existing democracy will lead without revolution to socialism. "[4]

And as can be proved that behind the argumentation of “The party must get rid of ‘always knowing better’ and the ‘pedant pointing finger’ “, in fact was hidden “get rid of the (Bolshevik) principle of the working-class-vanguard organisationit is a LIE to say “it was Ludo’s opinion”.
And “insinuating” or “suggesting” that Ludo Martens was in fact putting the first stone of the party-renewal between 2004 and 2008, by being the author of “Resolution of 1999, or that he fully approved its political and ideological line, is MISLEADING members, sympathisers or further public. It is a form of NECROFILIE!

About the insinuation of the authorship of Ludo Martens of a text about the elections of 1999
So I come now to the famous Resolution of 1999. The main orientation is to be found in its first lines:
« Of: Central Committee 7th august 1999
To: Until the level of the delegates of the provincial congress
Part. nr: 1770.899
Resolution of the Central Committee about the election campaign
1. It is not normal that we are stagnating today, after thirty year of permanent presence on the domain, ten years after the climax of the anticommunist campaign, after the most important movements of mass struggle that Belgium was knowing out of his history, after that we were militating in all the movements of struggle and after what was perhaps the best election campaign out of our own history. Therefore we have to conclude that the elections formed a big political defeat for the party, were mistakes emerged that we were carry along already many years.
2. All the conclusions that we can make, analysing the elections, are already in « Party of the revolution ». We have to analyse why we were not capable to rectify and even not to assimilate what a Congress has decided, based on the centralising of many reports and notes. That is posing the problem of the ideological struggle for the real unifying through the implementation of the decisions in the concrete practice.
3. Are the causes of this defeat first of all intern or extern? Is the most important mistake made by the party of is the problem, the level of consciousness of the masses? « The result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, but it express the actual political level of the masses»
4. We are the most important target of all bourgeois, petty bourgeois and opportunist powers. To the outside, it is in our interest to underline the following: the unified party of capital is struggling against the unified party of the workers.
5. But intern and on the level of the cadres we have to say that our intern mistakes are the most important, because with these same enemies, after all our political activities of the past four years, we had normally had doing better. Franco D’Orazio: « the defeat of the WPB is serious. With all members that you have, this result means that you have a serious problem. »
6. Saying that our bad result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, is putting his head in the sand, is sectarism, bureacratism, justifying the lack of capacity to bring forward a simple revolutionary understandable message. Not going to the base of things, in the analysis of our mistakes, is the biggest danger. Since the 5th congress, years have been passing by and we have little rectified…. »

The whole resolution is going out of the idea: « When a communist party is participating in elections, than the election - result, makes a conclusion about the working of the party and her members IN GENERAL ». So a bad result in the election, for example less votes than the elections before, is saying: « the party is working badly »……and a better result, and perhaps chosen delegates say: « the party and her members are working in a good way. » So having good elections results would decide about the correct functioning of the revolutionary communist party! The objective, having as much votes (or chosen delegates) as is possible, decide about the political line, the organisation criteria and the guidelines for each member.
But these conclusions, about which is said: « they are already all in ’Party of the Revolution’ » are only to justify with a specific PART of « Party of the Revolution » ……namely:
Chapter III, part 3, « fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses»

Perhaps you are saying: « Nico you are seeing ghosts! » OK, I will prove this statement.
In 2003 the WPB participated again in an election. In the analysis of the results, the leadership of the WPB spoke about « a debacle ». It resulted in an « intern crisis-situation ». The whole history I will analyse later. But there was a resolution made by the leadership of the WPB (in fact of a kind of interim-leadership - installed by themselves and NOT elected on a congress) in 2004: « Resolution about the former general secretary Nadine Rosa-Rosso and the former cadre-responsible Luk Vervaet, 5th of April 2004 »
In this “Resolution” is written:
« In March 1999 the Central Committee accepted a resolution against leftism, also against her[5] conceptions. The Resolution of June 1999 is making up the balance of the past election-campaign.
Point 1 says: « We have to say that the elections were a big political defeat for the party, in which we see mistakes that we are carry along already many years. »
Point 2 says: « We have to study again « Party of the Revolution », ‘chapter III, part 3: fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses’.
Probably are all big points of balance about the elections already in this. »

And then in a note by this paragraph « We are quoting here the original version of this point like it was distributed to the members of the CC, just after the CC of June
1999. In the version distributed to all party-members the phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution, chapter III, part 3 » was replaced by a phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution »in general .»
So there was in
1999 a cadre (influenced by opportunism) who made a project-resolution that has to be discussed before distributing to the whole party. The CC criticised not the global line of this project-resolution, they just make the remark: « We have to say that we are basing ourselves on the whole of congress-documents and not jus on one document out of a whole. » And so only that phrase was changed (that proved that the whole resolution was indeed based on ONLY chapter III, part 3).
And that resolution had to be assimilated by all the members….
Further in Resolution of 1999 is said: « It is adventurism and activism to intervene in the ‘riots’ (mend is the riots of the young “allochtones”, children of migrant-parents, Nico) when we have no line to enter the environments of the young migrants, » While this statement in line with chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution » is in CONTRADICTION with another document of that same 5th congress were it said:
« Practice is the starting point and is staying in the central attention of the activity of the party. We lack often initiative, that can mobilise the masses, that lames the cadres by endless discussions about « the line ».
We can endless discuss with some petty bourgeois about « the criminality among young migrants » and even work out « a line about this ». But to what lead this? What is the use of all this? To which practice does it lead? It is better to organise activists who accept to work under young migrants, to bring them an alternative for drugs and little criminality and give them formation about the relation between drugs, capitalism and repression… (…)
Which attitude do we have against what the bourgeoisie calls « the riots oft the young immigrants »? Of course we accuse the filthy reactions in the media. But that is what every petty bourgeois can do. The communists throw themselves in the practice and in the struggle, at the side of the most oppressed masses. Our most important just has to be, to help them to organise themselves for to struggle, offer resistance, to let the world know about their situation and their points of view, and to get a socialist consciousness. Our most important task is not "work out the line" to give an answer to petty bourgeois, but at the other hand to work out a policy for the practice among the oppressed. The spontaneous reactions of some members and cadres are coloured by prejudges. »

This is jut one example (I will perhaps, when there should be discussion further analyse the Resolution of 1999) that led to my conclusion that the political line of Resolution of 1999 is that of opportunism coming out of (on of) the 5th congress documents; and is in contradiction with the revolutionary line, ALSO in the documents of the 5th congress.[6]

Ludo made a totally other analyse of the elections of 1999 than is written in “Resolution of 1999”.
I want just give her an ALTERNATIVE analyse about the elections of 1999, a more consequent communist and Marxist analyse, that of Ludo Martens, who was apparently not followed by the rest of the leadership of the WPB… not in 1999 and not in 2004 or in 2008!
In Solidair nr. 24 • 16 June 1999. Ludo Martens: We don’t strive after easy victories.
A short speech of Ludo Martens in Brussels on a WPB-meeting
« In 1979, by the founding of the WPB, Kabila was here. He was sought by the police of Mobuto and had to hide himself.

Zaire it was impossible for him to let the massed know of his program. He had not any possibility to mobilise the masses for his just cause. He had no public that he could convince. Mobutu and his mates had all the state power in their hands and their blind violence caused hundred of thousands of deaths. At the same time they worked with a devilish demagogy. Those elements are going together.
This is a characteristic of fascism. Hitler had Goebbels. Several months before the war, in 1939, he still organised with his Nazi-party a « peace-congress ».

Today we see how the whole imperialist world gets more and more characteristics of fascism.

With blind violence
Yugoslavia has been bombed, and is presented to us as a humanitarian intervention to save the peace.
Imperialism is breaking today with all rules of the international justice. Nine year ago they attacked
Iraq, in name of the international justice.
Who could imagine, twenty years ago, that the NATO, against al rules of international justice would start a most barbaric war of aggression in the heart of
The Congolese people have made innumerable sacrifices, under the 32 years of Mobutu-dictatorship, to choose finally to chase that individual with the weapons.

But before it was so far, they have seen pass al kinds of liars and demagogues. You cannot predict when the people have enough of all those lies and violence of the bourgeoisie. Those who strive for easy victories find what they want in the bourgeois parties and are doing just that what the bourgeoisie is asking them to do.

Just by the beginning Agalev[7] has taken that road and today that party is a speaking-tube of the big bourgeoisie and of imperialism. Hopefully they get into the government. Everybody will see that in no way they dare to attack the fundaments of this unjust society, of capitalism and imperialism.

The WPB has led an outstanding campaign. In that spirit we have to go yet more to the masses, place ourselves on their level and convince them of the necessity to organise themselves and to fight. We have to have confidence in the fact that the masses one day will have enough experience to see the criminal nature of the economic system that is exploiting and suffocating the world. »

[1]    http://www.pvda.be/weekblad/artikel/ter-nagedachtenis-van-ludo-martens-1946-2011.html
[2]              http://www.pvda.be/nieuws/artikel/peter-mertens-ludo-martens-was-een-revolutionair.html , 27 June 2011 11:29, “ Peter Mertens: “Hij had de wijsheid niet in pacht, hij ging ernaar op zoek”.
[3]              "Van Tien An Men tot Timisoara - strijd en debatten binnen de PVDA (1989-1991)", Ludo Martens en PVDA-uitgaven 1994, p.
[4]    Idem.
[5] Pointing at Nadine Rosa Rosso, Secretary General (replacing the president of the WPB, Ludo Martens who was almost full-time working in Congo) of the WPB from 1995 until end 2003-begin 2004 when she was expelled out of the WPB. (Nico)
[6] It is typically that the book “Party of the revolution” which is a compilation of voted 5th congress-documents (of which the project-documents were written by DIFFERENT cadres and with apparently DIFFERENT class-positions) is now presented as a book written by Ludo Martens
[7] Agalev - Anders GAan LEVen, ‘to live in an alternative way’ was the name of the ecologist party in the Dutch-spoken part of Belgium.( Nico)


The International Communist Seminar: a gathering of organisations strongly “contaminated” with opportunism and organisations fallen for revisionism.

Each year a gathering of  communist parties and orgnisation all over the world is organised by the WPB in Brussels. (see  www.icsbrussels.org )
But in fact as I will prove this is a gathering of organisations – I will give the example of the Greek KKE- seriously “contaminated” by opportunism (dogmatism, eclecticism, empirism) and some organisations are totally lost in revisionism and are in fect transformed in REFORMIST (so objactively BOURGEOIS) organisations. Of the last ones I will give the example of the WPB. The other organisations are part  of one of those two catagories.
I will take the example of the “General conclusions” which are approved by ALL the participating organisations. In a sequence of articles I will prove their opportunism.
“The objective conditions at world level are favorable for the strengthening of communist parties. The general crisis of the capitalist system is worsening and tensions are sharpening. Far and wide, in various countries and continents, we are witnessing the rising up of the popular masses against the dire consequences of the crisis. In this context,  communist parties need to strengthen themselves on all fronts: ideological, political and organizational.[1]
 This is a dogmatic idealist statement. Without first a clear and concrete analysis of “what IS a communist party” this concept can “filled” with al kind of “ideas” about the determination of “a communist party”. The “general conclusions” of the Third International were in fact: “The objective conditions at world level are favorable” .....for world-revolution, of which the Third International was defining the best possible strategy. (Read and compare here)
“ (...)… communist parties and their mass organizations have to be reinforced.
 1. Current events put the passage from capitalism to socialism on the agenda. Communist parties have a crucial role to play in organizing the revolt, giving orientation to the struggle and showing the way to a fundamental questioning of the system of exploitation. The past and ongoing struggles everywhere attest to this fact. It makes a qualitative difference if the masses are politically educated, the vanguard organized, and the party ideologically and politically consolidated.[2]
It is not that an organisation is NAMED “communist party” or declare herself being “a communist party” that she is automatically (and without internal struggle between a revolutionary and a bourgeois line about “the crucial role of a communist party”): the vanguard organisation of the working class.
2. The party’s character depends on the strategic goal it chooses to achieve, i.e. socialist revolution, which means a break with the bourgeois system. For this very reason, one of its essential tasks is to distinguish itself from any form of opportunism or electoralism. Any illusion as to a fundamental reform of the capitalist system must be cut short, and the strategy implemented by reformist political forces to promise workers liberation through progressive reforms must be unmasked.[3]
As I will prove further (or you can already read here in this document more about it) It is just because NO organisation in the ICS was/is  not be able to “distiguish itself from any form or opportunism or electoralism” that organisations themselves still profiling as “communist parties” who still claim “to achieve socialist revolution” (WITHOUT clearly and concretely analysing what “socialism” and “socialist revolution” MEAN) have become “reformist political forces” which “promise” IN FACT “workers liberation through progressive reforms”. I see as example of  the first kind of organisations, the Greek KKE and as example of the second, the Belgian WPB (PVDA/PTB)
“3. The distinguishing feature of communist parties lies in their loyalty to the revolutionary road and hence to the supremacy of class struggle. It is through class struggle and confrontation with the bourgeois forces that the party gets stronger and the working class wakes up to the consciousness that it has a historic task to fulfill. Parliamentary struggle and the work in bourgeois institutions are nothing but precious tools to better address the masses and lead mass struggles. Opportunists, who seek to spruce up the capitalist system, abandon class struggle and are completely submerged by parliamentary work.[4]
 Is this not happening with the Belgian WPB (and what has become by the former -Dutch - Marxist-Leninist organisation ..... which is now called “Socialist Party”- SP) focussing on election-campaigns in which all the intermediary “political and organisational” work is just a preparatioon of those election-campaigns.?
“4. One of the distinguishing features of communist parties lies in the recognition of the vanguard role of the working class. It is of utmost importance that the party be present in the workplace, in businesses, for this is where the decisive political and ideological struggle takes place, the fundamental battle between labor and capital. The party must constantly reinforce its proletarian character, also by paying great attention to work in the trade unions, the mass organizations of the working class. Within the unions it strives to create centers of struggle and defense of a class struggle-oriented trade unionism, and to connect the aspirations and demands of the workers with the political struggle, namely the overthrow of the capitalist order.  Communists' importance and role in the trade union movement bestows on them high responsibilities: they have to be models of commitment, militancy and steadfastness in the defense of the working class and its interests, in their struggle and their efforts to provide information and education that is connected to actual practice. That is how communists can constantly improve the way they fulfill their responsibilities towards the workers.[5]
 When with the (only formal) “recognition of the vanguard role of the working class” is not linked to the “recognition” that the vanguard party is at the same time integrated part of the working class. This means that ALL its members and ALL its cadres are “on the class-position of the working class”, so that the individual personal interests have become identical to the objective historical interests of the working class: as fast as possible, as soon as possible, as efficient as possible, involving the biggest part of the working masses as possible, as globally as possible, GET RID OF CAPITALISM (IN ITS ULTIMATE POSSIBLE IMPERIALIST STAGE). When with the (formal) recognition of the vanguard of the working class” is hidden a petty-bourgeois fear of the violence of the class-struggle, or is hidden that there is no total dedication to the revolution but rather a feeling of “hoping that the revolution can wait a little time” or “perhaps the most work will be done by the part of the working class in another part of the world and we can just go quietly into socialism 'following' the tide”. This attitude of postponing revolution becomes in fact a bourgeois class-position of protecting the continuing of capitalism.
“5. Strengthening communist parties and preparing them for the challenges that lie ahead is the main task to be fulfilled in periods preceding struggles. First of all, the situation in each country has to be analyzed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. An analysis has to be made of the classes and the balance of forces in play, in order to develop a revolutionary strategy and a policy of social alliances. A program has to be devised with immediate demands in support of the aspirations and needs of the working masses and which serves the revolutionary strategy. In the field of organization, communist parties use democratic centralism as an essential method and try constantly to improve its application.[6]
 A “division” of the program in a program with radical REFORMS and a program of (future?) revolution is a step towards REFORMISM by the way of the “theory of stages”. So it will be the party that will decide what are the most advanced “immediate demands in support of the aspirations and needs of the working masses”. But those “immediate demands” are other in the more advanced part of the working class than in the intermediary part and certainly other than in the more backward part of the working class. Speaking of a certain formulation of  “immediate demands” will so lead to.....economism, a tendency that Lenin decides to fight against BEFORE could bespoken of organisation of the “vanguard of the workingclass” in a party. (read here about the fight against economism)
 “6. While preparing for confrontations, communist parties must establish firmer ties with the masses. Wherever workers are struggling, they have to be present and affirm themselves as an autonomous force with mobilizing slogans. The concrete situation differs from one country to another and it is of utmost importance for the party to be able to assess strengths and weaknesses correctly as well as the level of consciousness of both vanguard and masses. It is necessary to develop a revolutionary strategy and tactics that will allow the masses to be set in motion. Indeed, the masses learn from experience, provided the party helps them avoid reformist and deceptive pitfalls. Appropriate tactics are used to assist the masses in gaining revolutionary consciousness as well as to rally as many allies as possible from among small and medium peasants, self-employed workers and other popular strata. Irrespective of its size, a communist party strives to strike deeper roots among the toiling masses.
7. Whether we will be able to seize all opportunities the crisis of the system offers to propagate socialism, will depend on whether our communist parties are vigilant, both ideologically and politically. The crisis of capitalism offers communists great opportunities, for many illusions about the blessings of capitalism have been shattered. The moment has come to convince those who are criticizing only neo-liberalism that the choice to be made is not a choice of policy but of system. The time has come to convince those who are criticizing the absence of strong measures against banks and speculators that the power of capital cannot be reformed; it can only be overthrown. The socialist system has to be put forward as the alternative. Propaganda for socialism has to be present in mass agitation, and not just as an idea to bring out when the time is ripe.[7]
So with the formulation of those principles in fact is said: revolution will be done in one country at the time, with a NATIONAL communist party to lead it. How KKE (as one of the most respected participating party (to the ICS)is an example of such dogmatic eclectic opportunism  (found in the formulation of these “General Conclusions” you can read here..... And just “propaganda for socialism”....all the parties of the SECOND International did this....and they were all becoming reformist!
“8. Whether communist parties will advance among the masses will depend first and foremost on whether they play a vanguard role in the struggle against austerity plans and war adventures, for social and democratic demands as well as for national and social liberation. Communists are the best defenders of immediate demands, as they fight for a society without exploitation of the workers. Working class power and social alliances are built through day-to-day struggles. It is in the struggle that the party develops authority, expertise and a strong presence among the working class. This will only happen insofar as the party takes responsibility for mobilizing the masses, making them aware and organizing them. The party will do this through its autonomous work and through the presence of its members in trade unions and mass organizations.[8]
 Here is formulated that revolution will not be of our times, it will happen (IF it will happen) in a FAR future, while in the mean time we will be busy in economic class-struggle and in action of solidarity whith those “far away” involved in open colonial war, and cannot decide to postpone revolution any longer. Perhaps there will be done the most important revolutionary struggle so that for us once it will be more easy to go to socialism. So this is NOT a proletarian class-position speaking but a petty-bourgeois class-position....which finally will lead to a BOURGEOIS class-position.
“9. It is important to assess the party's interventions in mass struggles constantly. This concerns the policy and tactics adopted as well as the results pertaining to the strengthening of the party and the mass organizations. The practice of criticism and self-criticism on the basis of Marxism-Leninism is essential in order to generalize our successes and rectify our errors. A party that applies such a materialist and dialectic practice will make faster progress.[9]
 This is making mist out of what are the essentials of Marxism (even when you are talking about Marxism-Leninism) Marxism is nothing more than applying dialectical and historical materialism (out of  a self-chosen proletarian class-position) to analyse the world in order to come to knowledge how to change that world as radical as possible. A party of which each member and each cadre is applying this will only make the only revolutionary progress possible and as fast as possible.
 “10. The crisis hits all layers of the working class.
        ·         It hits women insofar as unemployment, underemployment, working conditions, salaries, specific women's rights and a multitude of discriminatory attitudes are concerned. Women were in the front line during the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
        ·         It hits migrant workers, refugees, undocumented workers. We particularly salute the strikes and militant demonstrations by undocumented workers in France, demanding access to decent jobs with full rights.”[10]
 The BEST “solidairty” with uprisings and revolt which have to develop into anti-imperialist struggle and for socialist revolution, is to work on the revolution in your own region, in which you have a task to fulfill (if you consider yourself as “vanguard” or .....”communist”, which is corresponding to the objective interests of the working class of which you (as self-labeled “communist”) are making a part of. Declaring “solidarity” and publish “declarations” or organise solidarity manifestations is just keeping people busy (“the movement is all the objective nothing” as Bernstein said)
·         “It also hits young people, who are often victims of growing unemployment, cutbacks in education and social security, flexible employment and the lengthening of the job career. For communist parties, this is a new opportunity to rejuvenate their ranks and recruit new forces among a generation that is “fed up” and is looking for a real way-out, which is socialism. Communist parties should also renew their methods of work: they must adapt to the era of electronic and instant communication in combination with the classical methods. The potential of those new methods for mobilization has largely been proven in the recent uprisings in the Arab world and elsewhere.[11]
 It is not the FORM in which you are “communicating” but which political and strategical line you are communicating which is decisive. It is not “before all” the young you have to organise, but the “vanguard” ....and normally they are young (as Marx, Engels and Lenin were when they become politically active)
Each organisation (bourgeois, fascist ... or proletarian) try to organise young people...
11. In any mass work, the strengthening of the party through the recruitment of new members is the top priority. about it is a question of building an unshakable party, on which depend the orientation and the success of future battles.[12]
 This could be the guideline of bourgeois or even a fascist party.
 “Immersion in class struggle is an excellent opportunity to train new generations of cadres and members. A significant proportion of young people - and certainly the generation that experienced the anti-communist wave after 1989 – have never witnessed a crisis of the importance or gravity of the present one. Today, they are preparing to take up their revolutionary role in the decades to come. [13]
 “Immersion in class-struggle”......? No, development of a proletarian class-position, the choice of being part of the working class, leaving behind possibilities of “changing” class-side behind. Read all the texts of Mao Zedong to “intellectuals”. (read for example here the paragraph "Mao Zedong in 1939 about the 4 May movement of 1919:" which is a part of this text of Mao Zedong)
“12. It is imperative that progress be made in international cooperation between communist parties, both at world and regional levels, through bilateral and multilateral meetings. We confront the same enemy, imperialism. We suffer the same attacks, we share worries and objectives. There are many possibilities for consultation, collaboration and mutual assistance, which should be exploited to the hilt. Mutual assistance means, above all, creating possibilities for learning from the most advanced experiences and achievements. This has to be done in the theoretical and political fields, in the field of party building, leadership of mass struggles and building of mass organizations. The experience acquired through class struggle, electoral campaigns, mass communication and agitation has to be shared more intensively. Mutual assistance and solidarity are essential.[14]
 “Learning from the most advanced experiences and achievements”, whatever could this be then learning (by studying) from the Russian and Chinese revolution. And why inventing boiling water of “internationalism” when you have the example of the III International....or then you have first to analyse in which they were correct and in what they were mistaken. But again, compare the “”general conclusions” of the ICS with those of the IIIrd International. (read here)

[1]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[2]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[3]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[4]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[5]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[6]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[7]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[8]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[9]              20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[10]            20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[11]            20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[12]            20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[13]            20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011
[14]            20th International Communist Seminar, “The strengthening of  communist parties in times of a deepening capitalist systemic crisis”, Brussels, 13-15 May, 2011, www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, General conclusions, 15 May 2011