1st Party Congress of the PEL: Tuzgjorduz, Ruthund
-
Opening Statement from First Speaker of the Peasants and Workers' Party, Eizdanuz Okhelaihuztukur:
Comrades, distinguished guests, and my fellow members of the Party Congress, I would like begin by thanking the PEL for giving our party the honor of organizing this historical event for the Eurogroup. As the workers all over Europe spoke in favor of us gaining power in Europe, so too does Ruthund stand behind you as we move forward towards a better future. Europe now know that there is an alternative between the neoliberal policies of the EPA and fascism which has spread across Europe and has only loosened its grip in Ruthund recently. With the victory of Comrades Sofie Čikarová and Piane Daggot, the Left will surely be empowered in ways that we have not been able to achieve before.
In Tuzgjord, during the Second Kinstrife, our fathers took up arms against the reactionary forces and formed one of the earliest revolutionary governments in Europe. However, like with many heroes of the revolution, luck is scarce and so was it with the Tuzgjord Revolutionary Council. However even in their defeat, they waged a guerilla war all the way until the founding of the stewardship in 1994 at the cost of their livelihoods, sometimes their families, and any chance to see the light of freedom without being in hiding. They did this because they believed in something that will never be quashed out from humanity: emancipation for all. Though we intend to fight the revolution now through the ballot box, let us have the same conviction that these heroes by fighting for the common worker ever more aggressively with a new found hope placed in our hands. Let's fight for the people of Europe!
Thank you.
-
Speech of the Chairman of the Party of European Left
Václav Kohout: "Comrades, brothers and sister, friends, let me first thank to our Ruthenish comrades from the Peasants and Workers' Party for welcoming us with open arms.
As a party we have come a long way since our founding and I would like to welcome and congratulate to the newest member of our Europarliamentary group comrade Lallana. Congratulation to your great victory in Inquista comrade! As comrade Eizdanuz correctly mentioned, in recent times we have achieved important victories and we have cemented ourselves as important force in the politics of the European Union. From this place I send our greetings to the Premier Commissioner Čikarová and the Internal Affairs Commissioner Daggot.
But our path wasn't always easy and we have made many mistakes in the early, perhaps we can say, ultra-left period when we isolated ourselves from the people we were blind to the reality. I am not running away from responsibility, I fully recognize that the mistakes lie even on my shoulders and it was not until the great banner of Socialist Republicanism, the banner of Reiserová, was hoisted over Czech Slavia that the blindfold over my eyes have been torn apart so that I could see. We must consider all the mistakes as well as all the accomplishments we have had so far. For that reason I am asking you, dear comrades, for the vote of confidence as Chairman of the Party of European Left, which will determine if I am to stay in this position or if I shall be replaced, I am ready to follow your decision. The voting is of course for every registered delegation and starts now (OOC: time until 18th of July 14:00 GMT).
Aside the question of leadership it is our goal to update our manifesto to fit the modern demands of the people of Europe. The discussion of the issue will start after the results of the vote of confidence and potentially after the election of a new Chairman.
Thank you comrades."
Václav Kohout has left the room until the vote of confidence is finished.
-
Bishop Lallana rose up from her seat to vote and give her thoughts on the matter.
"I vote to keep confidence in comrade Kohout as our PEL Chairman.
Simply put, without Chairman Kohout, there would be no PEL. Chairman Kohout is one of the founding members of the PEL, and he led and steered the group at times when he was effectively the only PEL member in the entire European Council, keeping the group from dissolving. The Party would not have reached the success we have in recent times without his guiding hand and leadership. The Chairman has maintained exceptional wisdom and foresight, learning from the mistakes of the past, leading us to our present accomplishments. This is only just the beginning, and I know that Chairman Kohout has still much more to offer. The Chairman has my full support and I hope that my dear comrades feel the same."
-
Václav Kohout has returned to the room to see that his fellow members of PEL kept the confidence in his leadership with one vote.
"Well comrades.... I thank you for your confidence... I see that the question of personal leadership is perhaps not as problematic for many of you, however the next question and task before us should be. The question of Our Manifesto. Our task is to make the manifesto updated to current situation and make it so that every comrade can get fully behind it.
In my opinion our first point should be entirely removed, for it doesn't belong in a manifesto of an European Party. The point about the abolishing of the European Central Bank should also recieve our attention and I am interested to hear your opinions on that matter. Finally the last point of the current manifesto feels rather vague to me and we should discuss if it should be kept in its current form, amended or removed.
Those were just my opinions comrades, I give my word to those interested in sharing their views and responding to the questions raised by me while raising question of their own. Thank you comrades."
-
"While I would like to see justice for Mr. Coventry, who was brutally assassinated in a sinister plot, I agree that it does not make the most sense to have such a clause in a Eurogroup manifesto. I support its removal, although I would still like to see Coventry's assassination investigated in the future so that true justice can be had.
The European Central Bank only prints money for the use of European Union institutions, and also provides data on the economic situations of European Union member states. The ECB doesn't oversee any monetary policy of any particularly EU member state, so I don't see it as a tool used by the bourgeoisie - at least not yet. For now, I see no reason to abolish it, so I would support removing that clause. However, I also think we should remain steadfast in making sure that the ECB isn't expanded to have any further powers, otherwise it might eventually turn into a tool used by the bourgeoisie to dictate international monetary policy, and so I think we should make it a point in the manifesto that the ECB shouldn't be given any further economic control.
The last point of the manifesto is a big vague, although I largely agree with it. I don't have any particularly opinion about keeping, removing or amending it.
I would like to bring attention to the clause on theocracy under Section I of the manifesto, which I would like to see removed. I understand that, historically, religious authorities have often suppressed, divided and have put themselves above the working class, and that capitalists actively use religious doctrine and talking-points to undermine worker's movements, and so I fully understand Marx's great wisdom in recognising that religion has been used a tool of the oppressor. Yet, I strongly believe that this doesn't have to be the case, and that there is actually a role that religion can play in supporting and empowering the proletariat, abolishing class structures, and creating equal and socialist societies, which is what I have been working to achieve as a member of the clergy in Inquista. I firmly believe that God created all of mankind equally, provided all of humanity with the tools to be industrious, and has shown in scripture and in His actions that He would like to see humanity advance into a scientific and socialist future. At the very least, I feel that this should be an area where matters of opinion should be allowed to diverge in our group rather than condemned. Moreover, I think removing the clause would allow us to grow our caucus and build a larger movement for the left."
-
Councillor Tilkanas had been silent through voting, but now finally spoke.
"The manifesto needs to see a significant restructuring. The platforms of Comrades and Commissioners Daggot and Čikarová have resonated deeply with the people of Europe, and have effectively become the policy-face, so to speak, of the PEL. Why not see them take a similar position officially? It would certainly be better than what we currently have, which is a hodge-podge of eccentricities, ranging from "We must educate the workers against the tricks of capitalism," proposed by, I believe, the former Councillor Claudio, to the quasi-primitivist "We believe that humanity is but a single part of a vast ecology; that it must attempt to integrate itself with the natural world rather than attempting to fight it," proposed by the anarchist, deceased former Councillor Bourgaize.
However, there are many parts of our present manifesto which are not entirely bad. Section III, apart from the very last point about free movement of labor, flows well and presents a coherent vision which the PEL has already shown itself to be dedicated to and which it is genuinely able to carry out, to an extent. Some of the points in Section I as well, especially those to do with our position on imperialism and colonialism, as well as national self-determination, are very good, although I find there to be quite a bit of unnecessary repetition.
Section IV needs to be cut entirely. Everything in it has already been stated elsewhere in the manifesto; it contributes only more messiness to an already disorganized statement of intentions and makes it seem only more eccentric in nature.
To address your points, Comrade Kohout, I agree that the first point should be removed. It is extremely bizarre to see such a statement in, in general, any manifesto. I would even be surprised to see such a statement in a manifesto of a Reitzmic party, adding only eccentricity. As I have stated before, the manifesto as it is is already extremely eccentric in nature, and likely tarnishes the reputation of the party; we need to reduce eccentricity, not add to it even further.
Secondly, I do not believe that the European Central Bank should be abolished. It is certainly a very dangerous institution, in the wrong hands; but, in a modern world, economic cooperation is necessary. Certainly, its powers should be controlled, especially to ensure that it does not serve as an arm of continued imperial hegemony over the developing world, as well as of the interests of capital; but beyond this our position should really be merely one of reform as to give it, as, I hate to say it, but the betrayer of socialism in my country, Dr. Iskiris Koline, would say, "a purpose." Perhaps we could argue for a depoliticized and ECB focused not on maintaining the stability of financiers and big business but rather that of ordinary people, or something like that?
I don't believe anyone here disagrees with the last point of the manifesto, but, in my opinion, as with the rest of Section IV, it should be removed. It is idle repetition, which further adds to the appearance of eccentricity.
Turning to Comrade Lallana: I do not see how something which promotes the idea that the masses must obey, without question, a master, devoting their lives to the service of said master and following his every command, their reward being sent to a place where they praise the master endlessly for eternity, or simply either cease to exist or become a part of the master? This is especially true in light of the fact that most religions promote the idea that obeying earthly masters is good. Hinduism and Buddhism postulate that obedience contributes to reincarnation in a better form; does not St. Paul, in your Christianity, exhort Christians to obey the rulers under which they live, because they have been ordained by God; does he not also say that women must obey their husbands, and, if I remember correctly, slaves their masters? Of course, he does say that they must treat each other in the spirit of brotherhood, but I do not see how this is not a contradiction, as in general such obedience does not exist under a system of genuine equality. Perhaps the point can be changed to something like "We believe that power is derived from the people and none else," as to combine both this point and that on monarchy, but simply giving in to reactionary forces like this is inappropriate."
-
"Thank you comrades Lallana and Tilkanas for you contribution to the debate.
I am glad that we all agree on many of the needed updates like the removal of the first point of section I. and that the sixth point of Section II. needs to be changed, I back comrade Tilkanas' call for a Central Bank "focused not on maintaining the stability of financiers and big business but rather that of ordinary people". There also seems to be an agreement that the last point of the manifesto is vague and since no changes to that point have been proposed and nobody spoke in favour of keeping the point I agree that the point should be taken out of the manifesto.
Comrade Tilkanas proposed the removal of even more of the points of the current manifesto, including the entirety of the section IV, and we should not debate their removal. I agree that point 1 has been state through the manifesto and support its removal, however points 2., 3., 4., 5. and 6. have not been stated in previous points in the manifesto. There have been no mentions of the right to free education and healthcare, and the right to work and housing, freedom of press or the rights of the transgender individuals. To answer the question if these point should stay in the manifesto, I consider it necessary to have a point regarding the right to free education and healthcare, and the right to work and housing and a point about the freedom of press, however I am not entirely sure what the "responsible media" means and the mention of them could be removed, I see no problems with how point 6 of section IV is formulated. I have no opinion on he point about the rights of transgender individuals so I leave that debate up to you, comrades.
I can support the removal of points from section II. that comrade Tilkanas mentioned, but that is only if we can make a different point or points regarding the ecology, as that is a topic that should not be left out. I ask Comrade Tilkanas if she has any alternative she would like to propose.
I myself would like to adres the points in Section I. that regard our position on the nationalities question as comrade Tilkanas have brought my attention to it. Point 3 "Every country must have national self-determination" this sentence is nonsensical comrades, the right to self-deteremination belongs to nations, not states. Point 5 "Every nationality has the right to existence as a separate national state." if we say every nation has a right to self-determination than this is obvious and is indeed just a repetition.
For that reason I propose the following changes: Points 3 and 5 to be removed from the manifesto and replaced with a new Point 3 that would state: "The right of self-determination for all nations must be ensured across the European Union." I would like to open a debate about this proposition and if you disagree with the formulation I would like to hear your propositions.
Moving onto the proposition made by comrade Lallana that comrade Tilkanas has voiced opposition to. I believe it would be a move in the right direction to remove Point 6 of Section I. the experience we have collected so far shows us that broader coalitions are required in order to achieve a change in Europe and for that reason we should open our arms and welcome comrades who are willing to fight with us for a just European Union regardless of what is their position on the role of the religion in society and the state. Inquistan comrades should however always welcome those with different faiths or no fait among each other. I will vote for the removal of this point. Before I start the vote on the removal of this point, I would like to ask the representative from Reitzmic Labour Party, if he or she is present here, if their party agrees with Point 4 of Section I. which states: "We condemn monarchies of all kinds as a system of government"?
