Thursday, July 05, 2012

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-On War and Revolution-Loukas Karliaftis’ Speech in the Athens Debate

Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forebears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

*************
On War and Revolution-Loukas Karliaftis’ Speech in the Athens Debate

Due to the conditions of the war and the repression the groups did not unite as instructed by the founding conference of the Fourth International, and in addition differences had developed during the war. There were now, in effect, three tendencies: of Anastasiades, that closest to the position of Pablo, which supported the defence of the USSR, and participation in the resistance, but were unable to do so, and support for it, calling for a Communist/Socialist government and for the withdrawal of British troops; of Karliaftis and ‘Mastroyannis’, which opposed support to the resistance and for a Communist/Socialist government, but supported the defence of the USSR; and of Agis Stinas (Spyros Priphtis, 1920-87), which opposed both the defence of the USSR and support for the resistance and for a Communist/ Socialist government.

The initiative to unite these groups came from the International Secretariat, which sent Pablo and Sherry Mangan to a clandestine unification conference held in a ravine on Mount Pentelicus near Athens in July 1946 (Alan Wald, The Revolutionary Imagination, Chapel Hill, 1983, p.l96; Stinas, Mémoires, pp.275-6). The largest single group was that of Karliaftis, which secured a majority for its views in the conference and on the Central Committee, but when it came to the political bureau the Stinas group voted in favour of the tendency led by Anastasiades. Agreement was gained over the right for all tendencies to express their views in the discussion bulletin (those of Stinas appear on pp.276-83 of his Mémoires), the organisation assumed the name of the International Communist Party of Greece (KDKE), and launched a weekly newspaper, Ergatike Pali (Workers Fight).

In September 1946 an agreement was signed with the Greek Communist Party (KKE) to hold a series of three public debates in a theatre (by invitation only) in October and November in Athens. The first, for which the main speaker from the Trotskyists was Karliaftis, took place on 13 October, and a report appearing in the British Trotskyist press gave the result as being 89 votes cast for the Trotskyist case and 542 for the Stalinists (Greek Debate, in Socialist Appeal (RCP), no.4, Mid-November 1946). The second, for which the chief Trotskyist speaker was Stinas, took place on 3 November (for extracts from Stinas’ speech, cf. his Mémoires, pp.283-9) and the Trotskyists gained 239 votes for the Stalinists’ 453. It should be noted that the majority of votes cast for the Trotskyists’ case came from members of the KKE who were convinced by their arguments. The following year Stinas’ group broke with the International Communist Party, and a report about the trial and deportation of 13 Trotskyists that appeared in the British press alleged that he had disappeared (Class War in Greece, in Socialist Appeal (RCP), no.48, September 1947). As Stinas’ speech has been substantially reproduced in French, but Karliaftis’ has not been available in any Western European language, we print the full text of his contribution to this debate below.

The KKE’s extraordinary decision to debate with people and organisations that they had characterised as “provocateurs” and “in the service of fascist reaction” was primarily an attempt to head off questions that were arising inside the ranks of the KKE and the EAM (the Greek resistance movement). These were a direct result of the sell-outs in Lebanon, Caserta and Varkiza, betrayals that led to the complete ideological, political and military disarmament of the resistance, directly aiding domestic and foreign reaction.

Immediately prior to this debate and on the eve of the second guerrilla war led by Velouchiotis it should be noted that the Stalinists, through the use of their secret police, the OPLA, had already exterminated hundreds of Trotskyists. This was solely due to the fact that they were the only force to fight consistently for the transformation of the Second World War into a civil war, and hence had correctly viewed the advance of British imperialism as reactionary, and not the ‘liberation’ that the KKE claimed.

The slaughter of unarmed civilians in December 1944 by Britain’s General Scobie in Syntagmata Square in central Athens was thus a tragic confirmation of the warnings of the Trotskyists.

**************

A well-intentioned discussion about solving the problems faced by the workers’ movement, about the struggles of the proletariat for their social liberation and that of oppressed classes generally, as well as a settlement of the differences which exist amongst the various tendencies in the workers’ movement, must presume some definitions and the acceptance of certain principles.

For us, for the KDKE (Fourth International), these principles, both the starting point and the method of investigation, are to be found in the acceptance of the teachings of Marx and Engels and of the other great teachers: Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky. It consists first of all of the acceptance of their method, historical materialism, and secondly of the laws which characterise capitalist society and economy, and determine its development and decline. Thirdly, it consists in recognising the class struggle, and accepting that this struggle within class society leads unavoidably to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Here is what Marx himself says about this part of his teachings:


As to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to demonstrate: (1) that the existence of classes is merely linked to particular historical phases in the development of production; (2) that class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. [1]

Lenin, in fighting all the traitors to Marxism and in analysing the above quotation from Marx’s letter to Weydemeyer, writes:


In these words, Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity, firstly, the chief and radical difference between his theory and that of the foremost and most profound thinkers of the bourgeoisie; and, secondly, the essence of his theory of the state.


It is often said and written that the main point in Marx’s theory is the class struggle. But this is wrong. And this wrong notion very often results in an opportunist distortion of Marxism and its falsification in a spirit acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the theory of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx and, generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested. [2]

Fourthly, it consists of the recognition of the international character of the struggle of the proletariat.

Rosa Luxemburg, in her struggle against Social Democracy, showed that whoever ignores in theory or practice one of these two principles – the class struggle or the internationalism of the proletarian struggle – invariably becomes a supporter and defender of reactionary capitalist regimes, and turns into an agent of the bourgeoisie inside the proletariat, to use Lenin’s phrase. All the modern history of the proletarian struggle from the epoch of Social Democracy until today is nothing more than a positive or a negative confirmation of this view, which was supported by the consistent pupils of Marx and Engels against every type of revisionist in every epoch.

If anyone asks the leaders of the KKE, they will declare the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin to be correct. They will say that they ‘accept’ as correct the teachings of Marx on the capitalist regime and the class struggle under which it, unavoidably according to Marx, leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. They even ‘accept’ the teachings of Lenin on capitalism and its last imperialist stage. They ‘accept’ the teachings of Lenin (which is but an extension and concretisation of Marx) on imperialist wars and the tasks they pose for the revolutionary vanguard and the working class.

For us, consistent pupils of Marx, Engels and Lenin, there is no need for a new theoretical reaffirmation of their teachings. Our work is inseparable from and scientifically based upon our great teachers. Practically the whole of current history is a great confirmation, positive or negative, of their teachings. The Paris Commune and the victorious October Revolution are their positive confirmations. The latter is the greatest victory for the proletariat, which was made possible by the correct application of these teachings. On the other hand, the Chinese Revolution of 1925-27, the German and Spanish Revolutions and the Second World War are defeats which occurred because of leaders who in practice had negated these teachings.

If we are to be serious, for a sincere debater for the KKE, for world Stalinism, for a debater who respects science, the task is to prove theoretically and in practice why this theory, with its basic premises and its conclusions, does not correspond to our epoch, and why we are faced with the necessity of revising it. A general declaration of changed circumstances is at best a weakness and a subterfuge. At worst, it is conscious deceit and a betrayal of the titanic struggle which the proletariat is waging. The KKE does not lack material means. On the contrary, no other tendency has ever had so many resources at its disposal as does the Stalinist current. For more than 20 years we have waited for this opportunity but in vain. Scientific discussion has been replaced by perfidy, falsity, lies, deceit, sycophancy and physical violence. But these methods have not relieved the KKE of its obligations, it has increased them.

The current political situation can be analysed by a Marxist only from the point of view of its historical connections and development. Every natural or social phenomenon has its history, and only during the process of historical development is it possible for them to be understood clearly and completely. All modern science is a confirmation of this basic view of Marxist teaching. Today was born of yesterday. Tomorrow is determined by the dynamic of today. Only in the light of this investigation is it possible to reveal the correctness or incorrectness of the politics of the different tendencies inside the workers’ movement and to prove their social nature.

War is the most important feature of our epoch. The war of 1939-45 was an imperialist, reactionary conflict between the rich and the ‘hungry’ imperialist powers. The involvement of the Soviet Union in this war was unavoidable, and was determined by the international nature of the world economy. The war waged by the Soviet Union was defensive and progressive, and the international working class had the duty to defend it. But the progressive nature of the war on the part of the Soviet Union (the defence of nationalised ownership) transformed neither the general imperialist character of the war nor the content and obligations of the proletarian struggle for social revolution. The war made nonsense of all the Stalinist ‘theories’ of the peaceful coexistence of the Soviet Union with capitalism and of ‘Socialism in one country’.

All the theoretical work of Lenin and the Communist International and the policies they developed in the first four congresses maintained their importance for the second imperialist war and will continue to maintain it for all the wars which will be waged by imperialism if the proletariat allows it. The existence of the Soviet Union does not change the nature of imperialism. The Soviet Union was thought of by its founders as none other than an advanced outpost of the world workers’ front. This is the teaching of Lenin. All those who deny this revise Marxism-Leninism and break the internationalism of the proletarian struggle with disastrous consequences.

War and revolution are the most important events in human history. The Marxist left wing of Social Democracy – Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg – broke off all relations with the Second International precisely on this issue.

The question of war is very important, and it must be given its proper place in any serious discussion amongst the tendencies inside the workers’ movement. Our party proposed this topic for the first of these three discussions.

The outbreak of the second imperialist war was impossible without the defeat of the proletariat. This defeat was not possible but for the abandonment and revision of Marxist teachings by its own leadership. Just as the outbreak of the First World War confirmed the opportunist and treacherous nature of the leadership of the Second International, so the outbreak of the Second World War confirmed the petty-bourgeois degeneration of and the betrayals carried out by the leadership of the Communist International. If the outbreak of war presupposes an absolute weakening of the revolutionary strength of the working class, then the war itself, with its horrors and destruction, forces the working class into the forefront of history, and increases immeasurably its social dynamism and revolutionary strength.

This phenomenon showed itself quite markedly and clearly in Greece. Let us look at the main changes which the war brought about in the Greek economy and in the regrouping of social forces. It dislocated the capitalist economy of the country. The theft of national wealth, of the products of the country by the imperialist occupation in cooperation with the domestic plutocracy, created intolerable conditions of life for the oppressed masses. With inflation it wiped out any savings of the petty-bourgeois layers in town and country, and impelled them to take a decisive turn to the left. The bankruptcy of the bourgeois parties was complete, whilst in the working masses, a passion for a decisive social transformation was brewing. The turn of the masses to the left brought the old revolutionary party of the proletariat, the KKE, into the leadership of their struggle, due to the enormous prestige of the October Revolution which they saw this party as representing.

These developments in the consciousness of the masses led capitalist reaction in the country to make a desperate attempt to maintain its social rule and enter an alliance with both imperialisms – the Allied and the Axis. In the face of revolution, the imperialists are united. This action of theirs led the country into a situation of civil war, and in consequence all but wiped out the power of the capitalist state.

The situation in our country at the end of the civil was definitely revolutionary. But what were the politics of the KKE if not a complete negation of Marxist-Leninist teaching?

In place of the class and of class struggle – the nation and nationalist struggle.

In place of the class struggle – the collaboration of classes and class unity: in other words the subordination of the proletariat and the oppressed masses to the bourgeoisie.

In place of declarations to cultivate international proletarian solidarity – the cultivation of nationalist hatred and nationalist patriotic sentiments.

In place of the struggle against the imperialists – subjugation to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Hundreds are the victims, militants who died because they opposed the excessive Anglo-friendliness of the KKE leadership, and carried out anti-British and anti-imperialist propaganda. Look at the relevant decisions of the Eleventh Plenum of the Central Committee of the KKE.

In place of the Socialist revolution – the historically defunct ‘Popular Democracy’ with its respect for private property.

All of these things are known – as are Lebanon, Caserta and the National Unity government.

The leadership of the KKE held power in Greece and handed it over to the Greek capitalists and their partners and patrons in Britain.

There was no problem of power for the KKE and the EAM. The opportunity existed to consolidate and maintain power. We ask: why didn’t the KKE struggle to remain in power and implement its Popular Democratic Programme? Why did it bring British imperialism to Greece?

What is the nature of the ‘Popular Frontist’ policy which its ministers carried out when in Papandreou’s government? Was it bourgeois or not? Did it serve capitalist interests or not? Was the stabilisation of the currency carried out against the interests of the oppressed masses or not? Is it true that Porfirogenis [3] was the one who introduced Law 118 concerning the ‘surplus of workers’ in capitalist businesses? And we ask: if all these things are correct, how can we characterise the politics of the KKE?

And December? We must speak out clearly. December was not a revolution organised by the leaders of the EAM but a counter-revolution, an attack by Anglo-Saxon reaction against which the oppressed masses, and especially the proletariat of Athens and the Piraeus, defended themselves heroically.

December was systematically prepared using every possible method: the security forces, civil war, Lebanon and Caserta, with Ralis and Papandreou, with Scobie and Spiliotopoulus, with the court tribunals in the Middle East and Surmata and by Anglo-Greek imperialism.

Why did the EAM’s leaders refuse to form a revolutionary government when 90 percent of the population was under their influence and the whole country under their control? Why did it not declare that no unity could exist with the exploiters and murderers, in other words, with the capitalist class, but instead fought for a ‘New National Government’? With whom? Why did it not call on the natural allies of the Greek oppressed, the world proletariat, to aid it in its struggle? Why did the Stalinist government of the Soviet Union say not a single word of sympathy for the heroic struggle of the Greek masses during the December events?

The Greek proletariat and the other oppressed masses were defeated in December because their defeat was prepared before December and during December.

In December, the endless heroism and courage of the revolutionary proletariat confronted a malicious, crafty, cunning, criminal and historically bankrupt class: world capitalist reaction. This class – dark and criminal – appears strong with its international bonds and its solidarity when it confronts its enemy: the revolutionary proletarian class. The proletariat – militant and heroic and with endless resources of bravery and sacrifice appeared with its international links and its internationalist solidarity broken. Its leadership, however, did not direct it towards a realisation of its historic mission, but placed it under ... a ‘New National Government’.

For this purpose, it appealed to the great imperialist ‘Democracy of the Atlantic’. The ‘leadership’ of the Greek proletariat asked for help from Roosevelt, not from the world proletariat. Without a doubt, the Stalinist leadership had ‘ essentially from 1934 and definitively from 1943 ‘ broken the internationalist links of the proletariat with the dissolution of the Communist International.

Lebanon, Caserta and, in December, Varkiza determined the political line and the social nature of the EAM’s leadership, proving it to be petty-bourgeois, objectively placed within the framework of the capitalist regime serving the bourgeoisie.

If Anglo-Greek capitalist reaction moved towards December, this was not due to fear of or in reaction to the politics pursued by the EAM leadership, but to the direct threat posed by the armed and deeply anti-capitalist disposition of the masses. The question of disarming the masses was, for Anglo-Greek and world capitalist reaction, a question of life and death.

With its victory in December, Greek capitalist reaction, based on the tanks and guns of Scobie, re-established its political rule. Its immediate aim was the re-establishment of its oppressive state machine and the stabilisation of its rule. United and decisive in carrying this out, it was aided and directed by its patron, British imperialism.

With the disarming of the masses (and the amnesty of the EAM’s leaders at Varkiza) the main problem which emerged for the Greek capitalists was and continues to be the ‘rebuilding’ of the economy, for which the oppressed masses have to pay. For this task, the disarming of the masses was insufficient, their spirit had to be broken. Directly or indirectly, their organisations had to be dissolved. The workers had to be broken into isolated and subjugated individuals. This task was undertaken by the various neo-Fascist organisations and gangs. At the same time, an economic offensive was unleashed on behalf of the capitalist oligarchy with the weapon of inflation. Workers’ and employees’ wages were repeatedly wiped out. All the stabilisations of the drachma which took place had as their aim a continuing cut in living standards. And the attack on living standards is continuing with the high prices announced for goods, and the implementation of indirect taxes.

All of this comes at a time when the capitalist government is giving endless grants to bankers, industrialists and traders in the form of loans, which inflation wipes out at one tenth of the initial cost.

While the economic attack is continuing, alongside it is an attempt to ‘legalise’ the dictatorial government which is concealed by a parliamentary façade for external consumption and for the deception of the world proletariat.

World capitalist reaction, from Churchill’s Tories to the pseudo-Socialist lackeys of imperialism, the Labour Party, in England, from the ‘Democratic’ bankers of New York and Washington to the ‘Popular Democrats’ of France, is struggling with deceit and armed force to crush the insurrections of capital’s slaves. And while their cannons, tanks and aeroplanes bombard the slaves of Indonesia, Indochina, India, China and elsewhere, they send their ‘observers’ to Greece to bring the king back to the throne ‘with due regard for the law’.

Greek capitalist reaction, with the support of world capitalism, and completely conscious of its class interests, is advancing towards the realisation of its aims of stabilising its power and its exploitative regime.

What are the polices of today’s leadership of the working class? ‘Peaceful democratic development’, in other words the negation of the struggle to achieve the historic aims of the proletariat, the struggle for Socialism. The leadership of the KKE throughout this period has objectively aided domestic and foreign reaction to achieve its aims. It aided them with its politics, which condemned the working class to inactivity and passivity, or dissipated and squandered the willingness of the masses to struggle, with its slogans and cries of “Don’t! You will provoke a monarchist coup!”, with its denunciation of all those militants who would not disarm at Varkiza – in other words those who would not stand with their arms folded and wait to be slaughtered by the Fascists, and with non-participation in the elections, with the utopia of a ‘Pan-democratic Front’.

Instead of supporting the struggle of the working class in the organisations of the working class on a world scale (according to the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and according to the global experience of the workers’ movement), it supported attempts at making a deal with bourgeois politicians of the ‘centre’ and the ‘left’, Sofoulis, Kafandaris and Sofianapoulis, as if it was not they who, with every demagogic utterance, were not attacking the mass movement. As if it was not the government of the ‘Democratic Centre’ which had staged an electoral coup in March!

Comrades, are these coincidental mistakes, or even just a mistaken political line? No. There is a complete consistency in the political line of the KKE. The politics of the KKE are determined by a complete denial of the proletarian revolution in Greece, from the abandonment of the old revolutionary programme to the acceptance of the possibility of bourgeois democracy in the epoch of imperialism. We are dealing with politics which are determined by the acceptance of a regime of private ownership. Here, comrades, a basic opposition exists to the revolutionary politics of Marx and Lenin and to the Fourth International which continues to this day.

The plans of domestic and foreign reaction do not stop at ensuring and maintaining their political and economic domination. The anarchy of production impels capitalism to a constant quest for profit and raw materials. This leads unavoidably to imperialist war. Instead of solving the contradictions of capitalism, war intensifies them, impoverishing the masses and forcing capitalism sooner or later into new wars. The historical dilemma of the epoch, ‘Socialism or Barbarism’ is placed decisively in front of humanity.

World capitalism today is emerging from another war. Despite great destruction of the means of production in countries like Germany and Japan, it does so with its productive capacities increased. But the standard of living for the masses fell drastically during the war. Their purchasing power was lowered to half its pre-war level. Capitalism needs new markets for selling its goods. The Soviet Union controls and rules over a significant portion of our planet. And from the point of view of the social nature of the regime, it is an enemy of capitalism.

World capitalism, under the leadership of American imperialism, is preparing an anti-Soviet war. But an outbreak of war is impossible without the previous defeat of the working class. This is what world capitalism is preparing to do. From a strategic point of view, the geographical situation of Greece will give it an important role in any such anti-Soviet war – if the proletariat does not stop it with a social revolution. One of the aims of domestic and world reaction is to turn Greece into an anti-Soviet and anti-working class bridgehead.

From the analysis we have made, we have demonstrated that the interests of Greek and British capitalism, although not identical, generally coincide. Greek capitalism bases its hopes of rebuilding its economy on the support of Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Both domestic and foreign capitalist reaction feel undying hatred for the movement of the masses for their social liberation. They both nurture the same hatred for the Soviet Union.

British imperialism has to defend its interests in the Middle East. The route to India lies through the eastern Mediterranean. The struggle for oil occurs today mainly in the Middle East. These factors force British imperialism to take a particular interest in Greece and Turkey.

These are the aims of imperialism, both domestic and foreign – the stabilisation of capitalist power wherever it has been shaken, the rebuilding of the capitalist economy on the backs of the working masses, the crushing of the mass movement, and assured strategic bases for the anti-Soviet war. The Greek proletariat and the oppressed masses must react and struggle to frustrate the plans of imperialism.

The struggle against Greek capitalism is a struggle against world imperialism, and, conversely, the struggle against world capitalism is not possible without a parallel struggle against Greek capitalist reaction.

The fronts are clearly distinguishable for all those who want to see – world capitalist reaction on the one side and the world working class on the other. This is the only way to pose the problem and the only way it can be tackled correctly and successfully.

The KKE puts the question of the removal of the British foremost, and whatever the oppressed masses may do is derived from this. The removal of the British is not seen as the outcome of the activity of the masses, but as a problem of good will and Allied diplomacy in which bourgeois ‘patriots’ are to be sought. Since these tasks must precede any other forms of struggle, they serve only to postpone the mass struggle.

Our party, as an internationalist party, confronts the problem from an internationalist point of view. Our party has never stopped carrying out the most decisive and irreconcilable struggle against imperialism. In this struggle, it has suffered many losses, among them our best cadres. The expulsion of the British from Greece, and from all the countries they are occupying, is seen as the result of the activity of the masses and chiefly the British working class. Our allies in the struggle to foil the plans of British imperialism will not be found amongst bourgeois politicians, but amongst the British and the world proletariat. We must make a firm distinction between British imperialism and the working masses of Britain. The first is an ally of local domestic capitalist reaction. Every struggle against Greek capitalism is also a struggle against British imperialism. In our struggle for our economic demands, for our trade union and political rights, we must seek and obtain aid from the British proletariat. British soldiers stationed here should side with us. The same British soldiers should ask to return to their homes.

At every opportunity we should seek to fraternise with British troops – just as we should demand fraternisation with the Greek soldiers who are being sent to attack the struggles of our brothers. The arms they are carrying can and must be used against our common class enemy. The British working class must rise up and halt the plans of British imperialism.

Class against class, the old Leninist slogan which paralysed imperialist reaction in the epoch of Red October, must be heard everywhere. It can give us victory and it will – because the working class is all-powerful. It is simply unaware of its strength because every type of confidence trickster confuses its thinking. The historical rôle of the revolutionary vanguard is to dispel confusion and show the path.

The Greek working class has suffered countless significant defeats. But none of these were decisive. That is why the movement intensified on an international scale. The spirit of the masses persists, although not as intensely as before. We have both explained the causes of the defeats and named their architects. Today the economic situation of the working class is dreadful. Inflation is rising. Starvation wages are already losing their value. The working class will enter into struggle in order to defend its livelihood. The organisation of these struggles is the direct and immediate responsibility of the revolutionary vanguard.

In the countryside a number of factors have influenced and determined the development of a significant peasant movement which grew large during the war and the occupation. These are:
a.The small landholder using primitive methods of cultivation, and the small peasant as well, thus only produce small profits per annum.
b.There is a large variation in prices between agricultural and industrial goods, due to the monopolistic form of industrial capital, which acts against agricultural produce. This results in the absorbing of a section of agricultural capital by industrial capital.
c.Agricultural produce is mainly of produce (raisins, olives, figs, etc) for foreign markets. They are distributed by various capitalist concerns or by traders who also take a significant cut from the income.
d.Taxes. The capitalist class, in order to preserve its exploitative regime, is obliged to maintain a hypertrophic state mechanism. In 1939 this consumed more than half the national income. A significant part of the budget for this weighs down on the peasantry in the form of direct taxation.

These factors, combined with the destruction of war and occupation, created a revolutionary peasant movement and ensured that the position of the poor peasant masses was alongside that of the urban proletariat for the realisation of Socialism.

This is the movement which Greek reaction attempted to annihilate. Unleashing a civil war in the countryside, ELAS guerrillas and other poor peasants rushed into the mountains to defend their lives and the lives of the fellow citizens.

This movement took a most lively form in Thessaly and Macedonia, where the peasant masses were more educated and adopted a class position. But there is another important factor, that of national minorities. The attitude of Greek capitalism was always oppressive to the minorities. After the war, their attitude was criminal. Seeking to realise the imperialist plans in the Balkans, they attempted to eliminate the national minorities.

The new guerrilla movement, which is the defence of the poor peasants, both Greek and foreign-speaking, against the attacks of the capitalist reaction which is trying to put its exploitative and imperialist schemes into practice, became a significant development in Thessaly and Macedonia. All the ‘exterminating missions’ achieved only one thing – they strengthened the movement. But the activity of the guerrillas could not, on its own, crush the capitalist attack. Left on its own and based on its own resources, the new guerrilla movement will sooner or later be forced to submit. The working class of the cities and other oppressed layers must defend the struggle of the poor peasants and the national minorities. They can defend it by organising their own struggles for their economic demands, and frustrating the aims of capitalist reaction. Part of their demands should relate to the slogan for ending the terrorism in the countryside and for a general amnesty for the fighters of the poor peasantry.

Under these conditions, the tasks of the revolutionary vanguard are clearly defined – the abandonment of any utopian idea of ‘stable democratic development’, which cannot be achieved even with the help of a section of the bourgeoisie, its ‘progressive democratic wing’. Such a grouping does not exist within the bourgeois class in the epoch of its decline. The period of democracy has passed. Bourgeois society is facing a period of decline. Today the ruling class must resort to Fascist methods of rule to maintain its regime. Only the Socialist Soviet Democracy can take humanity out of the chaos and barbarism into which capitalism is leading us. Whoever denies this view today becomes, whether they want to or not, a supporter of capitalism. The Socialist Revolution! That must be the main strategic aim of the working class.

But at this juncture in Greece we are about to face the attacks of capitalist reaction. And we can be successful with the immediate organisation of the struggles of the masses. Much time has been lost, and reaction has been winning. Our party declares that its main goal is the unity of the working class and other oppressed layers in a class front to fight for work – for wage rises index-linked to inflation, and for trade union and political freedom.

On the basis of this minimum programme we call on all workers and all the oppressed to organise themselves and to defend their struggle on a national level. Workers’ democracy must be honoured by all.

But if this minimum programme is enough to unite the oppressed in a United Front of struggle, it is not enough in itself for a United Front of the working class. We call on all the workers’ parties – the KKE, the SK-ELD, the AKE – to form a United Front on the basis of the following minimum programme:
1.The organisation of struggles for the economic demands of workers, of employees and of the peasant masses;
2.For trade union and political freedom;
3.For an amnesty for popular militants;
4.For the organisation of workers’ guards;
5.For the dissolution of the pseudo-parliament and for the declaration of elections to a Constituent Assembly;
6.For the ousting of the British by the methods of internationalist struggle; expose the imperialist aims of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and exposing the reactionary anti-working class rôle of British policy in Greece; show the distinction between the British proletariat and British capitalism; distribute fraternising propaganda in the British camps [4]; appeal to the class solidarity of the British and world proletariat through workers’ organisations; oppose every armed intervention against the workers’ movement but without stopping our struggle to fraternise with the armed soldiers; for decisiveness, for commitment to and for the honouring of worker’s democracy.

On the basis of this minimum programme we call in every trade union, in every factory, in every community, in every city and village, for the democratic and proportional election of committees of the workers’ alliance, which will organise and lead the workers’ struggles.

Every party will maintain its independence, its right to propagate its full programme and its right openly to criticise.

Loukas Karliaftis



Notes

1. Karl Marx, Letter to Joseph Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852, K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow 1975, p.64.

2. V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution, Collected Works, Volume 25, Moscow 1977, p.416.

3. One of the Communist Party’s ministers in Papandreou’s government.

4. An attempt was made to establish contact between British revolutionaries in uniform and the Greek movement, in spite of language difficulties. John Giles Henderson was able to make four contacts with members of the Greek Trotskyist movement who worked in the army stores in the Piraeus. Although hampered by a lack of knowledge of the language, he was able to acquaint them with the positions of the rest of the Trotskyist movement by passing to them copies of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s journals, the Workers International News and Socialist Appeal, and those of the US Socialist Workers Party, The Militant and Fourth International. Trotskyists in the British army in Egypt took considerable risks to leaflet the troops there calling on them to refuse to fire on their Greek working class brothers (Alex Acheson, The Wartime Agitation of a Trotskyist Soldier, appendix 2 of Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson, War and the International, London, 1986, p.247).

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-From Acronauplia to Nezero-Greek Trotskyism From the Unification conference to the Executions (1936?)

Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forebears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

************
From Acronauplia to Nezero-Greek Trotskyism From the Unification conference to the Executions

(Part 1)

The Metaxas dictatorship, which assumed power on 4 August 1936, meant the gaoling and subsequent internal exile, not only of the KKE (Greek Communist Party) but also of the Trotskyists. The outbreak of the Second World War therefore found the Fourth Internationalists in concentration camps in which they alone upheld the principles of revolutionary internationalism, the transformation of the imperialist slaughter into a civil war, and the defence of the USSR. In this struggle they not only fought the German occupation, but also the Metaxas dictatorship and its Stalinist supporters.

The 1930s saw the development of several Trotskyist organisations in Greece, which gradually began to unite before the Second World War. The Spartacus group continued, changing its name whilst picking up splits from either the KKE or the Archeiomarxists. They amounted to about 75 members in 1932 (L.D. Trotsky, A Discussion on Greece, Spring 1932, in Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement 1929-33, New York 1979, p.126) and were led by Pouliopoulos. In 1930 a new group, the ‘Fractionists’ broke with the Archeiomarxists, consisting of the most active student members led by Michel Raptis (Pablo) and Christos Soulas, which took the name of the United Communist Group (KEO). In 1932 Agis Stinas was expelled from the Communist Party and united with the KEO to set up the Leninist Opposition of the Greek Communist Party, publishing the weekly paper Banner of Socialism and the theoretical organ Permanent Revolution. When the Bolshevik group led by George Vitsoris (1889-1954) broke with the Archeiomarxists in 1934 and remained loyal to the international Trotskyist movement, the Leninist Opposition broke up, and the group led by Pablo joined up with Pouliopoulos to set up the International Communist Organisation of Greece (OKDE), whereas Stinas and his comrades united with Vitsoris’ group to set up the International Communist Union (KDEE), publishing Ergatiko Metopo (Workers Front). This latter organisation maintained contact with the International Secretariat and was recognised as the official section, whereas Pouliopoulos and Pablo maintained relations with Landau and Molinier. A third organisation also emerging from Archefomarxism, the Bolshevikos Neos Dromos (Bolshevik New Course)was led by Loukas Karliaftis, “M Mastroyioannis” and Sakkos Papadopoulos.

In 1937 the Bolshevik New Course united with the OKDE of Pouliopoulos and Pablo, as recounted below, to form the United Organisation of the Communist Internationalists of Greece (EOKDE) which published Diethnistis (Internationalist) and Proletarios (Proletarian) up to and including the Second World War. This group and the KDEE of Vitsoris and Stinas were represented at the founding conference of the Fourth International, the KDEE by Vitsoris and the EOKDE by Pablo. The Congress unanimously supported the unification of the two Greek groups (Documents of the Fourth International: The Formative Years, 1933-40, New York 1973, pp.271, 302, which was accepted as an accomplished fact by L.D. Trotsky, Letter to Rose Karsner, 13 September 1938, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1937-38, New York 1976, p.448), but the fact that Vitsoris proposed a seat for each group upon the IEC in view of the previous hostility between them shows that this never in fact took place (Documents of the Fourth International, p.299). Nor did the proposed international discussion about the differences that was supposed to be organised by the IEC. The repression prevented the unification of the two groups until 1946, and by then the differences had widened so that only a paper unity was achieved. The political differences between the groups to a large extent reflected the differences that emerged in the American SWP on the eve of the Second World War. The discussions and polemics were carried out mainly in the concentration camps and in total isolation from the rest of the world. Trotsky’s articles on the dispute with Burnham and Shachtman were unknown until well after the war.

It should be stated that one of the most ferocious battles to break out inside the Greek concentration camps was against all who had made “declarations” against Communism. Capitulations occurred within the ranks of the KKE as well as of the Trotskyists. Anyone who capitulated to Metaxas or to the Germans was considered as a traitor by the movement as a whole. Among the Trotskyists who were considered to have capitulated were several who were later to become important in the history of Greece and of the Fourth International. Andreas Papandreou, later to become leader of PASOK, belonged to the ‘Group of the Thirteen’ and was associated with the Proletarios(EOKDE) group. He made an open declaration against Communism on 7 July 1939, as described below, and betrayed all his comrades to the police. His family connections enabled him to obtain a passport, which he used to flee to America. Cornelios Castoriadis, also in the ‘Group of Thirteen’, also made a declaration against Communism. At the end of the war he went to France, where he became a leader of a faction inside the French Trotskyist organisation, the PCI. In 1949 this faction split and began to publish the magazine Socialisme ou Barbarie, whichwent on to develop a new revolutionary philosophy, from which the British group Solidarity in part draws its inspiration (for examples of his ideas, cf. Socialism or Barbarism, Solidarity pamphlet no.11, and C. Castoriadis, History as Creation, Solidarity pamphlet no.54). Stinas’ group, which broke from the Greek Trotskyist movement in 1947, became the main supporter of these theories in Greece. Due to the fact that he was a famous theatrical actor, George Vitsoris was allowed to go abroad when Kotopoulea, a famous actress, put pressure on Maniadakis. On his way to internal exile, Vitsoris was forcibly taken out of the car against his will. In the end he gave all his revolutionary literature to another comrade and departed for France. There he took part as a Greek delegate at the clandestine European Conference of the Trotskyists in February 1944 (Rodolphe Prager, The Fourth International During the Second World War, in Revolutionary History, volume I no.3, Autumn 1988, p.36, n42) whilst playing an enthusiastic part as an explosives expert in the French Resistance to the extent of being decorated by De Gaulle at the end of the war. Pablo was also considered to have compromised himself, as the following text makes clear.

The Trotskyists who remained in prison condemned the capitulations in a different manner. The KDEE-Stinas group justified Vitsoris, but not Pablo. The EOKDE group condemned Vitsoris, but by a majority decision justified Pablo. Pablo’s subsequent history was one where he was recognised as the official representative of the Greek Trotskyists in France during the Second World War – although no such role was assigned to him by any Trotskyist group in Greece.

The entry of the USSR into the war on the side of the Allied imperialists meant that the Greek Stalinists now supported the Metaxas dictatorship in its war against Germany. All the Greek Trotskyists considered this stance to be a betrayal of Lenin’s principles, and despite the fact that they were threatened with immediate execution, refused to support the Metaxas dictatorship, But differences emerged whereby the group around Stinas held a defeatist position in relation to the USSR in the Second World War. Differences also started to develop with the outbreak of the resistance movement and over the methods of guerrilla warfare. Revolutionary History will be publishing part of this polemic concerning the Soviet Union in its next issue. Whereas the views of the Stinas group can be easily consulted in his Mémoires (pp.219-220, 273-6 and the documents, appendices on pp.313-354), those of the Karliaftis tendency have so far not appeared in any Western European language.

In 1942 many Trotskyists escaped from prison and started discussions and practical activity, publishing revolutionary material against the war. Three tendencies emerged:
a.One led by Karliaftis, now called EDKE (Workers Internationalist Party of Greece);
b.One led by Stinas, now known as Ergatiko Metopo (Workers Front);
c.One led by Christos Anastasiades called KKDE (Communist Internationalist Party of Greece).

The emergence of a resistance movement led by guerrillas in the mountains under the leadership of the Stalinist KKE posed severe problems for Trotskyism, not only theoretical but practical ones. Pablo at first wrote a resolution for the International Secretariat while in France whereby the resistance movement was characterised as being reactionary and in the service of Allied imperialism. This position was then changed in February 1944, whereby the resistance movement was considered progressive. Karliaftis and Stinas both refused to participate in the resistance movement, considering it reactionary. Anastasiades, although taking no active part, allied himself with Pablo’s ideas.

It must be noted that a serious practical obstacle remained for all those who declared themselves as Trotskyists and participated (many did on an individual basis) in the resistance movernent – the Stalinist secret police, the OPLA. According to the Bartzotas Report more than 800 Trotskyists were shot,mainly because they opposed the Stalinist policy of simply getting rid of German imperialism in order to put in its place British imperialism. Only the Greek Trotskyists warned that the British would not come as liberators (as the Stalinists asserted, filling the towns of Greece with slogans like “Welcome our friends”). When General Scobie opened fire on unarmed civilians killing thousands in December 1944, the Trotskyists were proved tragically right.

Previously the Stalinist policy of class collaboration in the name of “national reconstruction”, whereby all the military arms of the EAM-ELAS guerrillas were handed over to the government of Papandreou (the Varkiza Accords), was condemned only by the Trotskyists. Under pressure from its membership the KKE was forced to enter into open public discussions with the Trotskyists in 1946 to justify its policies.

Under orders from the IS the Greek Trotskyists held a unification congress in 1946. At the Congress the Karliaftis tendency had 16 delegates, Stinas had 10 delegates and Anastasiades had eight. The organisation now called itself the KDKE (Communist Internationalist Party of Greece). After the Congress Stinas and Anastasiades voted together and became the majority of the organisation. Stinas, however, was soon expelled for his state capitalist views, and the Karliaftis tendency became the majority once more. From now on the IS of Pablo and Mandel associated itself with the side of the minority (Anastasiades). The Karliaftis group subsequently went with Healy, and Anastasiades with Pablo, and then with Mandel.

The account we present has been compiled from pamphlets by Comrade Karliaftis dealing with the war period that have already appeared in English and French, but due to translational problems and limited circulation certainly merit reproduction here, even though this is a departure from our normal practice. We have largely drawn upon Trotskyists and Archeiomarxists in the Concentration Camps of the Metaxas Dictatorship, parts i and ii, Internationalist Publications, and In Devotion to P. Pouliopoulo and the Militant Trotskyists: Archeiomarxists Killed by the Fascists and the Stalinists (French and English), Ergotiki Protoporeia, Athens 1984. The full text of Papandreou’s capitulation, which is too long to reproduce here, can be consulted in Internationalist: Documents de L’Avant-Garde Ouvrière, Grèce.

All parallel versions in our compilation have been eliminated, and a strictly chronological sequence has been imposed upon the material. We need hardly add that the writer is not responsible for this editorial practice, any more than for any mistakes that may have inadvertently crept in, the blame for which rests upon ourselves alone. All the renderings from Greek have been made and checked against the original by Comrade V.N. Gelis, and those from the French by Ted Crawford. The reader can well estimate the extent of our thanks to them, and even more so to the author.

**************

1. The Founding Conference of the EOKDE and the Group’s Activities

In spite of intense repression, arrests and unprecedented terror, and in addition to the fact that the finest members of the Trotskyist movement were already imprisoned in the concentration camps of the Metaxas dictatorship, the Trotskyists organised the founding conference of the United Organisation of the Communist Internationalists of Greece (EOKDE) in February 1937. The OKDE and the New Course groups, both having roots in the period of the Russian Revolution and the birth of Bolshevism and Trotskyism in Greece, united at this conference.

The establishment of the EOKDE was the result of the close cooperation and ideological discussion between the two tendencies throughout 1936. We played a genuinely revolutionary rôle during this period and through the magnificent revolt in Thessalonika. An unbreakable unity was forged, and in February 1937 a Trotskyist organisation was founded which would work within Trotsky’s orientation for the building of the Fourth International. The circumstances in which this necessary and hopeful unification took place were harsh in the extreme. We could thus go so far as to call it an historicalevent.

The unity conference took place in February 1937 in a canyon in the Pentelic mountains in Attica. It lasted one day and was attended by around 15 comrades, all of whom were well-known and had played a significant rôle in the history of the workers” movement. The prisoners in Acronauplia and the other concentration camps were not, of course, represented. In his closing speech, L. Vourzoukis noted that there were more participants from the New Course. The new Central Committee comprised Pantelis Pouliopoulos, who became the leader of the united organisation, Michel Raptis and G. Vryhoropoulos from the OKDE, and L. Vourzoukis, K. Anastasiadis and G. Tamtakos from the New Course. Other participants included Nontas Giannakos, Lilis, M. Kondilidis, Katsaprokos and four or five others whose names I never learned. Comrades who were still in jail under 12-month sentences that were renewed indefinitely were not eligible for the new Central Committee.

The conference resolution emphasised that the dictatorship in Greece showed that the bourgeoisie was obliged to construct a strong state apparatus that could deal with national divisions which had exploded in the rebellion in Thessalonica in May 1936, the workers” movement, and with any problems posed by the huge requirements of resources for the forthcoming world war:


The dictatorship became inevitable as a result of the mounting anger of the masses, which was manifested in several long and revolutionary struggles all over the country, which, in the face of the worsening world economic crisis, combined with the revolutionary uprising of the Spanish Civil War, and the imminent threat of a new imperialist war, could be transformed into a generalised revolutionary storm.

The conference stated that the main obstacle to the advance of the workers’ movement was the Communist Party (KKE), which had led the workers’ struggles to disaster, and, therefore, had helped Metaxas to impose his dictatorship. This party and its Popular Front policy bore the main responsibility for the ease with which the bourgeoisie imposed its dictatorship. It had covered up the aims of the bourgeois parties instead of exposing them, and it had helped them to concede full control of the army to the king, thus helping Metaxas to take power. Even then it still did not place a revolutionary perspective before the masses, but merely called for the replacement of the dictatorship by a bourgeois parliamentary government. It was necessary to wage a relentless, all-out struggle against this party, with the perspective of uniting all revolutionary forces in a new internationalist party, under the banner of the Fourth International.

Unity between the OKDE and the New Course took place, even though pre-conference discussions had not been fully concluded, and some points of difference had not been satisfactorily clarified. Nonetheless, unity was as necessary as it was constructive. Yes, historical, we might say. Because the Trotskyists were united and armed both politically and theoretically, and strove for the formation of the Fourth International, we were therefore the only tendency prepared to face the coming approaching war in a Leninist manner, and able to build the new Bolshevik Leninist party in our country.

The political orientation of the conference was confirmed in a resolution of June 1937, which called:


For an independent revolutionary struggle for the establishment of a workers’ and peasants’ government. That is the direction of the struggles of this period. Only thus will the workers be saved from the destruction and horror of the war.

And continued by demanding:


A United Front for the overthrow of the royal dictatorship in Greece, for support for the immediate political and economic demands of the workers, and for the rapid preparation for the rule of the workers and peasants.

For us the approaching war was imperialist as far as the major powers were concerned, with the exception of the Soviet Union:


The war does not cease to be imperialist because frauds and middle class philistines bandy around sugared slogans. War is an extension of the policies of finance capital. It is important to recognise which class makes the war. As Lenin said, the war is imperialist so long as it is carried out by the bourgeoisie with the aim of robbery. There is no greater fraud than the Stalinist and Social Democratic propaganda about it being an anti-Fascist war.

We continued to affirm that the participation of the Soviet Union on the side of either the Axis or Allies would not change the character of the war as far as its imperialist allies are concerned, and that the duty of all revolutionaries was to defend the Soviet Union by every method of the class struggle and by the social revolution, notwithstanding our opposition to the bureaucracy, which must be overthrown by a political revolution.

We must also admit that the unification and the emergence of the EOKDE was a result of the necessity of having to resist the dictatorship, as well as the need for unity in the drive to build the Fourth International. The unification conference took place under conditions of extreme state terror.

In Greece, our Archeiomarxist origins had had a positive influence in that, ever since 1930, under the leadership of the International Left Opposition, we had sought unification on a Trotskyist basis. We were obliged to overcome the resistance to this unity of Pouliopoulos, who had aligned himself with the Landau-Nín tendency in the POUM. Pouliopoulos was by now a firm supporter of unity. In vain had Giotopoulos met with him in order to drive a wedge between the two tendencies. We might add at this point that Giannakos’ support for unity was very helpful throughout the whole period of discussions between the two tendencies.

Despite the dictatorship’s repression, the first issue of The Proletarian was published in February 1937. About 80 per cent of it was written by Pouliopoulos, who was hiding all the while in the house of comrade Menelaos Megariotis’ father. We in the Acronauplia concentration camp, where most of the rank and file of the New Course and the Spartacists (Pouliopoulos’ group) were imprisoned, were overjoyed when we heard of its publication, but we were unable to obtain copies.

The Proletarian was the only oppositional publication of a Trotskyist nature that was able to circulate during the first two years of the dictatorship. It was duplicated and circulated by hand. The responsibility for publication rested with comrade Megariotis, one of the newer comrades, and the equipment was secretly guarded in a separate house. Demosthenes Vourzoukis, although an intellectual, was not among its usual contributors, as he was constantly on the move during the dictatorship in order to evade capture by the police. Neither were comrades Costas Anastasiadis and Vryhoropoulos, even though they also had the ability to write.

The Proletarian was published continuously until 23 June 1938, with 21 issues appearing. It only stopped when the entire Central Committee was arrested. The EOKDE continued for almost another year, supported by a handful of members who were still at liberty, most notably comrades Megariotis and Kondilidis. Here is a list of articles published in the paper:
•February 1937: International developments and the political situation in Greece; a resolution of the founding conference March 1937: Revolution and counter-revolution in Spain; A programme for immediate action by the organisation: To topple the dictatorship, for a new Communist Party, to organise a guerrilla movement
•Issues 5, 6 and 7 are missing.
•June 1937: The death agony of the Soviet bureaucracy
•Issue 9 is missing.
•30 July 1937: Down with the hated Metaxas dictatorship
•26 August 1936: The Metaxas dictatorship masquerade; Spain: July 1936-July 1937
•20 September 1937: The international campaign for the counter-trial and defence of Leon Trotsky
•28 October 1937: On the threshold of a new imperialist war; The war and the tasks of Communists
•25 November 1937: The current situation and its significance for the dictatorship
•25 December 1937: And now, dangerous traitors
•5 March 1938: To topple the dictatorship; To organise the workers” United Front; The Bukharin, Rakovsky and Rykov trial
•20 April 1938: A leaflet.
•25 May 1938: The king is having a good time – for how long?; And the Black Knight; Luxemburg’s nightmare; The First of May
•28 June 1938: Down with the imperialist organisers of the war; Down with the dictatorship

Our organisation continued its activities throughout the period of illegality. Our core groups carried out illegal work in a Bolshevik spirit. Our sections in Athens, the Piraeus and Thessalonica worked in the usual manner. The Proletarian was published regularly, and was passed on from hand to hand, as were the duplicated declarations. The workers did not hesitate for a moment to provide the prisoners and exiles with material and food parcels. Illegal articles were also sent frequently in double-bottomed travelling bags. Documents were hidden in the soles of shoes and ingenious hiding places in clothes.

Our activities were easier in the suburbs and the factories. The recruitment of those drawn towards us was checked momentarily during this period, but it did not stop altogether. The trade unions were viciously attacked. All the left wing unions were dissolved. Some of them were placed under appointed administrators, and became mere paper organisations, only able to show banners on demonstrations. The first blow was aimed at the bakers’ union, a stronghold in the trade union movement. The Metaxas government and its Security Police had not forgotten their humiliation in the great strike of April 1936, which was led by M. Soulas (OKDE) and A. Sakkos (New Course), and in which the workers were victorious.

Some comrades, working in clandestinity, held positions in Athens, especially in the employment organisations. Either as parties or individuals, we were all united in the fight against the right wing unions. Much the same occurred in Thessalonica. Later on, when the apparatus of the dictatorship and their quislings had been badly shaken, there were the strikes of the mill workers of the Piraeus under the leadership of comrade Smirlis, and in the German ships, led by Kleanthis.

In the Piraeus comrade Haritonidis led the construction workers’ organisation and the workers’ centre in Kokkinia, which he had established during 1928, despite the fact that he was taken every day to the Security Headquarters to be intimidated and forced to make a declaration. The same things happened to unskilled workers like V. Nikolinakos, and to building workers like K. Raptis.

The students’ circle led by Demosthenes Vourzoukis was engaged in a similar struggle. In the circle were, amongst others, Andreas Papandreou, Kornelios Kastoriades, T. Kirkos, Christos Karabelas and E. Hierotheos.

Papandreou had been influenced by Trotskyism since 1933. This was the time when Trotsky developed his analysis of Hitler’s Fascism and his critique of Stalinism, and his books could be found in the library of Papandreou’s father. Papandreou published two articles in a magazine called New Beginning, the same title as a pamphlet by Pouliopoulos, who had been the Secretary of the KKE, and who had resigned from the party in 1927. Papandreou was involved in the duplication of The Proletarian during the dictatorship, and his room was used as headquarters until his arrest with 12 other comrades, who were forced to sign a declaration of repentance. Kastoriades, who was good for nothing, signed an agreement as soon as he was arrested, and became anti-Soviet and later overtly anti-Communist as well.

Two further student circles were comprised of C. Prikades, Nikolopoulos, the Oikonomou brothers, a student girl whose name I do not know, S. Christopoulos, G. Christopoulos, A. Charalampopoulos, T. Vourzoukis, T. Lampropoulos and the famed Stratos Spanias, who was later murdered by the Stalinists. They were all arrested during a gathering which was held to raise money for our prisoners.

In April 1937, during an official visit of Zan Ne, the French Minister of Education, the EOKDE encouraged the students not to welcome a minister of imperialist France, as the Stalinists did, but to show their disapproval of the Popular Front, and to take the opportunity to oppose the hated dictatorship. It was the centenary of the founding of the university, and Zan Ne placed a garland on the grave of the unknown soldier. Our manifesto was circulated along with that of the Stalinists on that day, and posters supporting the dictatorship were torn down by the students. Further demonstrations against the dictatorship also occurred afterwards at Parnassos. K. Kotzias, the dictatorship’s minister, was booed at the stadium. These demonstrations ended with wild violence and mass arrests.


2. Arrest and Interrogation

I was one of the first to be caught. I fell into the hands of Kompoholi, a police captain who later became the commander of the Security Police. He was a dyed in the wool anti-Communist and a passionate persecutor of the working class and revolutionary movement. He was the right hand man of Maniadakis, the Minister of Public Security.

He recognised me, and then arrested me. I’d had trouble with him before. I had the honour to attract his anti-Communist hatred whilst he was a commander of the Security Police at Drama in 1929-30, six years previously. He had not forgotten me, and neither had I forgotten him!

I had been sent by the Archeiomarxist organisation to head the Political Committee of East Macedonia and West Thrace. I was picked up as a foreigner at Kavala in a search conducted by Alexakis, who had the reputation of being one of the worst torturers and persecutors of Communists. His police and courts, which regularly sentenced people to from five to 10 years in jail, had gained control over the hitherto powerful tobacco workers’ union, and he placed his committee men in every tobacconist shop.

I could not avoid arrest. I was tortured for two nights and a day by various modern methods. Despite sleepless exhaustion and intensive questioning, they got no information, neither a name nor a village! “Where and with whom do you live?’, they demanded. I told them, “In a shed in the castle.” They searched it only to find it empty. I was then beaten mercilessly. How could I say that I lived with comrades? The only thing I didn’t keep secret was my commitment to Communism. They searched for a false identity – nothing! They asked Drama for more information – absolutely nothing! But Kompoholis was the commander there, and he was another monster like Alexakis.

Kompoholis rushed to see me, to take over my interrogation. What a great honour for me! Finally Alexakis sent me to court. A move from hell to paradise! I was sentenced for one month – for vagrancy! I enjoyed that. The lawyer, sent from the Stalinist-controlled Workers’ Aid, ‘defended’ me like a bourgeois anti-Communist, treating me as he treated Stalinist defendants. He begged the court to be indulgent because I was “foolish”. I stood up and repudiated this lawyer: “I am neither foolish nor a tramp. I am a Communist and you can punish me for that!” The judges burst out laughing, much to the lawyer’s embarrassment.

I continued to circulate our propaganda once I was released. I was captured at Xanthi in Alexandroupolis, beaten up and thrown out. They were satisfied with expelling me and removing me from their affairs.

I was arrested again at Drama, and brought before the court. Despite a lack of evidence, Kompoholis proposed a three-month sentence and then exile. The accusations concerning “an independent Macedonia and Thrace” did not apply to us Archeiomarxists, as we considered that this had nothing to do with the slogan of the self-determination of the oppressed minorities.

When my sentence had finished, the commander of the jail handed me over to the Security Police for my exile. The Security Police headquarters, the court and the jail were in one compound, which at that time was full of people. The office of the commander of the jail was upstairs, and he was the first to go through the door. I suddenly had a bright idea. I turned around, rushed downstairs and mixed in with the crowd in the yard. I went straight out and walked to Kavala, an eight-hour walk. That’s how I escaped from Kompoholis’ clutches. But this encounter with Kompoholis resulted in my arrest during the Metaxas dictatorship, and a seven-year sentence in the concentration camps of Acronauplia and Pylos.

How Pouliopoulos, Giannakos, G. Xipolitos and Giannis Makris, the heroes who fell under the Fascists’ bullets at Nezero, were caught is a whole story in itself. This was the time when everyone was being caught. The arrests far exceeded the number of 50,000 militants reckoned in official statistics as having made declarations of repentance, apart from those, around 580, who remained a tower of strength in Acronauplia, facing torture and death, and another 1000 who were exiled on the islands. In Greece nobody could escape Maniadakis’ numerous policemen, and all those who took fright made declarations of repentance, deserted and gave up the fight.

There was little working class resistance to the establishment of the dictatorship. The revolutionary movement, after the betrayal and defeat of the events of 1936 in Thessalonica, was in a disorganised retreat, compounded by the effects of Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, which spread confusion over the working class internationally, especially in the Communist movement. The 4 August coup was not, of course, Fascism, as the Stalinists stated with their theory of “Fascism everywhere” which characterised all governments as such, and as did the defeatists such as Agis Stinas, who talked of “red Fascism” in the Soviet Union. [1] It was a Bonapartist dictatorship, which is not to say that its methods were any different.

As I mentioned, I was one of the first to be captured by the dictatorship. Kompoholis had discovered where I was working. He had already met me in Kavala in 1930 in the prisons of the dreaded Alexakis. After the trials, the sentences, the discharges and the new arrests, this time in Drama, he came to provide the necessary information on my revolutionary credentials. Kompoholis and Alexakis had acted brutally in 1927, and since then had become the worst persecutors of the revolutionaries in Greece.

Kompoholis had sent a beast called Ioannides, who dragged me to the general Security Police. I conducted myself as befitting a leader of the Trotskyists of the New Course, as a Bolshevik. We were tortured, but not forced to drink castor oil. This was administered only by the special Security Police. We were exiled to St Stratis. After the hell of the Security Prison, this exile was paradise. This was the second time I had been banished to St Stratis since 1935, when Kondilis had sent between 40 and 50 party leaders in one ship – among them Varnalis and Glinos. He exiled us so that he could bring back the king without resistance – which he then did.

Whilst the arrests continued and the dictatorship succeeded in disorganising all working class organisations, the Trotskyists managed to organise their unification conference. This was no mean achievement. We were the only party to hold a national conference under these unprecedented conditions.

The blows of Maniadakis soon fell heavily upon the EOKDE. Under intense surveillance, we began to tire. How could we avoid this? Day and night we attended meetings, distributed propaganda and engaged in all kinds of action. The Executive of the Bakers’ Union instructed us to see their members, and at Tsakos, for example, we were betrayed by reactionaries, as in Christos Soulas’ case. There was the vital necessity to bring our new members into activities, and to keep in touch with each other.

Giannakos was captured in Thebes, where he had gone to escape the repression in Athens. He was hiding in a house of some relatives, and was betrayed by one of them. Fortunately, he was able to save his books and papers. He refused to bend under torture, and was sent to Acronauplia. We cannot recall how Xipolitos and Makris were caught, theirs was just one in that mass of stories of life and death that circulated in Acronauplia. Raptis was caught immediately after the conference, as was Vitsoris, who had, together with Stinas, been in a minority in supporting incorrect political tactics and had left the New Course. Raptis and Vitsoris were freed, but Vitsoris had been ill-treated.

Tamtakos was caught whilst he was working at Sotiria in September 1937. He was detained for three months in a Security Prison, and then exiled to Giaros, where there was a whole group consisting of Tournopoulos, Pontikis, Diplas, Staphilatos, Giannakopoulos, Tasakis, Smilis and Lambropoulos.

Anastasiadis was captured at the end of September whilst he was on his way to a Central Committee meeting, and was sent to Acronauplia, where he remained for six months. L. Vourzoukis was caught along with 10 other comrades, among them Nikos Aravantinos and Katina Megarioti. Thus with the arrest of Pouliopoulos that followed, the Central Committee of the EOKDE ceased to exist, as its members were sent to the concentration camps and into exile, and other comrades took on the responsibility for the continued existence and activities of the illegal organisation.

Pouliopoulos was captured at the beginning of 1938. He had been widely sought. The Security Police had set a prize of 20,000 drachmas for his arrest. Previously condemned to death during the war in Asia Minor, narrowly escaping a death sentence at a military tribunal of the ‘democracy’ when he was a Secretary of the KKE in 1925, a supporter of Bukharin in the staff of the Comintern only to be crushed in 1927, now he was the leader of the EOKDE with a big price on his head. This was only published in the Police News so that they would get the 20,000 drachmas, no mean amount. Ironically, this only appeared 10 days after he was caught.

To begin with, Pouliopoulos was hiding in the house of Megariotis, and had adopted the name of ‘Petros’. This was in June 1937. Old Megariotis looked after him as if he was his own son, and he even held a birthday party for him on the Day of St Peter and Paul. He stayed there for a long time, but eventually his hideaway was discovered. The house was raided, but he escaped. Known to be wanted, Pouliopoulos was welcomed into the house of an intellectual, Karagiannis, an old follower, to whom I always gave copies of Bolshevik and the New Course. A good-humoured man, he was not in the party and so was not known to the Security Police. Pouliopoulos stayed at his house for a month, but then left. The sensitive Pantelis did not wish to task Karagiannis’ pregnant wife any further. He thanked them warmly, and left. He went to comrade M, but he was also wanted, and he pointed Pouliopoulos to Sidiropoulos’ house in Marousi. He was a tobacco worker with years of activity in the workers’ movement, a supporter of Pouliopoulos. There were other tobacco workers in the area whom I knew from my Archeiomarxist activities in the Piraeus from 1927 to 1929, but only the splendid Kotsias knew of Pouliopoulos’ hideaway. Pouliopoulos settled in that house, but was obliged to go out on party business.

In the meantime Lilis arrived at the house, breathless and under pursuit. Pouliopoulos considered him too excited, and that his condition would betray us. With nowhere else to run, he was allowed to stay. Kondilidis arrived a few days later. They could not stay at Sidiropoulos’ house any longer. Kondilidis left, but Lilis and Pouliopoulos remained. Pouliopoulos used the name ‘Pericles’. They accepted Sidiropoulos’ proposal to move to one his comrades, the vegetable seller Sarifoglou. Megariotis arrived at this new hideaway. He had just had an operation in hospital when the Security Police entered his house looking for Pouliopoulos. They found him in the hospital, but they did not take him to the Security, and he immediately escaped to Thessalonica. He hid in the house of D. Papadopoulos, an old trade union leader and follower of Pouliopoulos.

Before long the newspapers reported the arrest of some of the EOKDE Central Committee, with Demosthenes Vourzoukis as one of the first detained. Megariotis wasted no time, duty called in Athens. He discovered Pouliopoulos’ telephone number from Stavros and called him up. They arranged to meet. Stavros was an old Archeiomarxist, and now a supporter of the New Course, enjoying the absolute confidence of Pouliopoulos. Stavros was also sought after and on the run. And so now there were Pouliopoulos, Megariotis and Lilis hiding in Sarifoglou’s house.

However, Sidiropoulos had turned traitor. The hideaway was now a trap. The net around Pouliopoulos was tightening. The police were keen to catch him, not merely for ‘patriotic’ reasons, but also for the money. One day in early August a black car parked outside the house, and in it a gang of policemen. They knocked on the door and asked for Pericles. Pouliopoulos came out calmly. “Which Pericles do you want? I am Pericles – Pouliopoulos”, he told them in the proud style of Roumeli. Thus was Pouliopoulos caught, and Lilis along with him. Megariotis had gone to Koptis, saw the black car on his return, and avoided arrest.

At the Security Police Headquarters Pouliopoulos asked the policemen who had arrested him whether they’d received the reward. “It is complicated”, they said. Who had betrayed him?

Karagiannis, Megariotis and M visited him separately at the Headquarters. He told them that the traitors were Sidiropoulos and Sarifoglou. He gave Megariotis a note with the name of the traitors to be given to the organisation. M, an old assistant of mine in the Piraeus, was above suspicion, as was, as far as I was concerned, Kondilidis. Vourzoukis thought that Lilis’ telephone calls to the organisation from the Palataki tavern in the Piraeus could have led to the arrests, but I did not agree.

Megariotis and Kondilidis were two young men with an unshakable confidence in Trotskyism. Upon them fell the entire burden of the running of the leadership of the EOKDE after Pouliopoulos’ arrest. They kept the organisation functioning and produced The Proletarian, the illegal paper of the Fourth International in Greece.

The bitter campaign of the Security Police against the Trotskyists was intensified when a strike occurred at the Papastratos cigarette factory, which was organised and led by C. Antoniou, who was a former Archeiomarxist and now a Trotskyist. This was too much for the Metaxas regime to tolerate. Antoniou was caught and tortured. Blows to the head left him deaf, and he was sent into prison and exile.

The Security Police wanted to report a complete success in every case. The Megariotis team, Kondilis and the EOKDE university students, were caught. Originally the creation of the redoubtable Vourzoukis, this group was loved by all. Megariotis rebuilt the group, among whom was Andreas Papandreou. There was a duplicator in his room on which The Proletarian was produced, and Papandreou cut the stencils. Only Kondilidis knew of his room, and only Papandreou knew where he was working. Megariotis was caught at his work. Who betrayed him? A Security Police announcement read:


After an extensive search, the Special Security Police arrested the following students who had formed an organisation of Fourth Internationalists, followers of the exiled Trotsky, led by the Communist Menelaos Megariotis, a chemistry student, who appears to be the Secretary of the Central Committee of the organisation. From the house of Andreas Papandreou was taken a typewriter and a duplicator, with which the illegal Communist paper The Proletarian was printed, along with various Communist papers and leaflets. Those arrested confessed their activities and, with the exception of Megariotis, submitted declarations of regret and a renunciation of their Communist views:

1.Andreas Papandreou
2.Cornelius Castoriadis
3.Kirkos Kirkou
4.Eleutherios ——
5.Christos Karabelas
6.Helias Kolovos
7.Ioannis Kontogiannis
8.Stefanos Gastratos – all law students
9.Christos Valias – a sixth-form student in the High School
10.Nikos Kondilis – a student and electrician
11.Menelaos Megariotis – a law student

Plus two or three others.


3. Acronauplia Concentration Camp

Acronauplia was not, of course, as bad as Auschwitz or Dachau, but it was modelled upon the Fascist concentration camps. It was a Venetian castle, a medieval fort. An extension adjacent to it was first used as a barracks, and then as a conference centre. A prison for those serving hard labour sentences was built on a hill opposite the main prison, and being sent there was a virtual death sentence. Kolokotronis, the leader of the Greek revolution of 1821, had been imprisoned there. Acronauplia was first given the title of a prison for Communists, but it was not a prison. The prisoners were not there by order of a court, but by virtue of the decisions of Public Security Committees, or on the order of the Minister of Public Security, Maniadakis. There were many exiles amongst the detainees.

Eventually it was decided that the most apt term for the prison was that of a concentration camp, as in the Fascist countries. The authorities in Acronauplia attempted to enforce strict military discipline. We were isolated from the outside world. Correspondence, except two letters per month to one’s family, was forbidden. Only family visitors were permitted, and they were persuaded and sometimes even threatened to try and make us sign declarations renouncing our principles and beliefs.

After great efforts on our part, we were permitted to have a very few books, but no newspapers at first. Much later we were allowed to read a newspaper, but that contained nothing but Fascist poison. We had very little water at first, the time permitted for a walk in the prison yard was barely enough for us to stretch our legs, and we went hungry very often. A strict military discipline was imposed, we could not rise before reveille had sounded, and revolutionary songs were strictly forbidden.

At the beginning an internal guard was maintained. Every morning we were counted and reported on, with the prisoners standing to attention right through the proceedings. Bed-time and lights out regulations had to be obeyed without question. We protested and fought tooth and nail to break this unpopular Fascist barracks regime.

We acted very carefully to secure what freedom we could within those walls. The situation became critical. In September 1937 the prison guards attacked the prisoners, after having encouraged them to break the prison rules – in other words, a provocation.

One night “Göring” entered cell 2 and ordered us to stop what we were doing and go to bed, as lights out had been signalled. Nobody moved. He left and we heard a pistol shot. That was the signal for the guards to shoot. A hail of bullets hit the cells. They were shooting to kill. We were not frightened. On the contrary, we shouted back, “Shame on you, murderers!” We crept under our beds, shielding ourselves with mattresses or stood in the corners or behind bullet-proof walls. This continued until Vrettos, the Prison Director, returned from Nauplia and ordered a cease fire.

This murderous assault cost the school teacher P. Stavridis his life. His head was shattered as if it was a vase, and his brains spilled out onto the floor. The prison authorities said he was shot dead whilst trying to escape ...

Raptis was exiled to Folegandros. He had not at that point signed any declaration of repentance. He did not take part in any of our meetings there. He was neither warm nor fraternal towards us. Was it his temperament? Was he pretending to be somebody else? Or did he have psychological problems? However, he did not give us the impression of being somebody likely to sign a declaration of repentance. Suddenly he left and was taken to the Ministry. After a while we heard that Maniadakis had freed him on condition that he went abroad. We were certain that he signed a declaration of repentance. It was well known that nobody had ever been released without signing one.

Meanwhile Vitsoris had been arrested, but through the mediation of the great actress Kotopouli, he had been freed to go abroad by Maniadakis, just as in the previous case of a highly esteemed member of the Glinos group, Likogiannis. The group’s leadership had said nothing, but we knew that Maniadakis would not free anyone without obtaining a declaration of repentance.

We discussed the cases of Raptis and Vitsoris, but could not form a uniform opinion. The majority approved of the behaviour of Raptis, but not that of Vitsoris. Only Xipolitos, Tournopoulos and I condemned Raptis. These were times when those who signed a declaration were rejecting all their beliefs and convictions, and would lose the respect held towards those who remained in prison, facing death with courage.

Theodorou, the former Secretary of the OKNE (the KKE’s youth group), who belonged to the Sklavos group, approached the prison authorities and asked for the records of the Raptis case. There he read:


Maniadakis asked Raptis “Your parents have assured me that you were involved in the movement because you were young and immature, and that if I let you go abroad, you will never become involved again. What do you say?” He did not answer.

And as is very well known, he who remains silent, consents.

Raptis was not an ordinary member. He was a co-leader of the Pouliopoulos group, and a member of its Central Committee. Was it correct for the leaders to get a passport from Maniadakis and go abroad? And what about the ordinary members? Should they sign repentance declarations in order to leave? If the leaders deserted, should not the entire working class leave for abroad? If not, who would lead the working class to break its bonds? In this case Pouliopoulos showed all his greatness. To begin with, he had not heard of the affair. But prior to his capture he had met Raptis, who was by then freed. We never learned what Raptis told him or held back. Anyway Pouliopoulos brought the case before a Central Committee meeting, and Raptis’ behaviour was condemned by Vourzoukis, Tamtakos and Anastasiadis. When Pouliopoulos was arrested, he was first taken to the Averof jail, and then to the jail on Aegina. From there he managed to send a letter to us at Acronauplia saying that “Raptis is advising me to go abroad in the same way as he did. What is the opinion of the Acronauplia group?” We decided unanimously – “No”. Pouliopoulos had signed a contract of honour with the movement. He was not going to kneel before the ridiculous dictator. He had already started a struggle against the declarations of repentance, saying “they can only take me abroad in chains, and even then I will find a way to return”. Our comrades abroad were not aware of how we were fighting against the declarations of repentance.

Raptis and Vitsoris were accepted abroad as representatives. But of whom, the Workers Front or The Proletarian? Nobody had nominated them as their representatives. Their behaviour abroad was irritating. Even during the dictatorship of Papadopoulos (1967) those abroad showed the same rotten liberal attitude, and today we know how much this costs. We have been heavily criticised over the matter of declarations of repentance. We know better than anyone else what we have lost, as the leadership of the international Trotskyist movement [in Greece] was wiped out. But we refused to reverse our decision. We believe that they had the same feelings on this as us. They are not dead, they live because their ideas live on.


4. The Founding Conference of the Fourth International

On 3 September 1938 the Trotskyist organisations assembled at a conference in France, and the Fourth International, the World Party of Socialist Revolution, together with the Youth International, was founded. Thirty representatives participated at the conference, from 11 countries: France, Britain, the Soviet Union, Germany, Belgium, Poland, the USA, Greece and various Latin American countries. It proved impossible to send representatives from Czechoslovakia, Spain, Austria, Indochina, China, French Morocco, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Palestine, Lithuania, Romania and some of the other Latin American countries, as well as from the POUM and the PSOP of France, who had requested to attend as observers.

Never before had an international conference of such great significance taken place in a period of such immense difficulties provoked by the accumulation of the problems which foreshadowed the approaching world war.

The majority of the conference declared that the establishment of the Fourth International was an absolute necessity if there was to be any further progress of the revolutionary movement during this critical period. After a wide-ranging discussion the conference approved the programme of the Fourth International, The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, written by Trotsky. The Transitional Programme, as it was popularly known, was based upon the first four congresses of the Third International. It is the Communist Manifesto of today, covering our entire epoch, and maintaining its relevance against the self-styled attempts by Pablo and Mandel to revise it. The conference also voted to adopt the Statutes of the Fourth International, which were based upon democratic centralism.

Acutely aware of the approach of an imperialist war, the Programme declared:


The bourgeoisie and its agents use the war question more than any other to deceive the people by means of abstractions, general formulae, lame phraseology, ‘neutrality’, ‘collective defence’, ‘arming for the defence of peace’, ‘struggle against Fascism’ and so on. All such formulae reduce themselves in the end to the fact that the war question, that is the fate of the people, is left in the hands of the imperialists, their governing staffs, their diplomacy, their generals, with all their intrigues and plots against the people. [2]

It castigated the social patriots who were attempting to drag the exploited behind the war chariot in the name of ‘democracy’ and the Popular Front. It called on the working class to defend the Soviet Union, and called on workers to build a United Front against Fascism, to fight for the liberation of the colonial countries from imperialism, and to fight against the imperialist war and for the Socialist revolution.

The conference discussed the question of the unity of the Trotskyist movement in Greece, and decided that the unification of the EOKDE with the KDEE was necessary because the differences between the two organisations (the present situation in Greece and the question of the Archeiomarxists) did not justify the continuation of two separate organisations.

Without any authority Raptis dealt with the question of the entry of the POUM into the Fourth International, which had been proposed by the OKDE (Pouliopoulos and Raptis), in opposition to Trotsky, as well as presenting the question of Archeiomarxism, which had been solved in 1930.

The conference declared that unification must take place on the basis of the Transitional Programme, and that the organisation would be known as the Revolutionary Socialist Organisation (Greek Section of the Fourth International). It added that a newspaper under a new name would be published, that a new temporary leadership would be formed on the basis of equality of representation, with the sanction of the International Secretariat, which would take decisions should disagreements arise between the two tendencies, that the members abroad would form a committee whose main duty would be to assist financially the Greek section and, in conjunction with the leadership inside Greece, prepare a conference of the new organisation, and that this committee would publish a magazine containing the documents of the two tendencies.

That this resolution, which was proposed by those two self-nominated ‘representatives’ Raptis and Vitsoris, was accepted by the conference was scandalous, because they had adopted the rôle of a political leadership, and yet, with the exception of the matter of unification, ignored the wishes of their comrades who were engaged in a life and death struggle under the dictatorship.

After the founding conference Raptis was kept in the sanatorium of the Yser, and had no – absolutely no – contact with any Trotskyist organisation, faithfully keeping the promise he had made to Maniadakis that he would not take part in any political activity. He was, therefore, unaware of and unable to participate in the conference which took place in January 1942 in Brussels, at which the European Secretariat was formed, and in which Marcel Hic, Yvan Craipeau and Zwan (France), Henry Opta and Abram Leon (Wajnsztock) (Belgium), and perhaps Martin Widelin (France) participated.

When Raptis realised that he could be accepted without any problems by the Greek section, he sent the worthless T. Doris (Capnisi), who was given names and addresses, and who, as soon as he was arrested, betrayed to the Security Police comrades Prodromos Savas, Perkentes, T. Giannopoulos, Prigouris and others. He also told them that Vitsoris had entrusted to Giannopoulos a case containing the organisation’s archives, which were then seized by the spies.



CONTINUED



Notes

1. Comrade Stinas had spoken of “Fascism” both before and after the imposition of the Metaxas dictatorship. Within the ranks of the EOKDE, however, there was a general consensus that the KDEE’s analysis of Fascism was derived from their incorrect evaluation of the situation and from other theoretical errors. Our conference described the 4 August dictatorship as a “military-police regime”.

A relentless ideological struggle against Stinas” tendency occurred in the Acronauplia concentration camp. We exposed their pessimistic evaluation of the correlation of political forces prior to the Metaxas dictatorship and after the Thessalonica events, and also the mechanistic mentality that Stinas brought with him when he split from Stalinism. There was nothing new about Stinas’ view of the “Fascism of 4 August”. He did not accept the analysis of Fascism which Trotsky formulated, he could not throw off his Stalinist past, and, whatever his claims, he never became a Trotskyist. He used the same criteria as the Stalinists to describe the Metaxas dictatorship as Fascist.

Stinas was, nonetheless, careful not to go so far as the Stalinists, and avoided such theories as ‘all-out Fascism’ and ‘Social Fascism’, and those of the Archeiomarxists, through which he himself had lived, first as a supporter of Pouliopoulos in the spring of 1927, and then as a Stalinist that autumn, when he started to persecute the Spartakists and Archeiomarxists. He also avoided being identified with the later Stalinist ideas, that the choice of the day was between democracy and Fascism, and that one should call for the democratisation of the bourgeois regime.

2. L.D. Trotsky, The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, London 1976, p.21.
**************

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-Open Letter to the ECCI From The Greek Left Oposition (1933)

Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forebears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

************
Open Letter to the ECCI


Open Letter of the Communist Organisation of Bolshevik-Leninists (Archeiomarxists), Greek Section of the International Left Opposition, to the Executive Committee of the Communist International


As the Archeiomarxists encountered the Communist Party on a far more level footing than many of the much smaller Trotskyist organisations in the rest of the world, they were also the ideal vehicle for posing the politics of the Left Opposition to the Communist movement on the international level, especially after the German debacle of 1933. One example of this is the following open letter.

Within a few months a crisis arose in the relations between the organisation and the world Trotskyist movement. For some time Giotopoulos had been functioning as International Secretary in an arbitrary way. When he reported on the British Trotskyists on 22 September 1933, he let them know that opinion was not unanimous on the International Secretariat regarding entry into the ILP (cf. Bornstein and Richardson, Against the Stream, London 1986, pp.142, 153, 157 n67) and supported the French Trotskyists who opposed entry into the SFIO (cf. L.D. Trotsky, A Good Omen for Joint Work in Britain, 9 April 1936, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1935-36, New York 1977, p.298, and A False Understanding of the New Orientation, 8 October 1933, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34, New York 1975, pp.30-1). Trotsky therefore framed the resolution that removed Giotopoulos from his position as International Secretary (L.D. Trotsky, Comrade Witte’s Violations of Bolshevik Organisational Principles, 28 September 1933, in Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement 1929-33, New York 1979, pp.308-11). Witte’s absolute control over his Greek organisation brought about a split with the International Communist League in 1934, and the Archeiomarxists then affiliated to the London Bureau (cf. L.D. Trotsky, The Crisis of the Greek Section, 5 April 1934, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34, New York 1975, pp.279-84). The result of this, however, was the formation of a Trotskyist faction inside the leadership of the Archeio opposed to the split with the Trotskyists led by George Vitsoris, which gained a majority of the membership and set up a new organisation publishing the weekly paper The Bolshevik (cf. L.D. Trotsky, Reproaching the Dutch Section, 17 March 1934, in Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement 1934-40, New York 1979, p.462, and Stinas, Memoires, pp.149, 156). This remained the official representative of the Trotskyist movement in Greece up until the unification of all the groups in 1938.

The parent group gradually dwindled away in a series of obscure splits. Giotopoulos went to Spain at the time of the Civil War, and was for a while imprisoned in close confinement whilst ill by the Stalinists (Revolutionary History, volume 1 no.2, Summer 1988, p.45). On his release he went to Paris, where he was encountered by Ernie Rogers, who was amazed at his authority among Greek workers abroad. He went back to Greece, and during the Metaxas dictatorship the Archeiomarxists supported the defence of the Soviet Union, and found themselves in the prisons and the camps along with the Stalinists and the Trotskyists. But during the occupation they supported the EAM, and large numbers of them were murdered by the Stalinist OPLA. At one point it was mistakenly reported that Giotopoulos had been killed at Thessalonica along with large numbers of Archeiomarxists and Trotskyists by the Germans (David James, Greek Patriots Sentenced by Fascists, in Socialist Appeal (RCP), volume 6 no.4, August 1944), and Ernie Rogers was told the same story by some Greek seamen whom he met when in prison at this time. But both Giotopoulos and the Archeiomarxists survived – after a fashion. During the Greek Civil War they sided with the anti-Communist ‘national army’, which they claimed was defending ‘democracy’ against the KKE, which they claimed was a fascist movement (to begin with they equated ‘Royalist reaction’ with ‘Russian totalitarianism’ – cf S.T. Witte, The Situation in Greece, in Left, the theoretical organ of the ILP, no.122, December 1946, pp.269-71), and their paper circulated freely during the fighting and repression (for details cf. A. Stinas, Memoires, pp.149-50, 297-8). This was effectively their end as a Socialist movement of any sort, and a sad decline. Witte himself died in 1965.

****************

Comrades

Before the entire world working class, before the millions of the oppressed on earth, we, the Bolshevik-Leninists (Archeiomarxists) Greek Section of the International Left Opposition, address ourselves to you, the highest body of the international Communist movement, the official representatives of the October Revolution, in order to denounce the greatest and most vulgar betrayal which has occurred against the proletariat for the sake of its class enemies by the corrupted clique appointed by you which leads the KKE.

The historic importance of this betrayal is so great, and its consequence so tragic for the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, that even the most merciless punishment of those responsible will be unable to erase the filth which has covered the heroic and bloodstained flag of the October Revolution in Greece.

On 2 July the second round of the parliamentary elections occurred in Thessalonica. In today’s tragic situation for the oppressed, and with the frightful intensification of the contradictions in the bourgeois camp, these elections took on a lively form, and the struggle between the two camps of the bourgeoisie reached the point of mutual conflict. The oppressed masses, paying the most heavy price for the politics of the bourgeois parties, started, particularly in the most recent period, to turn decisively towards Communism.

The decisive and bloody battles, the truly revolutionary insurrections of May-June 1932, December 1932 and March 1933, and a stable increase in the influence of the Communists (55,000 votes in elections in September 1932, 67,000 votes in the elections of March 1933) showed that we were in a new period of upturn of the revolutionary movement. In these favourable objective circumstances a correct Communist line would lead to a higher stage in the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

Under the conditions of these elections an exceptional chance was given to the KKE to come ever closer to the oppressed masses, to fly its revolutionary flag, to develop its revolutionary programme, to win the trust of new layers, to advance steadily, and take important steps forward. That is what the advanced workers and poor peasants have been expecting from their revolutionary party – the party which officially represented the October Revolution in our country.

But the KKE has abandoned the arena of struggle. The KKE, which has in its leadership an irresponsible and ignorant clique, which you appointed without asking the opinion of the party, betrayed the proletariat, betrayed the revolution and betrayed its flag. The KKE has denied its ideology and defended the party of big finance capital, the party of Venizelos, the executioner of the Greek workers, the mortal enemy of the revolutionary workers, and the murderer of hundreds of Communists and advanced workers and peasants; the party which many times in the past in this same city of Thessalonica, had organised the most violent slaughter against the workers in the places where they met to find work, a slaughter which surpassed in victims and barbarity anything that had occurred previously; and the party which voted for the anti-Communist law. This is the party which filled the prisons and barren islands of the Aegean with Communists, reaching the point of murdering them inside the prisons, as occurred with the Archeiomarxist Pampakopoulos.

For the sake of this party the revolutionary party of the proletariat essentially withdrew from the elections with a stupid and sensational manoeuvre, placing the list of its candidates two days after the time limit laid down in the law. For the sake of the party of capital, the KKE left the workers without Communist ballot papers. Its candidates entered the elections as individuals ‘isolated’ and independent. For the sake of this party the KKE betrayed the workers. Six thousand Communist votes were given to Venizelos’ party, thus guaranteeing its victory.

Why? How could such a horrific crime occur?

Not only in the upper echelons of both bourgeois parties, but also in the circles which are closely associated with the upper echelons of the KKE, the question appears thus: as regards the Venizelos party, Sofianopoulos, the peasant representative is commonly accused by Rizospastis of being a “peasant-Fascist” – whilst also being a “Friend of the USSR” closely related to the Soviet Embassy and a Legal Adviser of the Soviet Trade Mission!

For the sake of the bourgeois oppositionist parties who have started trading, he has held discussions with the leadership of the KKE and the Soviet Delegation, and concluded a deal on the following basis: Venizelos’ politics are a turn towards approaching Turkey and Russia. Tsaldaris’ politics turn instead towards France. If the KKE supported Venizelos in the elections, apart from the immediate gains they would have from that, they would support the foreign policy of the USSR. Around this question, the bourgeois parties which are governing today have started a campaign of slander which is aimed not only against the KKE, but also against the Communist International and Soviet Russia, who are accused as those directly responsible for the alliance of the Communists with Venizelos.

What is happening, comrades? Has your reactionary ‘National Socialist’ theory of ‘Socialism in one country’ made it possible to lead you to this point? We cannot believe it, despite the fact that we have in front of us the disgusting fact that Comrade Potemkin, ex-Ambassador of the Soviet Embassy in Athens, has sent a congratulatory message to Venizelos concerning the saving of his life after an attempted murder which the ‘populists’ had organised against him – a message with which he expressed his great joy for the saviour of this “precious life” of the most bloodstained and maniac executioner of the Greek workers. It is up to you to clarify your position on this question.

Also, along with all the working class of this country, we have in front of us the most vulgar betrayal, which has marred the flag of Communism, a betrayal for which the Central Committee of the KKE has still not given an explanation and whose consequences are frightfully disastrous. A whole era of work by millions of militant has been destroyed and been thrown into the mud. Today the word ‘Communist’ has become synonymous with ‘traitor’.

In a country where all the objective conditions are leading to a revolutionary insurrection, in a country which in the immediate period could become a new revolutionary arena, Communism, the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat, the ideology of Bolshevism, has suffered the heaviest blow from its own representatives. Using, the theory of the ‘lesser evil’, the Central Committee has led the party into the enemy’s camp. For the workers, the KKE has ‘sold out’. The KKE has erased itself in the most dreadful manner from the consciousness of the workers. Neither our superhuman efforts nor our independent participation in the elections for the rehabilitation of the Communist flag, could hold back the wavering of the workers.

Comrades!

You are the ones mainly responsible for this situation, independent of the fact of whether in this particular instance you are guilty or not. From 1923, from the time you took the leadership of the Communist International from Lenin and Trotsky’s hands, you did whatever you could to destroy its prestige, and to squander in an unconscious way all the capital of Bolshevism and the October Revolution. You have subjugated the Communist parties into being your esteemed subjects, who have, as their only obligation, to support and applaud your empirical and disastrous policies. You have strangled their will, you have strangled their thoughts, you have established in their internal regimes a vulgar bureaucratic machine abolishing control by the base, and crushing democratic centralism, which constitutes their fundamental organising principle. You have expelled every courageous revolutionary who dared to raise his voice against your crimes, and every Bolshevik who defended Lenin’s politics against your centrist policies, which led to the vulgar compromises and destruction of the Chinese Revolution, the ludicrous tactics of the ‘Third Period’ and the dreadful betrayal in Germany.

You have expelled Trotsky, Lenin’s most able co-worker, the organiser of the October Revolution and the creator of the Red Anny. You have exiled Rakovsky. You have murdered Blumkin, Zingantie, Rabinowitz, Smirnov. Riazanov and Tsoulokitze. You have thrown in the Siberian gutters the elite of Bolshevism. You have hounded all the parties who had the courage to give their opinion, and you have based yourselves on the most bankrupt, corrupted. most suspect, most adventurist and opportunist elements, whom you with your prestige as leadership of the Communist International have imposed on those parties.

Here are the consequences. After the Communist Party of Germany, the KKE has now sunk deep into the swamp of the most vulgar betrayal. It has become a nest of provocateurs and traitors against the Oppositionists, now having nothing more than a vestigial influence amongst the masses, who having been won over by the October Revolution, once saw in the party the representative of the Revolution. Today it is seen as traitorous. And this is how they view Communist ideology along with it. New and fierce struggles and new incalculable sacrifices are needed to rebuild what was destroyed in a day.

In the presence of the loud protests of the workers and a flag that has been stained – this party of traitors cannot present itself again to the working class. It is rotten to the core. No further attempts can save it.

In the name of the working class which has been betrayed, in the name of the victims of the class struggle who, with their life and blood have watered the tree of Communism. we demand the convocation of an Extraordinary Congress of the Greek Communists with the participation of the Left Opposition.

Above all, we demand from you a reply to the working class of our country and the entire world – who is responsible for this betrayal? Who delivered Thessalonica's workers to their executioner'?

With Communist Greetings
The Political Bureau of the Communist Organisation of Bolshevik-Leninists (Archeiomarxists), (KOMLEA),
Greek Section of the International Left Opposition
July 1933

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-Archeiomarxist Congress Resolution (1930)

Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forebears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

************
Archeiomarxist Congress Resolution

After discussions with Molinier and Mill Trotsky proposed that the Archeiomarxists should appear as a section of the Third International, which the Left Opposition was struggling to reform, regarding the KKE as a faction and approaching it for unity in action (LD Trotsky, To the Bolshevik-Leninist Organisation of Greece (Archeiomarxists), October 1930, in Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement 1929-33, New York, pp.48-51). The group sent Myrtos onto the International Secretariat in 1931, but after a while it was decided to replace him with Giotopoulos, who somewhat grandiloquently assumed the pseudonym of ‘Witte’ (Beta, in respect of Trotsky’s alpha – cf. Stinas, Memoires, p.149). After a preliminary conference with Trotsky along with other Archeio leaders (L.D. Trotsky, A Discussion on Greece, Spring 1932, in Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement 1929-33, pp.124-40) Witte departed for Europe, where he represented the Archeiomarxists on the International Secretariat as well as functioning as its International Secretary.

The group was the largest section of the International Trotskyist movement until 1934, when it split and a section of it joined the London Bureau and the other section continued to support the Trotskyist movement. Trotsky expressed a fervent wish that their association would “last, and forever” (Preface to the Greek Edition of the New Course, 28 January 1933, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932-33, New York, 1972, pp.87-9). They on their part warmly returned his feelings, greatly heartening his journey to Copenhagen by lining the docks at the Piraeus and the length of the Corinth Canal with cheering workers shouting “Long Live Trotsky!” and “Long Live the Commune!” (Victor Serge and Natalia Sedova Trotsky, The Life and Death of Leon Trotsky, London 1975, p.188, and L.D. Trotsky, To Greek Friends en Route to Copenhagen, 19 November 1932, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932, New York 1973, p.311).

With the adherence of the Archeiomarxists to the Trotskyist movement, the Left Opposition in Greece underwent an unprecedented development in the early 1930s. Committed militants vigorously distributed the ideas and pamphlets of Trotsky in every corner of the country. The Communist Organisation of Bolshevik-Leninists (KOMLEA), as it was called, spread everywhere in Greece, and even reached out to Albania (Revolutionary History, volume 3 no.1, Summer 1990, p.27). Its newspaper, Pali ton Taxeon (Class Struggle) was sold in thousands of copies, and from publishing fortnightly became first a weekly, then twice a week, then three times a week, and for a short period during the 1933 elections it even came out daily – the first Trotskyist daily paper, to our knowledge, in the world (cf. L.D. Trotsky, On the State of the Left Opposition, 16 December 1932, in Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932-33, New York 1972, p.36). Apart from this central political organ of the Central Committee of KOMLEA, they circulated a theoretical journal and trade union papers, the Shoemaker, Baker, Student, and Public Employee. These papers reflected the deep penetration of the Bolshevik-Leninists into the trade union movement of the country, from which for a while the Stalinists were driven out. A good indication of their types of activity can be gained from A. Stinas, Memoires, pp.144-50, as well as from the above introductory account by Karliaftis.

*****************

As the Congress of the Archeiomarxist organisations (8 September-2 October 1930) has discussed all the issues on the agenda, as it has discussed its previous activity and outlined its perspectives for political and trade union work, it unanimously adopts the following resolution:

The Archeiomarxist movement has its roots in the first revolutionary nucleus of Greece, which was formed in 1919 around the group Kommunismos, and fought for the entry of the SEKE (Socialist Workers Party of Greece) into the Communist International. Inside the ranks of the new party, where they took part, the members of the group Kommunismos had to struggle against confusionist policies and against the regime imposed by the leadership of the party. For this reason they published the journal Archeio tou Marxismou (Archives of Marxism). Hounded within the party, slandered and expelled by its leaders, the Archeiomarxist group continues to attract and educate the best workers who had been hounded out of the KKE.

For their disagreements on the nature of the crisis of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist International, the Archeiomarxists, with their paltry means, with their publications, with the lessons and their propaganda demonstrated their agreement with the Left Opposition on the issues of the Anglo-Russian Committee, the Chinese Revolution, Socialism in one country, and the party and trade unions.

When the influence of Archeiomarxism penetrated the broadest layers of the working class, its activity was strengthened and the Archeiomarxists started to take part in and eventually lead important proletarian struggles. Exposed to government anti police repression, the Archeiomarxists were able to build their illegal organisation and thus defend their cadres.

Despite the heated struggle against the Archeiomarxists and despite slanders, provocations and even murders (which forced the Archeiomarxists to organise their own defence) the Communist Party was not able to crush the Atcheiomarxist movement, which, on the contrary, has become even stronger, with many workers and strong cadres.

Congress confirms that the Archeiomarxist movement, after experiencing a long period of preparation, now enters a new stage of political development which will make it assume great responsibilities in all the political problems of the revolutionary movement.

The important forces which were acquired after the patient work of many years and the true influence which the Archeiomarxists exert on the most advanced and conscious layers of the Greek working class, places before the Archeiomarxist movement the immediate task of acquiring all the forms of open political struggle of the International Left Opposition, and of placing themselves in a broad struggle of political work.

The serious ideological preparation of the Archeiomarxist cadres which occurred for many years, in the spirit and criticism of the Russian opposition and the principles of the International Left Opposition, constitutes a guarantee that the basis of all the open political activity which the Archeiomarxists will undertake will be inspired solely by the ideal and principles of the International Left Opposition.

Congress places before its members the problem of the form and future political activity of the organisation, in other words, are we obliged to follow the example of the Left Opposition in other countries, who work as a faction of the Communist party, or must we, given the particular conditions in Greece and the constellation of forces between the KKE and the opposition – which are favourable to the opposition – enter on the path of a new Communist party?

Congress draws the attention of all Archeiomarxist members to two obstacles which confront our movement in its path towards the building of a new party – obstacles the importance of which must not be underrated or ignored:

(a) The subjective obstacle: the Archeiomarxist movement, working for years inside closed educational circles, was not able to acquire all the necessary political experience which is necessary for a Communist party.

(b) The objective obstacle: the KKE, which in the past attracted many sympathisers, especially during the period of the Asia Minor expedition and the period which directly followed it, is today found to be in a situation of decline such as it has not hitherto known. But even if completely lacking in cadres and degenerating due to its illogical and opportunist politics, the KKE can still suddenly achieve a new leap forwards under the prestige of the Communist International by appearing as the stable defender of the USSR and the October Revolution.

Congress calls upon the members of the Archeiomarxist organisation throughout the country to discuss seriously these problems in the following months, before they lay down the decisive groundwork for our future political activity.

Due to the obstacles mentioned above and the objective conditions, Congress proposes a position, at least at the beginning, between the independent party and an opposition, which on entering the leadership of the political and economic struggles of the working class, will carefully observe the development of the KKE. It will also support all initiatives which attract the working masses towards a new revolutionary movement. For the political revolutionary struggle to be undertaken, Congress decides on the publication of a political newspaper under the direct control of the leading organs of the Opposition. This paper shall be called Pali ton Taxeon (Class Struggle).

The newspaper will carry out firstly an energetic and constant struggle against the capitalist system and all the political formations which support it. The newspaper will pay attention to the revolutionary trade union movement, and stand for the true and positive defence of the Soviet state, and the revolutionary education of the working class, in the spirit of the first four congresses of the Communist International and the ideas of the International Left Opposition.

Congress recognises the previously fruitful activity inside the trade union movement which allowed the Archeiomarxists to concentrate a significant section of the working class inside trade union organisations. It opposes the demoralising activity of the KKE, which, with its slogans of the ‘Third Period’, tried to lead the workers astray into adventures, and created pseudo-trade union organisations, which divided the energies of the revolutionary elements of the working class.

In the meantime Congress projects as an immediate aim the preparation of the necessary groundwork for the creation of an independent unified revolutionary trade union organisation which will correspond to the true interests of the working class.

Congress energetically opposes the hated regime of the ‘democratic’ dictatorship of the Venizelos government, and proclaims its solidarity with all the victims of oppression, of whatever tendency.

Congress ends by sending warm greetings to the harassed, gaoled and exiled Russian oppositionists – led by L.D. Trotsky – victims of the fierce oppression of the Stalinist machine.