Ideological Confusion Amid the Tempests of Imperialist WarsBy Eliseos Vagenas*
Recent developments in Venezuela and Iran reflect an escalation of US imperialist aggression in the wider regions of Latin America–Caribbean and the Persian Gulf, warnings that the KKE issued to the peoples in a timely manner.
Our Party rejected the imperialists' false pretexts of “restoring democracy”, instead highlighting the real underlying causes. In the case of Venezuela, the conflict centres on control of energy resources and geopolitical dominance in the region, driven by US competition with Russia and China. Similarly, regarding Iran, the KKE highlighted that the true aim is to impose the imperialist plans of Israel and the US in the broader region, linking current developments to create the economic and geopolitical space of the “New Middle East” and to implement the “India–Middle East–Europe Corridor” (IMEC), in opposition to China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” and Iran’s plans.
At the same time, the KKE expressed solidarity with the peoples and the Communist Parties of both countries, which are operating under particularly difficult conditions and facing persecution by the bourgeois regimes in their countries. We have emphasized that only the peoples themselves have the right to determine the course of their countries. Alongside other Communist and Workers’ Parties, we co-signed the Joint Statements initiated by appeals from the Communist Party of Venezuela (1), signed by 56 parties, and the Tudeh Party of Iran signed by 51 parties (2). These Joint Statements strongly condemn US imperialist aggression and stress that the peoples must to be the ones to determine the course of developments in their countries.
The KKE denounced the unacceptable and cynical stance of the Greek government, which, acting as a staunch supporter of US imperialism, fully embraces all its pretexts. In doing so, it denies the right of peoples to determine developments in their own countries, and goes as far as to deliberately turn a blind eye to violations of even the tattered norms of “international law” that it otherwise claims to uphold.
Our Party also highlighted the case of Greenland, where the government’s argument —as well as that of the current and previous social democratic governments (PASOK, SYRIZA) of the country— that our people must be drawn into imperialist wars alongside Euro-Atlantic imperialism in order to secure a supposed “safe haven” has been thoroughly disproven! Such “safe havens” do not exist in the era of imperialism!
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Venezuela
Close to this perception, cultivated by the dominant Euro-Atlantic political forces, there is also a strand of opportunism that imagines an “anti-imperialist axis” supposedly being formed by certain bourgeois governments. In their attempt to substantiate these fantasies —in order to push the peoples in the direction of a supposedly “better” management of capitalism, or even towards support for the rical side of imperialist competition, i.e. the emerging Eurasian axis— they resort to unhistorical positions.
Thus, in an article, the former MEP of the Spanish Communist Party and current head of international relations of the “United Left”, Manu Pineda, argues that Venezuela is simply doing something akin to the Treaty of Brest–Litovsk, signed by Lenin in 1918 with the German Empire, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, signed by Stalin in 1939 with Nazi Germany —that is, making “tactical concessions to a superior opponent, which can be the key to gaining time and consolidating a historic undertaking” (3).
For our younger readers, it should be clarified that with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the young Soviet Russia formally withdrew from the Imperialist First World War in March 1918, signing a painful agreement with the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. The treaty, which resulted in the loss of significant territories, including a large part of Ukraine and the Baltic countries, gave the Soviet regime the time it needed to consolidate its power. The treaty effectively broke down a few months later, in November 1918, allowing Soviet Russia, and after 1922 the Soviet Union, to gradually regain these territories by 1940. Similarly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) gave the Soviet Union 22 months to prepare for the impending imperialist attack.
But what connection could these two agreements have with current developments in Venezuela? How can such unhistorical comparisons be made at a time when more and more evidence is emerging about the involvement of the leadership of the ruling social democratic party and senior officials of the Venezuelan government in the US military operation in which the US kidnapped the country’s president and his wife, causing dozens of casualties, including the deaths of 32 Cuban fighters who were carrying out their internationalist and patriotic duty?
It should be noted that “Venezuela's air defences were thought to comprise a supposedly impenetrable array of Russian-made systems and aircraft, including S-300V surface-to-air missiles with a reach of 200 km, 12 medium-range BUK-M2E batteries with a reach of 140 km, and 21 Sukhoi-30 fighter jets equipped with Kh-31A missiles, capable of striking ships at hypersonic speeds, i.e. exceeding three times the speed of sound (Mach 3+). There were also numerous portable short-range anti-aircraft systems, including 5,000 Russian Igla-S (...) Yet in the event, none of these systems issued a warning, nor did a single bullet or missile get fired, not even for appearances’ sake. When US helicopters flew over Caracas, they too refrained from using the hundreds of guns they had (...) The army, seemingly hesitant until the last moment, waited for orders from ‘above’ that never arrived. Some members of the political leadership and the armed forces betrayed Maduro and their country. The US later stated that it had been in contact with a senior Venezuelan official for some time”.(4).
The developments that followed in Venezuela after the imperialist intervention confirm the role of the corrupt ruling social democracy. However, the forces of opportunism, which insist on fostering the myth of so-called “Bolivarian socialism”, continue to make the above unhistorical comparisons.
It is fortunate, then, that the Eurocommunist of the Spanish United Left did not argue, in his haste to defend the social-democratic leadership of Venezuela from accusations of bargaining with US imperialists and avoid the stigma of betrayal, that with the Treaty of Brest–Litovsk Treaty and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Lenin and Stalin were dragged in chains to German prisons, as happened this year to Maduro, who ended up in US custody.
The essence of their effort lies in the fact that they are attempting to preserve the illusions they have been promoting the last few decades. According to these illusions, it is supposedly possible to build “21st century socialism” through bourgeois elections and referendums, without overthrowing and dismantling the bourgeois state apparatus, without establishing new revolutionary institutions of power, and without socializing the means of production. All of this, of course, has nothing to do with the October Revolution or the construction of socialism in the USSR.
WAP: The Islamic revolution is the most massive revolution of the 20th century!
The icing on the cake of the opportunists’ unhistorical statements came from a representative of the so-called “World Anti-Imperialist Platform” (WAP), which, as we have previously noted, among other things, acts provocatively and plays a dirty anti-KKE role.
At an event held in Athens on 2 February, 2026, D. Patelis, who in our country represents only himself, claimed that the Iranian “revolution of 1979” was “the most massive revolution of the 20th century; incidentally, there is no other revolution in the 20th century with greater mass popular participation”.
Some communists and revolutionaries abroad argue that perhaps the most massive revolution of the 20th century was the Cuban Revolution (1959), the first socialist revolution on the American continent, which inspired millions. Others point to the Chinese Revolution (1949), which took place in the most populous country on the planet. Others consider the October Revolution in Russia (1917), which for the first time opened the path for humanity to advance to the highest level of social development, socialism–communism. All of these occurred in the 20th century, yet it appears that the representatives of the WAP have different assessments and objectives.
What do opportunists of all stripes want us to erase?
The main thing opportunists want us to erase, whether they are “European leftists” or “Eurasian anti-imperialists”, is what revolution truly means.
Revolution signifies a change in the ruling class, and no such change occurred in Iran, despite the victory of the significant anti-monarchist uprising of 1979. That uprising overthrew the widely despised regime of the Shah and communists actively participated, only to be brutally persecuted afterwards by the bourgeois forces that emerged victorious. The Iranian bourgeoisie, however, retained power after 1979, altering the ideological–political framework of the bourgeois system by incorporating religious and cult elements into it.
Similarly, the forces of Eurocommunism —guided by the disorienting approach that aims to reform capitalism gradually into socialism through the institutions of the bourgeois state and bourgeois parliamentary procedures, without a break from capitalism or the corresponding seizure of power by the working class— proceed to make unfounded identifications or comparisons between the revolutionary course of building socialism in the USSR and the so-called “Bolivarian process”, the name given to the social-democratic management of capitalism in Venezuela.
Against this “gospel” of contemporary “preachers” of opportunism, who advocate rejecting the principles of socialist revolution and construction and, like modern-day “monks” in a period of fasting, proclaim meat to be fish, an ideological–political front must be erected.
This is necessary so that the international communist movement does not accept the replacement of the revolutionary path by bourgeois parliamentarism, and so that revolution and socialism are not reduced to the mere alternation of parties in government within the framework of a bourgeois management.
Revolution and socialist construction require the working class to seize power, completely abolish the capital–wage labour relationship, socialize the means of production, establish workers’ power, and implement central planning of the economy.
* Member of the CC of the KKE and Head of the IRS of the CC of the KKE
References:
1) Joint statement by Communist and Workers’ Parties: “Down with the Imperialist boot in Venezuela and Latin America!”. See http://solidnet.org/article/CP-of-Venezuela-Joint-Statement-by-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-Down-with-the-Imperialist-boot-in-Venezuela-and-Latin-America/
2) Joint Statement by Communist and Workers’ Parties: “Against Imperialist Intervention and for Solidarity with the Iranian People's Struggle!”. See http://solidnet.org/article/Tudeh-Party-of-Iran-Joint-Statement-of-the-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-against-Imperialist-Intervention-and-for-Solidarity-with-the-Iranian-Peoples-Struggle/
3) Manu Pineda, “Tactical concessions and strategic objectives: from Brest-Litovsk to Bolivarian Venezuela”. See https://www.publico.es/opinion/columnas/concesiones-tacticas-objetivos-estrategicos-brest-litovsk-venezuela-bolivariana.html
4) Nikos Toskas, retired general, “Venezuela: Paralysis or betrayal?”. See https://www.dnews.gr/eidhseis/opinion/565230/venezouela-paralysi-i-prodosia