IX Congreso UGTE

Stalin on Class Struggle Under Socialism

The old lie that Comrade Stalin did not believe in class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat is without any merit.

– E.S.

“Some comrades have grasped the fact of the destruction of the classes, the creation of a classless society, as the argument of the thesis of the weakening of the class struggle theory is a counter. These people can not have anything in common with our Party. They are renegades and hypocrites who must be expelled from the Party. Not achieve the elimination of classes with the weakening of the class struggle, but its amplification to the final annihilation of all other kinds of agony, and organizing to defend the country against capitalist encirclement is not to be annihilated.”

Comrade Stalin’s Collected Works, Volume II, page 546.

Ho Chi Minh on Trotskyites

Kwelin, May 10, 1939

Dear comrades: In the past, in my opinion and a good number of comrades, Trotskyism has seemed a matter of struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. So he hardly paying attention. But shortly before the outbreak of the war, more precisely since the end of 1936, and especially during the war, the Trotskyists criminal propaganda has opened our eyes. Then we started to study the problem. And our study led us to the following conclusions:

1 – The problem of Trotskyism is not a struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. Between Communists and Trotskyists Because there is no loop, absolutely no tie. It is a matter that concerns the whole people: the fight against the country.

2 – Japanese and foreign fascists know it. So try to create disagreements to mislead public opinion and undermine the popularity of the Communists, making people believe they are communists and Trotskyists in the same field.

3 – The Chinese Trotskyists (like the Trotskyists in other countries) are not a group, much less a political party. They’re just a gang of hounds of Japanese fascism (fascism and international).

4 – In all countries, the Trotskyists were good nicknames to disguise their dirty work of bandits. For example, in Spain, called Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Did you know that they who are the nests of spies in Madrid, Barcelona and elsewhere in the service of Franco? It is they who organized the famous “fifth column” of the army intelligence agency of the Italian fascists and German. In Japan, the League called Marx-Engels-Lenin (MEL). Japanese Trotskyists attract young people to their league, then reported to the police. They seek to penetrate the Japanese Communist Party in order to destroy it from within. In my opinion, the French Trotskyists, now organized around the Proletarian Revolution group set a goal to sabotage the Popular Front. On this subject, I think you are better informed than I am. China in our country [referring to Indochina, N. E.], Trotskyists are grouped into bands like La Lutte, the Japanese War, Culture and Red Flag.

5 – The Trotskyists are not only enemies of communism, but also enemies of democracy and progress. They are traitors and spies more infames.Quizás have read the indictments of the processes in the Soviet Union against the Trotskyists. If you have not read, I advise them to do so and to make them read to their friends. It is a very useful reading. Help them see the true face nasty Trotskyism and Trotskyists. Here, allow me to extract some passages relating directly to China. The true face of Trotskyism disgusting.

Before the court, the Trotskyist Rakovsky confessed that in 1934 when I was in Tokyo (as representative of the Soviet Red Cross) a high character of the Japanese government had said: “We have the right to expect from the Trotskyists a change in strategy. I will not go into details. Just wanted to say that we expect from the Trotskyists, actions conducive to our intervention in the affairs of China. “Responding to this Japanese Rakovsky said:” I will write to Trotsky about this. ” In December 1935, Trotsky was sent to his supporters in China, instructions that stressed several times that phrase: “Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.” And how have acted Trotskyists in China? In a hurry to know, is not it? But, dear comrades, I can not respond in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon.

1939: About Trotskyism (Letter to the Communist Party of Indochina)

Bosnian Muslims mark 16th anniversary of Srebrenica massacre

Thousands of people attended the funeral of 613 victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre on July 11 in the Memorial Centre at Potocari.

Before the burial, some 7,000 participated in the “Srebrenica Peace March 2011”.

The Peace March is conducted on a mapped route, similar to that which Bosniaks [Bosnian Muslims] from the so-called “UN safe haven” used in 1995 to reach the territory under the control of the Army of the Republic of BiH following Srebrenica’s fall to the Army of Republika Srpska.

The route includes more than 80 kilometres of rugged hill terrain and mountains. Until now, the march mainly gathered people from Bosnia and Herzegovina but it has since grown into a more international event, drawing people from the United States, Europe, Asia and some African countries.

Bosnian Muslims gather annually in the East Bosnian town of Srebrenica for the remembrance service. Every year the remains of bodies that were recovered from mass graves and identified over the past 12 months are given a proper burial at the site. This year 613 bodies identified through DNA analysis were reburied next to the memorial centre and families will continue to search and identify bodies of loved ones afterwards.

The Srebrenica massacre in 1995 was the worst massacre in Europe since World War II. Thousands of Muslim civilians had sought shelter in a UN “safe area” guarded by lightly-armed Dutch UN Peacekeepers in the town.

When Christian Serb troops arrived and overran the town, they bowed to pressure and stepped aside. 8,372 Bosnian Muslims, mostly men and teenage boys, were systematically executed and their bodies dumped in hastily dug mass graves, in what the UN War Crimes Tribunal has classified as genocide. Many of the bodies were exhumed at the end of the war and buried in secondary graves away from the site, in an attempt to cover up the evidence.

On July 5, judges in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch Government to compensate the relatives of three Bosnian Muslim men killed in the massacre, opening the way to other claims by relatives who say the victims should have been protected in the safe zone during the Bosnian war.

The ruling opens the way for people to sue states for the actions of their troops even when they are under UN control.

It is the first anniversary since the arrest of Ratko Mladic in May 2011, a former Serb military leader accused of being the architect of the massacre.

Both Mladic and politician Radovan Kradzic, arrested in July 2008, were extradited from Serbia to The Hague, Netherlands. They are currently on trial facing several counts of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslovia.

“Having him (Mladic) behind bars brings some comfort but the true relief will come only once I find the body of my 18-year-old son who was sent to death by Mladic,” said Munira Subasic, a member of the Mothers of Srebrenica group. In addition one of the last remaining fugitives, Goran Hadzic, was captured on July 20 in Serbia, a week after the Srebrenica anniversary.

To date only one guilty verdict of genocide relating to Srebrenica has been handed down by tribunal. Milorad Trbic, former commander of the Bosnian Serb army, was sentenced to 30 years in 2009.

Many Serbs still deny the genocide claiming the deaths were part of conflict, and view Mladic as a war hero.

Bakir Izetbegovic, Muslim member of Bosnia’s rotating presidency, said, “The Serb people are not ready to face the truth.” Commenting on the Serbian military leaders he added, “It takes too long for things to improve. We still face provocations from people who consider Ratko Mladic a hero.”

High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr Valentin Inzko, who is the highest political authority in the country and oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement which ended the war, said, “Perhaps, there are still those who insist that the killers are not killers, that the victims are not victims, that the dead are not dead. But this depraved and persistent denial will disappear before the truth.”

The Bosnian Grand Mufti, Mustafa Cerić, speaking in 2010, called on Bosnian Muslims to pursue a “state in Europe that will protect us from the next genocide.”

Baroness Warsi, representing the British Government, delivered a speech to the Srebrenica Summer School on July 11 to mark the genocide.

Warsi said, “Srebrenica is a name that now resonates around the world as a lesson in the consequences of unchecked evil. But we must never lose sight of the fact that the genocide at Srebrenica is about the massacre of individuals – each of them mourned by friends, families and loved ones.”

Source

One Of The World’s Largest Hotels Is About To Open In North Korea

The hulking concrete pyramid sat untouched for more than a decade.

The partially finished Ryugyong Hotel stands out on the Pyongyang skyline in 2009.

Now, the hotel is ready to open for business.

The massive Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang is nearly ready to welcome guests after nearly two decades in the making, according to Architizer.

The pyramid-shaped hotel, the largest structure in North Korea and one of the tallest hotels in the world, will open in 2012, 33 years after it was originally set to accept guests.

Construction on the project was stalled for 15 years until 2008, when Egyptian conglomerate Orascom committed $400 million to finishing it, Architizer reported.

The tower’s sleek and shiny facade was finally completed this year.

The hotel, which has more than 3,000 rooms, will reportedly have five revolving restaurants. It is the only hotel in the world with more than 100 stories, though the Emirates Park Towers, which opened in Dubai this year, is technically taller.

North Korea’s Kumgang tourist district is also apparently ramping up on its efforts to attract tourists. The country reportedly agreed to allow foreign entities to invest in the troubled resort area in May.

Source

PC (AP) on the Privatization of Water

The need for water as a basic element for human life

Water should be freely accessible to all living through it first arose and developed societies today. With the advancement of social division, this vital element has been used as a commodity, which prevents the free use, hurting not only humans, but life on the Environment.

In Chile, with the implementation of neoliberal economic policies that were only possible to implement with a fierce military dictatorship, serving entrepreneurs and multinationals, we were able to privatize a significant percentage of water companies in the country, then the governments privatization business (Concertación and Alianza por Chile) are doing all this on the backs of workers and peoples of Chile.

Today would have us believe that water is no longer a common good, but an element that is created by private water companies, when in fact all you have done is use the water stored naturally in the mountains, lakes, groundwater. These natural resources are the property of all Chileans, not just those companies that only perform the removal and purification process, which on any view, entitles them, except the rights given by law to service monopolies to decide, how, who and what value the water supply.

But this power of the water companies were granted and tailored, these powerful economic groups, puppet governments and legislative representatives and senators do not care who the real conditions of life for the vast majority of Chileans. The consequences today are felt by small and medium farmers, who see their crops are lost from the drought that is compounded from a piece of purchase water rights from estates and stripped of all mining possibility of this basic resource supplies, adding to this, the indiscriminate increases in domestic consumption.

Today is a clear lack of respect for thousands and millions of Chileans involved in their meager incomes, being forced to pay water bills that bear no relation to monthly income working families in rural areas, as well as the city ​​is not possible for small and medium farmers are those who must bear, bear on their shoulders, the weight of poor planning, no control on the mining and estates that account for water for their purposes maximum gain, with minimal effort and investment. It’s easy and cheap to buy water rights: to make deeper wells that dry the remaining wells that feed on the same water table, making dams, rivers drying up. All these practices are known by, not only of the affected communities in the central region, repeat, but mayors, congressmen, senators and government of the day, today, begin to view with concern the loss of their influences , lies always blamed the weather for the lack of water for drinking and irrigating crops. That’s why rather than real changes in their interests, which deal, from some softening obliged not to lose influence to support such just demands of the inhabitants of the areas of Cabildo, Petorca Ligua, etc. and reflect on their demands, just aspirations of large sections of the country. But we know that economic policies in Chile are still valid and need a great social and political movement that goes beyond the work of putting in the hands of a few problems that can only be met with a serious involvement of rural communities, residents, trade unions and broader sectors are affected by usury and hoarding of natural resources, which must be employed by the Chileans, not transnational and private economic interests.

Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) PC (AP)

Government followers reject deportation of alleged FARC member Joaquín Pérez Becerra

Dozens of people demonstrated in front of the headquarters of the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs to reject the deportation to Colombia of Joaquín Pérez Becerra, an alleged member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and editor of the Stockholm-based Noticias Nueva Colombia (Anncol) news agency. They defended him on the grounds that his detention was a violation to human rights.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez “did not hesitate,” said Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos (Photo: Colombia’s President Office)

Joaquín Pérez Becerra, also known as Alberto Martínez, arrived in Bogotá from Venezuela, and told reporters that he does not belong to any subversive group (Handout photo)

Santos asks Chávez to arrest alleged Colombian guerrilla Joaquín Pérez Becerra

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said on April 24 that Joaquín Pérez Becerra, an alleged leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was detained on April 23 in Venezuela, after a request he made to his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez.

Santos said that he called Chávez on April 23 to ask him to arrest “Alberto Martínez,” also known as Pérez Becerra, who had boarded a flight from Frankfurt (Germany) to Caracas on April 23, Efe reported.

“I gave him the name and I asked him to help me catch him,” Santos said. He revealed details about the detention during a visit to the town of Cajicá, which was affected by floods, along with other towns located in the northern part of the Bogotá savannah. Torrential rains have kept most of Colombia on high alert.

Chávez “did not hesitate,” Santos said. The Colombian president added that he talked on April 24 in the morning with his Venezuelan counterpart to thank him for his cooperation in the fight against guerrillas.

“I called President Chávez this morning and I thanked him,” stressed the Colombian president to highlight the importance of the detention of the Colombian citizen.

The arrested man, who lives in exile in Europe, is the director of the Stockholm-based Noticias Nueva Colombia (Anncol) news agency, which frequently disseminates documentation about the armed conflict in the Andean country and about the FARC.

Santos said that Pérez Becerra “is the leader of the FARC’s international front in Europe.”

As such, “he has been responsible for so many years of all this bad publicity that the FARC has made against Colombia in Europe,” Santos said. “We were behind him for a long time and fortunately he has been detained,” he added.

Pérez Becerra was arrested at Maiquetía international airport on April 23 by Venezuelan security forces. The Colombian government expects that the Venezuelan authorities hand over the alleged guerrilla soon.

April 25

Venezuelan Communist Party rejects detention of alleged FARC leader

Venezuela’s Communist Party rejected on April 25 the detention of Joaquín Pérez Becerra, an alleged leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and asked Hugo Chávez’s government to release him immediately.

Pérez Becerra was arrested at Maiquetía international airport April 23, when he arrived in a flight from Frankfurt. Following a request from his Colombian counterpart, Chávez is expected to extradite the alleged FARC member to Bogotá.

Oscar Figuera, the secretary-general of Venezuela’s Communist Party (PCV), accused the Executive Office of supporting the position of the US imperialism and the Colombian oligarchy and making concessions to them.

Figuera said that Pérez Becerra is “arrested in the headquarters of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (Sebin) and banned from communicating with anyone,” which is a violation of the Constitution.

April 26

Alleged FARC member is handed to Colombian authorities

Joaquín Pérez Becerra, also known as Alberto Martínez, who is an alleged member of the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and editor of the Stockholm-based Noticias Nueva Colombia (Anncol) news agency, arrived on April 26 in Bogotá, deported from Venezuela.

Alberto Martínez was arrested at Maiquetía international airport on April 23 following a red notice issued by the International Police (Interpol).

After Martínez’s deportation from Venezuela, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos thanked his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez “for his cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism.”

Martínez arrived on April 25 in the military and police airport of Catam, Bogotá, and told reporters that he does not belong to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Efe reported.

Colombia thanks Chávez for Pérez Becerra’s extradition

Colombia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs María Ángela Holguín thanked on April 26 Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez for the extradition of the alleged leader of the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) Joaquín Pérez Becerra and deemed it a “proof” that both countries can work together.

“I think that the action yesterday (April 25) of the Venezuelan government in sending to Colombia a guerrilla member of the FARC shows that we can work together,” Holguín told reporters, as quoted by Efe.

Pérez Becerra, the alleged FARC “chancellor” in Europe and the editor of a news agency which spreads information on the FARC, was delivered up to Colombian authorities by the Venezuelan government after his capture last weekend at the Maiquetía international airport.

“We are convinced that the relationship with Venezuela is well on its way and we will keep on going that way,” said the minister, who is attending in Caracas the Second Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development (Lacsid).

April 28

Government followers reject deportation of alleged FARC member

Dozens of people demonstrated in front of the headquarters of the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs to reject the deportation to Colombia of Joaquín Pérez Becerra, an alleged member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and editor of the Stockholm-based Noticias Nueva Colombia (Anncol) news agency. They defended him on the grounds that his detention was a violation to human rights.

“We are in the streets to demand the government to respect our revolutionary comrade,” shouted one protester. The rally was convened by the Continental Bolivarian Movement (MCB), based in Caracas, AFP reported.

Protesters carried signs where they described called Nicolás Maduro, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Andrés Izarra, the Minister of Communication and Information, as “traitors” to socialism, which is promoted by the Venezuelan government.

April 29

Venezuela wants Sweden to explain Pérez Becerra’s sneaking away

The Venezuelan Foreign Office is pondering on a diplomatic note from Sweden after the delivery to Colombia of Joaquín Pérez Becerra, the alleged member of the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) who was captured last Saturday at Maiquetía international airport, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nicolás Maduro reported on Friday.

However, Maduro noted that the Swedish government should provide a rationale for letting somebody wanted by the Interpol leave the country.

Earlier, last Tuesday, in a diplomatic note the Swedish government asked Venezuela for an explanation for having surrendered to Colombia the alleged guerrilla member and editor of Anncol, a news agency on the Internet which releases materials on the FARC.

Source

Prachanda, Follower of Modern Revisionism

A Maoist analysis of Nepali revisionism led by Prachanda.
– E.S.

At the occasion of the 10th birthday of People’s War initiation in Nepal, Prachanda granted an interview to the reactionary newspaper “The Hindu”, which published it on February 10.

Prachanda explains there at length the new positions of the CP of Nepal (Maoist), which go against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, as Prachanda himself recognizes : “ We feel we have contributed to the ideological development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.”

This “development” consists of the conceptions that the guidance by the sole Communist Party must be abolished and that Socialism must yield the place to Democracy. Let’s study them.

***

1. According to Prachanda, the Communist Party does not have to lead and should compete with the other political parties.

“We want to analyse the experience of revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century on a new basis.

Three years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to move ahead.

And three years ago we decided we must go in for political competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new.

In August, we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the parliamentary political parties. We don’t believe that the people’s war we initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure.”

This thesis opposes the communist conception. The communist ideology wants to abolish the State and its approach is scientific, there is no time for “competition”.

On the other hand, Prachanda’s thesis links with Thorez’s one in his revisionist interpretation of People’s Democracies in Eastern Europe:

“There was no abrupt nor brutal transition to another system. There is a phenomenon which we have to study and think about: the working class power, the power exerted in the name of the working class and of the people, by a Communist Party which would not be alone, but which could unite other parties; that also appeared in our Xe Congress theses.

Like in Poland, like in Yugoslavia, this power is exerted as the parliamentary forms remain.”

***

2. Acoording to Prachanda, the principle of “communist direction” is wrong.

“That when we go for state power and are in power, then we will not do what Stalin or Mao did. Lenin did not have time to deal with issues of power. Although Stalin was a revolutionary, his approach, was not as scientific as it should have been, it was a little metaphysical, and then problems came.

We also evaluated Mao in the plenum. If you look at his leadership from 1935 to 1976 – from when he was young to when he was old and even speaking was difficult – must he remain Chairman and handle everything? What is this?”

Prachanda explicitly blames Mao for having been a potentate. He denies that Lenin wrote great works about the Soviet power and denies any role to Stalin in the Socialism edification in the USSR. In an interview granted to the review Kantipur Publications on February 7, he repeats the same charge:

« The people started to become monotonous in the 20th century communist movement, especially after the demise of Lenin”.

All that is but complete revisionism, and complete submission to the bourgeoisie propaganda, as well as to the revisionist myth of a so-called « personality worship” among Communists.

***

3. According to Prachanda, the Communists in Nepal should not aim at the Democratic Revolution any longer, but only at « Democracy ».

“Earlier, we were saying people’s democratic republic but this does not mean we have dropped that goal either. It’s just that according to today’s power balance, seeing the whole situation and the expectation of the masses, and that there [should] not be bloodshed, we also responsibly believe that to get there too we will do so through peaceful means.”

In his interview to Kantipur Publications on February 7, he expresses the impossibility of revolution in one country:

“Since we belong to a communist party, our maximum goals are socialism and communism. Those are the maximum goals of all those accepting Marxism, Leninism and Maoism as philosophical and ideological assumptions. Given the international power balance and the overall economic, political and social realities of the country, we can’t attain those goals at the moment.

We must accept this ground reality. We have mentioned democratic republic and constituent assembly, with the understanding that we should be flexible given the balance in the class struggle and international situation. This is a policy, not tactics. This is a necessary process for the bourgeoisie and the national capitalists alike, let alone the middle-class.“

This conception is basically wrong; it is completely similar to the trotskyist thesis of the impossibility to carry out revolution in one country.

It is a capitulation, which opposes the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, for which: « If the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue till the aim is fully accomplished…. It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” (Mao Zedong)

Here again, Prachanda joins Thorez’s theses: “Democracy’s progress throughout the world, in spite of rare exceptions which confirm the rule, makes it possible to consider other ways to walk towards socialism than those followed by the Russian Communists”.

***

4. According to Prachanda, the sole establishement of “Democracy” is enough to be “revolutionary”.

“In the overall sense we feel that in Nepal there is going to be a great leap forward in the socio-economic condition because we are going to lead the country to a democratic republican structure.”

Maurice Thorez also said that “democracy, an ongoing realisation, will be completed within socialism.”

Prachanda’s thesis denies that, when the power is seized in all the country, the Democratic Revolution turns into a Socialist Revolution; “The party’s purpose is the establishment of the political power of the proletariat, even under New Democracy where it is the leading class, and principally the establishment, strengthening and development of the dictatorship of the proletariat so as, through cultural revolutions, to win the ultimate goal, communism. This is why the proletariat must lead in everything and in an all-around way.” (Gonzalo)

***

5. According to Prachanda, the Red Army does not prefigure the new State and must dissolve into a « democratic army ».

“In the multiparty democracy which comes – interim government, constitutional assembly and democratic republic – we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all. Of course, people still have a doubt about us because we have an army.

And they ask whether after the constitutional assembly we will abandon our arms. This is a question. We have said we are ready to reorganise our army and we are ready to make a new Nepal army also. So this is not a tactical question.”

This thesis completely opposes Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and People’s War principles. Besides, Prachanda affirms it also very clearly in his interview to Kantipur Publications:

“The weapons of both sides should be put together and both the armies should be transformed into one under the supervision of the United Nations or another reliable agency. (…)

The army will be formed according to the results of the election. This is what you should be clear about. We will accept it if the constituent assembly says we want monarchy. We are flexible even that far. We will accept it even if the people say we want an active monarch. “

***

6. According to Prachanda, People’s War originates from the parliamentary struggle.

“For three years we struggled inside Parliament. For three years we were there. Our 40-point demands were placed but there was not even any discussion on this. So the seeds of our armed struggle were sown inside Parliament, in a manner of speaking.

This is a very big difference between us and, say, those in India who say they are waging a people’s war. They didn’t begin from inside Parliament. We were inside Parliament, so we had good relations with the parliamentary parties for a long time.”

This thesis was inevitable, since Prachanda wants to seem the true democrat, just like Thorez did at his time: “Communists are democrats. They are, among all democrats, the most consistent democrats, because they intend to substitute for a still legally and actually limited democracy, a boundless democracy.”

***

7. According to Prachanda, the imperialist European countries can play a positive role.

“We also wanted to send a message to the international community that we were different from the way we were being projected ideologically. For example, right now we are having discussions with the European Union and with others, but among all the international forces, U.S. imperialism is the most dogmatic and sectarian element.

The U.S. ruling classes are dogmatic. They don’t understand what is happening. We are trying to look at the world in a new way, to change in a new way, and we wanted to send out this message. And in this regard, during the ceasefire, we were quite successful.”

Characterizing the US imperialists as “dogmatic” means nothing, neither do negotiations with others imperialist forces. Prachanda’s thesis clearly links with the Three Worlds theory, a Chinese revisionist theory stating that the Third World can lean on the Second World (the medium imperialist powers such as France, Canada, etc.) to oppose the First World made of the superpowers (the USA and, at its time, the USSR).

***

8. According to Prachanda, fascistic China and expansionist India are interested in democracy in Nepal, to oppose the USA.

“We are glad with the new situation that is emerging after Shyam Saran went to China, it seems the situation can change. Our movement is also going forward and I think in 2-3 months, if the struggle continues, then there is a real chance of ending the kingship once and for all and making a democratic republic in Nepal.

This is the best outcome for China and India, and everyone else. The U.S. does not want this. They want to maintain the monarchy at all costs.”

Prachanda thus considers that, instead of « resting on our own strength” and serving the world revolution, he would rather reassure India and China and have no revolutionary program. That is logical in regard to the Three Worlds theory.

***

9. According to Prachanda, the Maoists of India must negotiate with the old Indian State:

“And if you feel the Naxalite movement in India is a problem for you, we feel we are trying to deal with the problems in Nepal in a new way, so if you release our comrades and we are successful in establishing multiparty democracy in Nepal, then this will be a very big message for the Naxalite movement in India. In other words, the ground will be readied for them to think in a new political way.”

That is straightforwardly a proposal for an alliance with the Indian expansionism!

As we can see, Prachanda’s theses are in a direct line with the revisionism spread since a few time by the CPN(m); this revisionism, hiding behind “democracy”, had already been used by Thorez in France, and is now mainly embodied by the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA.

The RPCUSA, by means of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, certainly influenced the CPN(m).

The CPRUSA leader, Bob Avakian, defends more and more openly his revisionist and “democratic” theses.

According to him, Communism is one “possibility” among others, that is why he rejects the principle of “inevitability”, saying that “the world didn’t turn out the way Marx and Engels anticipated.” (January 2005, Revolutionary Worker n°1266).

He pretends that “in some instances, the Bolsheviks had a kind of « Mafia » approach in some areas, especially during the civil war that followed the October 1917 Revolution.” (December 2004, RW n°1262), that there was among Communists an “autocratic” tradition in a way.

That is why the RCPUSA focuses on Bush the “antidemocrat”, just like the Nepalese revisionists fight for a “genuine Democratic Republic”.

That is also why Avakian claims to found a “new internationalism « , which is actually but a pretext not to fight in one’s own country:

“There is a call to combine Lenin’s stance on and definition of internationalism with an approach of proceeding first and above all from the world level, and looking at the world as a whole at any given time to determine where it is that, through a combination of objective and subjective factors, the most important breakthroughs for the whole international struggle can be made—and for parties in particular countries to act accordingly, to give political support in relation to those « breakthroughs, » even at the cost of some sacrifice on the part of particular parties and in terms of the struggle in « their » countries.”

That is revisionism, no more no less, denying the fact that, as part of world People’s War, it is on the contrary necessary to open more battlefronts.

We understand, while seeing the RPCUSA revisionism, why the Canada RCP speaks so much about Nepal, whereas it is supposed to want People’s War in its own country, and as social contradictions within Canada are supposed to be the main aspect.

The “Democratic Republic” in Nepal became the new ideal of those who already rejected Stalin and who will tomorrow exchange even the usurped flag of Marxism Leninism-Maoism against an “ultrademocrat” flag.

Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist Maoist) February 2006

Fascist killings in Norway: The Massacre of the Knight Templar

From Marxist-Leninist Organization Revolusjon of Norway

More than 150,000 people filled the streets of Oslo as the people's response to the fascist terrorist killings and in solidarity with the victims and their families. Similar celebrations took place in cities and towns across the country.

Fascist onslaught in Norway has killed close to 100 people, targeting the political engagement and organization among progressive and democratic youth in particular

Norway was on 22nd July 2011 site of the worst terrorist attack in the Nordic countries since the Second World War, perhaps the most systematic slaughter of young people in recent history.

The death toll is approaching 100, of which 85 are young people who attended the summer camp of AUF (The youth organization of the Social Democratic Labour party).

Now we know that it was not fanatical Islamists, but the blonde, conservative westside boy, business founder, freemasoner and former Progress Party member Anders Behring Breivik (32) who was responsible for the bomb in Oslo and the massacre of 85 young AUF-ers on Utøya. A crime he has now confessed to have committed.

Even if it turns out that he has carried out the deed on his own or only with a few aides, Anders Behring Breivik not an isolated and random vermin. This crime has been carefully planned over time, and neither the ideas nor the methods have been invented by Behring Brevik himself. His inspiration has evidently come from a series of bloody attacks carried out by the Christian-fascist terrorist groups in the United States, actions directed at federal buildings, abortion clinics, and school massacres carried out by individuals.

Flowers for the victims of the Oslo slayings

Islamophobia and fascism

More and more evidence supports the fact that he has been part of an extremely reactionary and islamophobic environment who use the Internet in general and a Norwegian site in particular, http://www.document.no, as their main breeding grounds. Through sites of this type they have spread their hatred and incited one another, as well as the active use of discussion forums in the “serious” online media. Breivik, although he poses as anti-Nazi and pro-Zionist, is also reported to have been a bouncer for Nazi organizations and linked to the fascist EDP; European Defence League.

Besides a wildly racist hatred against Muslims and all the “Marxist-humanists” who defend immigrants and refugees, this environment has constructed a conspiratorial conception of the official ”political correctness” Norway, represented by the country’s political government, which supposedly acts as a compact majority in relation to the “national” and “patriotic” hate statements of Breivik and his likes.

As the summer camp at Utøya (an island some 50 km off Oslo) was the main target, it is fairly obvious that this is related to the distinct anti-racist profile of the AUF [the largest and most influential political youth organization in Norway – translator’s note], alongside with the AUFs close connection to the political center of power.

A Templar against Islam and Marxism

Breivik has recently published his detailed plans on the web, according to Dagbladet and TV2 . Freemasoner member Breivik regards himself as a Templar Knight and crusader who is spearheading the struggle against Marxism and Islamism. Nevertheless– or precisely for that reason? – Breivik has never come under the searchlight of the police intelligence agency PST, which for years has been so tightly focused on the Islamist groups in Norway that the simmering racist networks have been more or less ignored. Police and military terror experts present the Islamophobes as “something quite different” than the violent Nazi groups, claiming that the distance between Breivik hateful statements and actions he has committed was so great that there was no need to suspect him. That is an explanation that does not hold water, especially as anyone with minimal knowledge of these reactionary communities know that part of the Nazi community have restyled their appearance in order to make themselves more pallatable; they are even willing to “distance” themselves from Nazi ideology if deemed necessary in order to cooperate with or infiltrate other so-called “national” groups.

Although Breivik’s views are on the most extreme side, it is also a sad fact that Norwegian “patriotism” and hateful statements about Muslims commonly is spewed out also amongst ”Main Street Norwegians”, especially when in party mood after a number of pints. We should not cover up the fact that there is a huge undercurrent of racist attitudes that systematically are amplified and inspired by the media and politicians from most parties. This has been the reality every day since the “war on terror” began in 2001. The pretty words of “inclusion” and “tolerance” is of little help when the reality is that particularly refugees, but also well-established immigrants, are encountered by the police and authorities by means of criminalization and harassment. For a number of refugees the ”tolerance” is experienced in form of forced displacement and expelment from the country, even in violation of UN humanitarian principles.

The attitudes of the Norwegian society is built more on what the political elite and its bureaucracy does in practice, than by what they say in their speeches and their formal addresses.

The massacre should be an awakening

Non-European immigrants and refugees in Norway can now breathe easier. During the afternoon of 22nd July, in the hours after the explosion by the Government building, but before the shooting on Utøya became publically known, an ominous atmosphere was building up. In the media’s editorial boards, the conclusion was already on the desk, but not yet printed, that this was a terrorist act committed by extreme Islamists. The spin-doctors of the Progress party (Fremskrittspartiet) were polishing their media strategy for how to sledgehammer asylum seekers and Muslims in general, and thus reverse their declining opinion polls. Hate messages directed against Muslims flourished in thousands on Twitter and Facebook throughout the afternoon this fateful Friday. We hope that these ”twitterers” are strangled by their own false words and are vomiting in shame of themselves.

Considering the fact that this unimaginable tragedy actually has happened, it is, after all, better that the deed was committed by a Christian, Norwegian fascist and racist than that some insane jihadists were the culprits. This might be an awakening call for ordinary people, a backlash for prejudice and everyday racism, and perhaps it can also provide the basis for a political pressure to finally ban these fascist groups and communities who camouflage their criminal racism as a “national ideology”.

If racism and nazism is not crushed wherever it appears, the ground will continue to be fertilized for political fascist Templar Knights and mass murderers of Behring Breivik’s caliber.

Revolutionary Communist Party of Côte d’Ivoire wants Case Reopened

On June 24, 2004 the General Secretary of Communist Youth of Côte d’Ivoire, Habib Dodo, was murdered by Student Federation [FESCI] of Côte d’Ivoire activists.

During a press conference held on June 23 in Williamsville, M. Ekissi Achy, secretary general of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Côte d’Ivoire, called for the reopening of the case Habbib Dodo. To believe his words, Habbib Dodo, the first Secretary General of the youth of that party and a founding member of the General Association of the youth of the Communist Party, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered by a gang belonging to FESCI [Student Federation of Cote d'Ivoire (FESCI)].

After seven years of procedure not followed and the disappearance of the prosecution case Habbib Dodo Abidjan, Mr. Achy Ekissi calls the new government to reopen this folder to see justice done. He therefore stressed that “Comrade Kouadio Kouadio Richard, also a member of AGEECI was murdered in the same conditions. For the perpetrators, as these young people had to wear them, the flag of the FESCI is to say, prevent pupils and students to question the descent into hell Ivorian school. While the enemies of the Ivorian school, freedom and democracy have declared persona non grata. “

To inquire about this new record, Mr. Achy Ekissi accompanied by the provisional president of the collective fight against impunity, Drissa Sheriff and the Secretary General of AGEECI Séka Jules went to the floor of Abidjan. But against all odds, he was brought to their attention, the disappearance of the file. It has meant that “we are not surprised by this information, because already in 2008, the major sponsors of the FESCI, reassured the defendants that the case was closed at the level of justice.”

In the words of the latter, a notion of reopening of the case will be presented to the public prosecutor and the minister of state for justice to be done about this crime. Because he said the duty to remember, is binding on all, criminals are accountable for their crimes. Secretary General of AGEECI, Jules Séka reaffirmed the continuing struggle begun by Habbib to achieve the full opening of freedoms, democratic practice in education, the cessation of all forms of violence and the decision of all crimes committed in education.

Continuing, he said that in this sense, a collective fight against impunity has been created. The provisional president of this group, Sheriff Drissa invites victims to be identified so that repairs be made to victims in order to guard against other crimes.

Larissa G
L’Intelligent d’Abidjan

Albanian Civil Movement Protests Against Demolition of Enver Hoxha’s Mausoleum

Representatives of the movement “Civil Action for the Rescue of the Pyramid” handed over to the Albanian President a petition against the demolition of the International Culture Center. Five days ago, thousands of people gathered in front of the Pyramid to protest against the Parliament’s decision for demolishing this building.

They signed a petition, appealing the highest state leaders to cancel this decision. The petition signed by 6100 citizens was sent to the head of the Albanian state, the President Bamir Topi.

Ardian Klosi, one of the initiators of this movement, declared that the people of Tirana are against this destructive act, and he believes that the President will take the necessary measures, with the power vested in him by the Constitution.

“According to the Constitution, the President has the right to return a law for being reviewed. This is a civil action, because the previous law was passed with a simple majority, without any explanation and against some clauses of the Albanian Constitution. This is a civil action that cannot perform legal steps in courts, but there will be consequent actions. It is important the fact that Tirana citizens and from all over Albania have shown their concern about this issue”, Klosi declared.

The petition to the Parliament, by mail

The representatives of the Civil Action for the Rescue of the Pyramid were unable to hand over to the Parliament the petition with 6100 signatures. Klosi received no answer from the Information Office or Protocol Office of this institution, except the receptionist.

“They suggested us to send it by mail. It is strange, because they received us very well at the Presidency. However, we will go to the post office and will mail the petition”, he added.

The Civil Action for the Rescue of the Pyramid sent a copy of the petition to the Prime Ministry and Tirana Municipality. According to Mr. Klosi, the civil movement asked Mayor Basha to keep the promise that he gave during the electoral campaign, for not allowing the demolition of this building.

Meanwhile, the book “The Pyramid, graceful, abandoned, endangered” will be presented in Tirana this Thursday, with a summary of 51 articles and comments from 42 different authors, which have been published in Tirana’s press regarding this issue.

Source

Albanian Civil Movement Protests Against Demolition

A petition against the demolition of the International Culture Center signed by 6100 citizens has been sent to the Albanian President Bamir Topi by representatives of the movement “Civil Action for the Rescue of the Pyramid”.

“The Pyramid”, former mausoleum of Stalinist ex-dictator Enver Hoxha, was built in 1988 to commemorate Hoxha’s 80th birthday, three years after his death.

The pyramid-shaped cultural centre turned into now one of the capital’s most important historical landmarks.

The government, however, has turned a deaf year to objections raised by famous Albanian architects and avid defenders of the building from the opposition, according to a publication of Macedonian online news agency Kurir cited by Bulgarian counterpart CROSS.

Last week Albanian lawmakers approved plans to demolish the building to make way for new parliament.

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha has said that the new parliament building is to be ready by November 28, 2012, when Albania celebrates its 100th anniversary of independence.

Five days ago, thousands of people gathered in front of the Pyramid to protest against the Parliament’s decision to destroy the building.

Ardian Klosi, one of the initiators of the protest movement, declared that the people of Tirana opposed the destructive act, adding that they were hoping that the Albanian head of state would take the necessary measures, with the power vested in him by the Constitution.

Source

Toufan: The worker-activists must be released immediately and unconditionally from the prisons of the Islamic Republic of Iran!

To: The International Conference of the Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, labour-activists, progressive organisations, and freedom loving people of the world

Dear comrades,

The criminal regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran has recently intensified the repression of the labourers and worker-activists. In the past few months, many labour-activists have been detained, imprisoned, and tortured by the security forces of the Islamic Republic.

Shahrokh Zamani, a house-painter and decorator has been in detention since June 7, 2011. He was arrested while traveling from the city of Tabriz to the Capital Tehran by a public bus. Shahrokh was involved in establishing the independent trade union “Painters’ Syndicate” and he is a member of the “Committee to Form Independent Worker Syndicates”. Shahrokh Zamani was kept in solitary confinement for more than a month. He went on hunger strike for a week to protest his detention and mistreatment. The regime of the Islamic Republic has transferred him to Tabriz prison. No official warrant for the arrest of Shahrokh was issued and no charges are filed against him.

The capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic is fearful of the formation of independent worker-organisations and of the unity of the workers with other sections of the society. The Islamic regime sees its end by the united and nation-wide strikes and protests of the labourers and is trying to suffocate any attempt to build independent and democratic workers’ organisations. Following this policy, the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran has harassed, tortured and imprisoned Mansour Ossalou, Ali Nejati, Ebrahim Madadi, Torabian, and other prominent trade union activists for several years. Shahrokh Zamani, together with his comrades, Mohammad Jarrahi and Seyed (both are labour activists), and two university students Nima Pourhemmat and Sassan Vahhabi are the latest known victims of this criminal policy.

Our Party believes that repression of the workers and toilers by the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran also serves the interests of imperialism and the world reaction. We strongly condemn the repressive actions of the Iranian regime.

The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) supports the just struggles of the labour-activists for a better working condition and we praise their attempts to form independent trade unions. We call on all fraternal Parties and the Marxist-Leninist Organisations, all worker-activists, and all progressive minded individuals of the world to express solidarity with the struggles of the Iranian worker-activists. The people of the world should be outraged over the imprisonment and treatment of the Iranian masses and labour activists and to demand the regime of Islamic Republic to free all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally. Only the intensification of the just struggle of the Iranian labourers and of the genuine international support for masses can force the Islamic regime to retreat and to stop the repression of the Iranian people.

Release Shahrokh Zamani and other worker-activists immediately and unconditionally!

Long live the struggles of the Iranian working class!

Down with the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran!

The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)
July 16, 2011

http://www.Toufan.org
Toufan@toufan.org

Coca-Cola & KFC to be introduced to the DPRK

PYONGYANG – Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken are to be supplied to Pyongyang by end of this year, according to YTN.

Representatives from the two companies paid a visit to North Korea last week, invited by a domestic government-owned company that specializes in hosting foreign investments.

Although Pyongyang has introduced foreign food like pasta or hamburgers to its citizens, this would be the first international chain to open a branch.

The first chain is to be opened by this autumn, along with official supply of Coke.

North Korea is hastening the relaxing of its relationship with the western countries, allowing foreign news agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters to open branches in the capital.

As Coca-Cola and KFC are often referred to as symbols of global capitalism, not to mention American culture, the North’s intention brings about controversies concerning acceptance of the market system.

Source

Congress of the Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia

by Wilhelm Langthaler

Hammami: revolution against old system must continue

In the large palace of sports of Tunis several thousand people participated in the first congress of the PCOT after decades of underground existence. It was first of all an event to show strength and give a signal to society that the PCOT is a significant political option. This certainly was achieved.

One is, however, inclined to wonder whether this displayed identitarian spirit might also turn into a problem to obtain wider consensus. While the overwhelming support for the revolution in society is undeniable and thus the central demand for a constituent assembly rallies a clear majority, this will certainly not be true for the communist symbols let alone for the specific Stalinist-Hoxhaist denomination. It is not by accident that some within the party proposed to change the name into Workers’ Party.

After a cultural program which not only stressed the communist heritage but also repeated the support for the Palestinian cause, came the central speech of Hamma Hammami, the leader of the PCOT, former political prisoner and widely recognized front figure against Ben Ali’s dictatorship. It touched central points of the current conflicts in Tunisia:

He insisted that the democratic revolution cannot be fulfilled if it does not become a social one, an anti-Zionist, an anti-imperialist one. Actually the movement did head in this direction as it was not by accident that the miners paved the way for the toppling of Ben Ali.

Hammami remembered, however, that the old elites still control the regime and that the old system so far has not changed much in terms of the societal structure. The poor continue to remain poor.

Actually we are faced with a counterrevolutionary regime which tries to stop the revolution by all means; Hammami said. For example the provisional government is reluctant to prepare the elections for the constituent assembly tacitly even trying to derail it. At this point Hammami called upon his people to register for the election and thus to help to transform the assembly into a revolutionary one.

Also at this point questions arise. While the inscription process is scheduled to be closed with the beginning of August, for the time being only a tiny percentage has registered. Certainly it is also possible to vote only by producing the identity card – as both PCOT and Ennahda demand. But the regime is likely to use this low inscription rate to delegimise the assembly. Some people think that the regime will even try to abort the elections. Under these condition the mere holding of the elections with strong popular participation is an act of continuation of the revolution. To achieve this, a co-operation with the Islamic forces seems necessary who also want the assembly to take shape.

Although Hammami in his speech defended Ennahda against the regime’s accusations to be behind some violent incidents, he nevertheless strongly lashed out against them on the question of the Islamic state and the Sharia laws. Given the fact that Ennahta has embraced a democratic state and thus the sovereignty of the people over legislation the attacks seems to echo the secularist sentiments – which apparently are also strong among the base of the PCOT. But these today play for the old regime who used to display itself as the saveguard for a secular state and continues to do so. Actually the main danger for the constituent assembly and the continuation of the revolution is exactly this secularist bloc which might even lead to abort the elections – remember the Algerian precedent.

Hammami closed with denouncing the NATO intervention in Libya and refusing any Imperialist intervention even under Arab disguise. He reiterated the support for the liberation of Palestine against Zionism.

Tunis, July 23, 2011

Video: Tunisia’s Communists hold First Congress in 25 yrs

For the first time in 25 years, the Tunisian Workers’ Communist Party was able to hold a congress. Long banned, the party was legalised after the fall of President Ben Ali’s authoritarian regime.

Hamma Hammami advocates establishment of anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist foreign policy

BEN AROUS (TAP) - The official spokesperson for the Tunisian Communist Workers Party (PCOT) Hamma Hammami called for the establishment of a democratic regime whose foreign policy will be anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist and advocated the strengthening of ties between Arab peoples who share common aspirations for freedom and union.

In a meeting held on Wednesday at El-Mourouj, Tunis Governorate, under tight security and military protection, Mr. Hammami stressed on the urgent need to separate politics and religion so as to allow all citizens to practice freely their religious beliefs.

He warned, on this context, against making use of religion to serve political ends, as this could threaten the national interest.

“New Tunisia should favour coexistence among Muslims, Jews and Christians, and all convictions,” he reasserted.

Besides, Mr. Hammami stressed the importance of carrying on the militant fight to rid the country of the vestiges of the old regime, build up a democratic republic, one that bans tyranny, exclusion and marginalisation and ensures independence of the Judiciary, favours separation of powers and guarantees fair distribution of the country’s wealth and provides to all citizens a decent life.

Information on the Communist Ghadar Party of India (CGPI)

Founded on December 25, 1980, the Communist Party of India Ghadar (CGPI) is the organized detachment of Communists who have dedicated their lives to the liberation of India and the emancipation of labor worldwide.

The CGPI doors are open to all those who wish to make the revolution of the mission of their lives – they agree to implement the program, the work of party organizations and pay monthly premiums.

The CGPI is committed to restoring the unity of all Indian communities.

The CGPI works to unite all communists, regardless of political affiliation, during a leadership class struggle and prepare the subjective conditions for an end to all exploitation of people by the people, for the victory revolution and communism on Indian soil.

The CGPI opposes all forms of social democracy and reconciliation with the idea of ​​a “middle way” between capitalism and socialism.

The CGPI is opposed to all dealers of hope on the State of the Union of India, which is neither democratic nor secular, but the stronghold of colonial heritage, an instrument of capitalist-feudal exploitation and imperialist plunder.

The CGPI opposes those who justify state terrorism in the name of defending “national unity and territorial integrity.”

The CGPI not seek political power for himself. It is organized around the objective of securing power in the hands of the working class and oppressed.

All members of the fixed line and tasks of the party in Congress, which is the highest. The Congress elects the Central Committee to implement the line and perform all the tasks until the next Congress is convened.

The foundation of the CGPI is in its grassroots organizations in factories, workplaces, Mohall, chawls, towns and college campuses – the essential components of the class struggle.

The leading Party organizations at all levels. Party work is carried out based on the principle of collective decision making and individual responsibility.

The CGPI is committed to developing India’s revolutionary theory, a theory that emerges from the conditions of India and suitable for the development of communism here. We invite all the communists and enlightened minds to contribute to this work of theory, based on material balance and rich Indian thought the experience of the labor movement, from the present.

CGPI work is based on the theoretical principles of Marxism-Leninism and guided by contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought. Contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought is the sum, taken generally, the experience of the application of Marxism-Leninism to the conditions of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, the fight against modern revisionism and capitalist restoration, against fascism, militarism, imperialism and medievalism. It is not the final form of Marxism-Leninism in the economy, empowerment of the people and democratic renewal of India.

Come all who are concerned about the fate of the people, our ancient civilization! We will raise the banner of liberation, of profound changes underway! We will build the RUF on this program to fight!

Revolution is our right and duty. To fight for democratic renewal of India is the immediate task.

Let us together take up this task so that the crisis may end and opened the door for the advancement of society!

Inquilaab Zindabad!

Free Marcelo Rivera!

Albanians protesting the destruction of the Enver Hoxha Museum

Hundreds of Albanians have demonstrated to protest against parliament’s decision to destroy a museum dedicated to the late Stalinist Enver Hoxha, one of the most emblematic buildings of the capital, Tirana.

Local media reported today that the protesters gathered last night at the museum doors, called the Pyramid, built in 1988 to glorify the cult of Hoxha, who died in 1985.

Over the past 20 years of democracy, the building has operated as a nightclub, cultural center, exhibition center and home to a local television station.
The protest was organized by intellectuals, writers and architects grouped in the civic movement “Action for the salvation of the Pyramid”.
Organizers began signing a petition calling for a referendum of citizens and against the demolition of the building, declared a cultural monument and located in the historic center of the capital.

The decision on Their Destruction was taken last 14 days the votes of 72 of the 140 deputies of the ruling Democratic Party and the absence of the deputies of the opposition Socialists, who have left the Parliament to protest electoral fraud to ensure the occurred in the 2009 elections.

“It can not be the center of Tirana is obscured by the pyramid built to perpetuate the memory of the ferocious dictator and postwar Europe,” said Prime Minister Sali Berisha.

The controversy is compounded by the plan to build a new building for the Parliament on the site free to stop the demolition of the pyramid, a project whose cost is not known but the means estimated at 110 million euros, an amount that would be donated Saudi Arabia.

The new building is intended to serve to celebrate 100 years of the country’s independence from Ottoman rule, which will meet next year.

Albania, one of the poorest countries in Europe, has already invested five million euros in the Pyramid transform into a theater and another 500,000 euros to renovate the current Parliament, before deciding to build the new headquarters. Saudi Arabia paid the new work as a favor to the burgeoning Muslim community.

47th anniversary of the PCMLE

On July 15 was held at the National Theater of the House of Culture, the event’s 47-year anniversary of the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador. This event had the participation of activists, supporters and friends of PCMLE while international delegates attended the XV International Seminar on Problems of the Revolution in Latin America, representatives of social organizations and political revolutionaries of the different provinces the country.

The event went through a big party, which presented different forms of artistic expression, cultural and political. It was possible to link poetry with music, video, dance and speech.

Leaders of various social sectors greeted the party, the central intervention was provided by Oswaldo Palacio, PCMLE spokesman, who said: “Since the party was founded understood the need to address a number of urgent tasks needed to meet that goal the seizure of power. Organize and carry out the revolution has meant developing a deeper understanding of revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, understand for sure the legacy of the founders of our doctrine, as well as assimilate their enseñadazas contributions from other prominent proletarian revolutionaries of the world; find the application of these principles to the reality of Ecuador multiethnic, multicultural, multinational and for this we had to move in multiple learning to know our country and its people to better understand how to bring the proposal and the revolutionary message, link with their needs, know their desires and work toward that party who listen to us and direct our efforts to shape their consciousness in the revolutionary purposes. The years of the party have done much to advance the construction and affirmation of the political and social forces to contribute to the development of organizations and alternatives necessary to make the revolution and establish popular power. “

We have fought and still do, said Palacios, for the adjournment PCMLE himself as a revolutionary political organization with its own physiognomy character Leninist, democratic and centralized at the same time, affirmed the principles, disciplined, loyal and consistent, that despite the perverse and provocative campaign is structured in different levels of development in all provinces of Ecuador.

“The path of these shows PCMLE 47 years as a party grows in spite of all the onslaught of the various governments and particularly the current one, against the left, ideology and revolutionary politics. We are winning greater influence while expertise and wisdom to accomplish the tasks, however we intend to grow to meet the challenges we have, the task that sends the present situations.

With joy we participate in the advancement revolutionary ideological, political and organizational our party and the need to appeal to all popular fighters to join the Marxist Leninist Communist Party, here in the communist ranks to find the possibility to train, organize and fight on the most noble that a man can spend his life, the emancipation of the workers and peoples, “said Oswaldo Palacios at the end of his speech.

The event’s anniversary PCMLE Carlos Hermida spoke of the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) on behalf of the international delegates attending the XV International Seminar on Problems of the Revolution in Latin America and said that for 47 years, the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador has fought hard for freedom, social justice, national sovereignty and socialism, against the oligarchy and imperialism. It has done so without hesitation, strongly ideological, always keeping high the banner of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, in this struggle the party has starred in heroic battles filled with sacrifice and blood of its members. Ecuadorian comrades you have made history, but history capitalized.

Numerous campaigns have driven the ruling classes against the party and its ideology, to Comrade Ermida “organic intellectuals of the bourgeoisie say that communism is dead, this anniversary shows that communism is alive, that is the force that buried capitalism . The PCMLE is an example for the Communists elsewhere, on other continents struggle against the common enemy. The international delegates when we return to our respective countries, will have what we have seen here, the revolutionary enthusiasm, the great ideological preparation and organizational skills.”

After the intervention, the international representative referred to the organized women and youth in the party and said: “I want to talk with special affection and enthusiasm to the young communists. You are the best example of the youth of Ecuador, mirror should look all young people today go out to continue your fight against capital and to develop political education, ideological and cultural in the future become the new pictures party. When socialism and the new nation a reality you could say I was here and I participate in this fight, that fight for a communist and communism is one of the nicest things you can do in life.”

Congratulations to PCMLE on its 47th anniversary

estrevista PCMLE the national spokesman for the international seminar:

We arrived at the 15th. International Seminar “Problems of the Revolution in Latin America,” how do you interpret this?

Oswaldo Palacios: In our view this is a significant development in policy-making in tackling the problems and discussion between the left and revolutionary organizations in Latin America. The seminar has grown into a place of call, as a forum for discussion, broad exchange of experiences, delineation of actions, a group of parties, organizations and people left the continent. In each edition of the same we had that opportunity, which has undoubtedly helped to clarify, consolidate and deepen our practice, understood in the concrete reality of the processes and their characterization in each country. Therefore, the various “statements” that are approved and signed at the end of each event marked useful conclusions to promote the fight in different latitudes of our continent in particular ways.

In the current scenario takes what significance the seminary?

OP: For this 15th. editing is designated as a central theme “The struggle of the workers and peoples and the prospect of socialism,” which has aroused great expectations for the participation of national and international delegates. In the context of the global capitalist system, general and cyclical, we are now living and which are suffered by workers, the poor, there is a response from people, the exploited, against unemployment, poverty, oppression, exclusion, etc.. The demonstrations in various latitudes and levels required by the political liberties, democratic force against authoritarian regimes and illegitimate, the right to health, education, environmental protection, etc.. This constitutes a flow, a force that actually moves the international events, expressed against the system from different angles and perspectives. To the left, as would be more correct to say, it raised the challenge of how we link, or deepen our relationship with this vast movement. What we do to ensure that this flow is directed to the purposes of real change, which is not – as we know – another way to socialism.

These are some of the proposals that the PCMLE leads to 15th. Seminar?

OP: Look, but proposals are reflections, concerns are precisely the problems that we face the revolution and the revolutionaries to advance to new levels in emancipatory political processes of our countries and internationally. To our knowledge are pressing issues, current and viable on that need to exchange opinions, experiences, and to the extent possible, make arrangements for actions.

Hence the importance of active participation of international delegates who would no doubt provide interesting insights regarding this issue and for the MPD PCMLE as parties and event organizers, greatly value the presence and voice national delegates workers, peasants, indigenous people, young students, women, teachers, social communicators, we expect the arrival of all the provinces.

Final Declaration of 15th International Seminarium “Problems of revolution in Latin América”

15th International Seminar: Problems of the Revolution in Latin America

The world is still shaking from the economic crisis of the capitalist system that broke out just over three years ago within U.S. imperialism. Its manifestations and effects spread rapidly, first to the more developed economies and then to the entire planet. The small and brief signs of partial recovery, extolled by the financial groups and economists who are defenders of the system as evidence that the crisis has come to an end, have only confirmed the cyclical nature of the crises, within the framework of the general crisis of capitalism.

The measures tried by the governments and international agencies to overcome the problems have resulted in their intensification. By the logic of the functioning of capitalism the working classes, youth and peoples in general become principal victims of the crisis, but they do not face it with resignation: they resist, they struggle and in important sectors they come out with proposals demanding that the crisis be paid by the capitalists who are responsible for it, not the workers.

Today in various parts of the world the fight for wages, jobs, education, and health care have been joined to the banners of democracy, freedom and other political rights. We are experiencing a period of the rise of the struggle of the masses and its torrent has brought down authoritarian and dictatorial regimes such as Ben Ali (in Tunisia) and Hozni Mubarak (in Egypt) and kept others in check. The questioning of bourgeois institutions is present in these struggles, as in the demands of the “indignant ones” in Spain, in the strikes by workers in Greece and England, and in the mobilizations of the youth in the Americas. It is obvious that the political expressions of the crisis are becoming prominent.

In Latin America the democratic, progressive and left-wing tendency is being affirmed and strengthened in the most advanced sectors. For some time we have seen that there has been a change in the political and social relationship of forces in the region: the neoliberal bourgeoisie and its parties suffered political and electoral defeats in several countries and lost positions in the administrative apparatus of the State; some progressive governments emerged as a result of the search for change by our peoples, of the fights waged against governments openly subservient to foreign capital and to the interests of the local ruling classes.

Without a doubt this new Latin American scenario marked a positive step for the peoples, for the democratic, progressive and left-wing forces because it encouraged the desire for change among the masses, it affirmed their confidence in their ability to overcome a system that has only brought hunger and hopelessness to the workers and peoples. A crucial aspect is that the new situation put the prospect of socialism as an alternative to the decadent capitalist system on the table for discussion.

However, over the years, we have seen the political limits of those governments. Some more rapidly than others have begun to turn to the right, betraying the expectations of the beginning of those new times for those who have always lived under oppression. Free trade agreements with imperialist countries or blocs, anti-popular laws, processes of criminalization of the social protest, handing over of natural resources to foreign capital and neoliberal economic measures have been adopted by almost all those governments that promised change.

Most of the regimes that encouraged the prospect of implementing profound economic, political and social changes, and therefore opened up spaces for the left-wing organizations to advance in the accumulation of revolutionary forces, have become obstacles to the advance of the struggle of the masses, to the perspective of the revolution and socialism; they are, in fact, governments that support the capitalist system.

The turn to the right taking place in the majority of those governments, in spite of the expectations of the ruling classes and imperialism, has not led to discouragement or frustration among the peoples. The desire for change is still present; it is shown in the protests against unemployment, for education, for the land, for water, against taxes, for democracy, because their voice is heard when it is time to make decisions in the spheres of government.

The prospect of the victory of the revolution and socialism is being maintained, it does not depend on what opportunism, reformism or any bourgeois pseudo left-wing faction does; it is in the hands of the workers and peoples, of the genuinely revolutionary forces. For the victory of the revolution, it is essential to utilize and combine all forms of struggle, according to the features present in each of the countries.

Now, in order to put an end to the contradiction that defines the nature of the epoch in which we live, the contradiction between labor and capital, we cannot ignore the fight against the policy that social-democracy in power carries out in the name of social change but for the benefit of the ruling classes and imperialist financial capital.

For the advance of the revolutionary struggle it is necessary to remove the nefarious bourgeois ideological influence in its different forms in the movement of the workers, the youth, women and the popular movement in general; to that end we must combine the momentum of the fight of the masses for their material demands and political rights with the ideological debate to expose the pro-capitalist character embodied in these proposals. The unmasking of opportunism and social democracy is part of the ideological struggle that we revolutionaries raise against capitalism and its defenders in general.

The organizations of the revolutionary left are the most advanced sector of the democratic, progressive and left-wing tendency, their responsibility is to work to ensure that the whole tendency and the peoples in general see and understand the political limits that the progressive governments have and the nature of those of a neoliberal character and above all, to ensure that they take up the banners and program of a genuine revolution that leads to socialism.

In this process, the policy of unity with the sectors and forces involved in the defense of the aspirations and rights of workers and peoples and to defend the sovereign interests of the country is essential.

Moreover, the unity must go beyond national borders, since, while the revolution is a process that must be implemented in each country, in essence it is an international movement. It is our commitment to form a great anti-imperialist front of the peoples, which is expressed in specific struggles and actions. The active solidarity with all those peoples who are fighting for social and national liberation and independence is part of our work. Today we express our support for the struggle of the Palestinian people against criminal Israeli Zionism, to the people of Puerto Rico in their struggle for independence; we reject the imperialist blockade established for five decades against Cuba and the presence of occupation troops in Haiti; we condemn all acts of political and military aggression and intervention by the imperialist powers against the peoples.

With our collective effort we have arrived at the 15th International Seminar that, year after year, has followed-up on the fundamental problems that circumstances impose on the revolutionary organizations. We reaffirm the importance of such events that allow us to sum up and share experiences; therefore we commit ourselves to continue this work and to publicize the agreements and resolutions made on this occasion. We call for a similar event next year.

15th International Seminar: Problems of the Revolution in Latin America
Quito, July 15, 2011

Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina
Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Party (Argentina)
Olga Benario Women’s Movement (Brazil)
Revolutionary Communist Party (Brazil)
Minga Sur Palmira – Alternative Democratic Pole (Colombia)
Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Labor of the Dominican Republic
Caribbean Youth (Dominican Republic)
Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
Revolutionary Popular Front (Mexico)
National Democratic Front (Philippines)
Caribbean and Latin American Coordinator (Puerto Rico)
Communist Party (Bolshevik) Russia
Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)
Socialist Revolutionary University Front (Venezuela)
Ana Soto Women’s Movement (Venezuela)
Education Movement for Emancipation (Venezuela)
Gayones Movement (Venezuela)
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela
Revolutionary Youth of Ecuador
Ecuadorian Confederation of Women for Change
Democratic Popular Movement (Ecuador)
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador

Book Review: “Stalin’s Letters to Molotov: 1925-1936″

‘STALIN’S LETTERS TO MOLOTOV : 1925 – 1936′

(Edited by Lars T. Lih, Oleg V. Naumov & Oleg V. Khlevniuk)

(Published by Yale University Press, New Haven (USA), 1995)

Introduction

In December 1969, Stalin’s comrade-in-arms Vyacheslav Molotov turned over to the Central Party Archive at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism seventy-nine letters written to him by Stalin between 1925 and 1936. The documents are now located in the ‘Russian Centre for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Recent History in: fond 558, opis 1, delo 5388.

The Russian editors point out the

“… fragmentary nature”

(Russian Editors: Preface: Lars T. Lih, Oleg V. Naumov & Oleg V. Khlevniuk (Eds.): ‘Stalin’s Letters to Molotov: 1925-1936′; New Haven (USA); 1995; p. xiv).

of the correspondence, noting that

“… the period from 1931 through 1936 is represented by only a few documents. Letters from other years (notably 1928) are missing altogether. It is not known whether Molotov turned over all the documents in his possession or only a portion of them”.

(Russian Editors: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.; p. xiv).

Nevertheless,

“… the letters preserved contain unparalleled information”,

(Russian Editors: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. xiv).

particularly since they were not written with publication in view.

Lenin’s Testament

Perhaps the most interesting section of the book covers the so-called ‘Lenin’s Testament – a letter dictated by Lenin at the end of December 1922. during his last illness.

“In accordance with his (Lenin’s — Ed.) wishes, the letter was read out to the delegates of the 13th Party congress, held from May 23 to 31, 1924. The Congress unanimously decided that the letter should not be published … since it was addressed to the Congress and not intended for publication”.

(Note to: Vladimir I. Lenin: Last Letters and Articles; Moscow; 1971; p. 63).

In 1925 the American Trotskyist Max Eastman published ‘Since Lenin died’, which contained what were alleged to be extracts from the document concerned. However, in his Introduction, editor Lars Lih admits that Eastman’s book seriously distorted, for political motives, the content of the document:

“Previous Western interpretations have all accepted that Eastman’s book ‘correctly reproduced long extracts’ of the Testament. On reading ‘Since Lenin died’, I was surprised to find this was far from true. Not only does Eastman give a highly distorted rendition of the Testament, but the distortions all clearly serve an explicit political purpose…

‘Since Lenin died’ is an inaccurate, highly politicised account that contrasts Trotsky, with his ‘saintly’ devotion to the revolution, to all the other leaders of the party, who are nothing more than unscrupulous usurpers”

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): op. cit.; p. 20-21).

Eastman claimed that his book was based on

“… his ‘chats’ with Comrade Trotsky about Lenin’s so-called testament and about the ‘main figures in the Central Committee’”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Political Bureau and the Presidium of the Central Control Commission, Russian Communist Party (17 June 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.: p. 71).

Consequently, on 17 June 1925, Stalin wrote to members of the Political Bureau and the Presidium of the Central Control Commission of the RCP saying that he was convinced that the purpose of Max Eastman’s book was

“… to discredit the government of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party, and that for these purposes Eastman indulges in a whole range of slanders and distortions.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Eastman’s book is libellous, that it will prove enormously profitable to the world counter-revolution (and has already done so!”), and that it will cause serious damage to the entire world revolutionary movement.”

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to PB and CCC (17 June 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 73, 74).

Stalin proposed that, since

“… the silence of Com. Trotsky in this case may be construed only as a confirmation or an excuse for these distortions”,

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to PB and CCC (17 June 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p.74).

Trotsky should be asked at least to refute certain statements in the book –among these the allegations that,

“… Trotsky’s true texts do not appear in public”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to PB and CCC (17 June 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.) : ibid.; p.75).

and that the Party leaders had

“clapped the censorship on his’ (that is, Lenin’s -Stalin) ‘own last words to his Party”

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to PB and CCC (17 June 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 75).

Accordingly, Stalin proposed that the Politburo should

PROPOSE TO COM. TROTSKY THAT HE DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF DECISIVELY FROM EASTMAN AND MAKE A STATEMENT FOR THE PRESS WITH A CATEGORICAL REBUTTAL OF AT LEAST THOSE DISTORTIONS THAT WERE OUTLINED ABOVE”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to PB and CCC (17 June 1925). in: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 81).

On the following day, 18 June 1925,

“… the Politburo affirmed Stalin’s proposal”, (Note to: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 82).

and

“… Trotsky himself promised that he would within three days submit the text of his statement”.

(Note to: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 82).

Later in June 1925, Trotsky sent to Stalin the draft of his statement, to which Stalin responded:

“If you are interested in my opinion, I personally consider the draft completely unsatisfactory”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Note to Lev Trotsky (June 1925), in: Note to: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 82).

Trotsky appealed to the Politburo, but

“…after meeting the usual rebuff, … he began to revise the text of his statement for the press… The final text of his statement was ready by 1 July 1925″.

(Note to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 82).

Trotsky’s statement read, in part, as follows:

“Eastman proceeds to conclusions that are completely and utterly directed against our Party and capable, if taken on faith, of discrediting the Party and Soviet power…

Eastman says that the Central Committee ‘hid’ from the Party a number of highly important documents that Lenin wrote in the last period of his life (letters on the national question, the so-called testament, and so forth): this cannot be termed anything other than a slander of the Central Committee of our Party. These letters give advice on matters of internal Party organisation, yet from Eastman’s words the conclusion could be drawn that Vladimir Ilyich meant them to be printed. In fact, this is completely untrue… It goes without saying that all these letters and proposals came to the attention of the addressees and to the knowledge of the delegates of the 13th Party Congress; … If they were not published, that is because their author did not intend for them to be published. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any ‘testament’, and the character of his relation to the Party, not to mention the character of the Party itself, excludes the possibility of such a ‘testament’…

Eastman’s assertions that the Central Committee … held up my pamphlets in 1923 or 1924 or at any other time are false…

My relationship to Eastman differs in no way from my relationship to very many Communists or ‘sympathetic foreigners’ … – certainly no closer.

His book can be of service only to the most malicious enemies of communism and the revolution, and it is therefore, objectively speaking, a tool of counter-revolution”.

(Lev Trotsky: Statement published in ‘Bolshevik’, No. 16. 1925. in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 244, 245, 246, 247, 248).

It must be noted that Trotsky does not, as has been alleged, deny the existence of the document known as ‘Lenin’s Testament’:

“Trotsky’s point is that it is inappropriate to call Lenin’s letter a ‘testament’, in other words, a literal statement of last wishes that the party was beholden to carry out”.

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 22).

Manuilsky

On 16 July 1925, ‘L’Humanité’ (Humanity), the organ of the French Communist Party,

“… published the original version of Trotsky’s statement”

(note to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 83).

and on 27 July the Politburo of the Russian Communist Party passed the following resolution:

“a) To request ‘L’Humanité’ to publish a notice that the text of Com. Trotsky’s letter regarding Eastman’s book that appeared in ‘L’Humanité’ is incomplete and distorted.

b) To request ‘L’Humanité’ to publish the full (final) text of Com. Trotsky’s letter about Eastman’s book”.

(Note to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 83).

It became known that the original version of Trotsky’s statement had been deliberately leaked to ‘L’Humanité’ by the concealed revisionist Dmitri Manuilsky:

“Soon it became clear that the original version of Trotsky’s article had been given to ‘L’Humanité’ by D. Z. Manuilsky, a member of the Comintern’s Executive Committee presidium, during his trip to France”. (Note to; Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 83).

On 1 August 1925 Stalin wrote to Molotov:

“I was told that Manulisky sent ‘L’Humanité’ the first draft of Trotsky1s article for publication, not accidentally but on purpose. If that’s true, it’s an outrage. If it’s true, then we are dealing, not with a ‘mistake’, as you wrote me, but with the policy of a few people who for some reason, are not interested in publishing Trotsky’s article in its final edited version, This is unquestionably the case. The matter cannot be left as it is. I propose … condemning Manuilsky’s intolerable action”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (1 August 1925). in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 90).

On Manuilsky’s ‘excuse’ for his action, Stalin is characteristically blunt:

“The letter from Manuilsky is cowardly and conniving.

I stand entirely by my declaration on the swindling and dirty tricks, despite the dissatisfaction of some comrades”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (18 August 1925), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 94).

Dimitrov

The book contains only one reference to Manuilsky’s close collaborator, the concealed revisionist Georgi Dimitrov.

According to the researches of Dobrin Mitchev, of the Institute of History of the Communist Party of Bulgaria:

“On 10 March (1934 – Ed.) … Georgi Dimitrov wrote to Stalin. In his letter he explained that during the year he had spent in prison he had thought a great deal about the problems of the world workers’ movement. He had been concerned above all, he specified, with questions about the strategy and tactics, the methods, the action and the functioning of the Communist International.

“The discussion took place a little later, in the presence of Manuilsky and others.

In the course of the interview, Georgi Dimitrov explained, developed his ideas, which were contrary to those of Stalin. The discussion was ardent, difficult, impassioned”.

(Dobrin Mitchev, in: Jean Méroy: ‘Dimitrov: Un revolutionnaire de notre temps (Dimitrov: A Revolutionary of Our Time); Paris; 1972; p. 184-85).

On the 7th Congress of the Communist International, which took place in August 1935, Stalin comments unenthusiastically:

“The Comintern Congress wasn’t so bad”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (5 August 1935), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): op. cit.; p. 237).

– meaning, apparently, that it was not so bad as might have been expected!

Litvinov

In his correspondence with Molotov, Stalin notes that the Soviet diplomat Maksim Litvinov, a concealed revisionist, did not see things in a revolutionary way:

“Litvinov does not see and is not interested in the revolutionary aspect of policy”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (29 August 1929), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 174).

and that he had irrational confidence in such people as the British social-democrat Edward Wise:

“Litvinov . . . believes Wise and other bastards more than the logic of things”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (9 September 1929), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 177-78).

In another letter, Stalin goes so far as to speak of Litvinov — along with Nikolai Bukharin and Aleksey Rykov, later convicted of treason — as unable to see the strength of the Soviet Union:

“Rykov, along with Bukharin and Litvinov, … don’t see the growth of the power and might of the USSR”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (7 October 1929). in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 182).

Krupskaya

On 14 December 1925, at the 14th Party Congress, Lenin’s revisionist widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya, said:

“We cannot reassure ourselves with the idea that the majority is always right. … Let us recall, for example, the Stockholm Congress (of 1906– Ed.)”.

(Nadezhda Krupskaya: Speech at 14th Party Congress (20 December 1925), in: Note to Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 117).

On which Stalin commented:

“Krupskaya is a splitter (see her speech about ‘Stockholm’ at the 14th Congress). She has to be beaten, as a splitter, if we want to preserve the unity of the Party”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (16 September 1926), in; Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 127).

Ordzhonikidze

In August 1933, a number of officials responsible for the production of agricultural machinery were tried before the USSR Supreme Court for sabotage — for having supplied combines without the full complement of parts. On 22 August USSR Deputy Prosecutor Andrei Vishinsky delivered a speech in which he criticised the departments of state concerned for

“… the immense failure of the work methods of some of the most important government institutions. I mean the Commissariat of Agriculture in the first place as represented by its agricultural supply agency… I mean the Commissariat of Heavy Industry as represented by its agricultural machine association”.

(Note to: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 233).

Vyshinsky’s statement angered Grigory (Sergo) Ordzhonikidze and Yakov Yakovlev, People’s Commissars of Heavy Industry and Agriculture respectively, and

“… in Stalin’s absence, they managed to persuade the Politburo to issue a resolution criticising Vyshinsky for his allegations: ‘To point out to Com. Vyshinsky that he should not have formulated his views in a way . . . that allows incorrect accusations to be made against Heavy Industry and Agriculture’”

(Note to: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 233-34).

On which Stalin commented:

“I consider Sergo’s actions with respect to Vyshinsky the behaviour of a hooligan. … By his act of protest Sergo clearly wished to disrupt the campaign of the Council of People’s Commissars and Central Committee to provide proper equipment”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (1 September 1933), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 233).

“The behaviour of Sergo (and Yakovlev) … can only be characterised as anti-Party’, since their objective is to defend reactionary Party elements against the Central Committee”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (12 September 1933),. in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 234).

Wrecking

The letters refute the myth that Stalin believed that persons charged with sabotage were innocent, as the American editor Lars Lih admits:

“The letters indicate that … Stalin genuinely believed that the wreckers were guilty as charged”.

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.; p. 48).

and insisted on full publication of the testimonies of the accused and the secret service:

“We must immediately publish all the testimonies of all the wreckers of the supplies of meat, fish, tinned goods and vegetables. … Why the ‘secrets’? We should publish them.

It would also be good to publish the testimonies of the ‘Intelligence Service’ agents . . . about the subversive activity of the Vickers employees, who have bombed, set fire to and damaged our factories and buildings. . . . Why is this rich material being kept secret?’. (Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (13 September 1930), in:

Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 213).

and proposed the same course be adopted in the case of the testimony of Professor Leonid Ramzin, the principal defendant in the ‘Industrial Party’ trial of 1930, if his testimony was corroborated:

“If Ramzin’s testimonies are confirmed and corroborated … that will be a serious victory for the OGPU, since we’ll make the material available in some form to Comintern sections and the workers of the world.”

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Menzhinsky (undated), in: Lars T. Lih et al.: ibid.; p. 196).

Checking Up

The letters throw interesting light on Stalin’s methods of work –particularly on the importance he attached to the selection of cadres and the checking-up on the fulfilment of decisions:

“The slogans ‘checking up on fulfilment’ and ‘selection of officials’ are ubiquitous”,

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction, Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.; p. 14).

and we find him writing to Molotov congratulating him on his practice of checking-up on fulfilment:

“You’ve achieved a sample of Leninist checking up on fulfilment. If it is required, let me congratulate you on your success”

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (10 October 1930), In: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 221),

“The Politburo has adopted my proposals concerning grain procurement. This is good, but in my opinion it is inadequate. Now the problem is fulfilling the Politburo’s decision. … Therefore it is necessary to demand the following from procurement organisations, the OGPU, the Collective Farm Centre, and so forth:

a) copies of their instructions to subordinate organs concerning the fulfilment of the Politburo’s decision; b) regular reports every two weeks (even better, once a week) about the results of the fulfilment of the decisions”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (21 August 1929). in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.; p. 168).

Stalin and the World Revolutionary Movement

Finally, the letters clearly reveal that in upholding the principle that socialism could be built in one country, Stalin in no way ‘abandoned the cause of world revolution’, as Trotsky alleges;

‘”Stalin was not hypocritical in his support for world revolution, since from his point of view no sacrifice of state interests was involved.

Stalin comes out of the letters with his revolutionary credentials in good order…

As first servant of the Soviet state, he was also first servant of the world revolution…

The letters refute the Trotsky-derived interpretation of ‘socialism in one country’ as an isolationist rejection of revolution elsewhere…

The letters show that Stalin did not see revolutionary interests and state interests in either-or terms”.

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.: pp.28, 36, 62).

For example, the letters reveal his great personal interest in the class struggle of the British workers:

“Stalin’s remarks indicate that he was very involved in the British situation”.

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 30).

Thus, when the British miners’ strike began on 1 May 1926, Stalin insisted that every possible assistance be rendered to them:

“We must publish the complete text of the resolution of our workers… in support of the British strikers in general and the coal-miners in particular in all the most important languages of the West as quickly as possible. … This is a fighting matter and should not be allowed to fall by the wayside”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (26 May 1926), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 104).

“The delegation of British coal miners should be arriving any day… They should be met ‘by all the rules of the game’ and as much money as possible should be collected for them. I’ve heard that the Americans have promised 1 million dollars. We have to collect and send possibly 1 million or 2 million roubles (less than the Americans is impossible) or perhaps a whole 3 million, The situation in England is serious, and it obliges us to make serious sacrifices’”

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (2? August 1926). in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 119).

The letters also demonstrate his keen interest in, and support for, the Chinese Revolution:

“Stalin sees the success of the Chinese Communist Party as a matter of both state and revolutionary interest”,

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction, Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p.33).

and show that, despite Opposition criticism, Stalin was convinced that the Comintern’s policy with regard to China had been correct:

“Never have I been so deeply and firmly convinced of the correctness of our policy . . . in China . . as I am now”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (11 July 1927), in: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 143).

and he

“… insisted that the blame for the failure of Comintern strategy lay with the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party”, (Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): op. cit.; p.32).

which he characterised as ‘not a genuine Communist Party’:

“… unfortunately we don’t have a real or, if you like, an actual Communist Party in China. . . . What is the current Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Nothing but an ‘amalgamation’ of general phrases gathered here and there, not linked to one another with any line or guiding idea. I don’t want to be very demanding toward the Central Committee of the CCP. I know that one can’t be too demanding toward it. But here is a simple demand: fulfil the directives of the Comintern. Has it fulfilled these directives? No.

There is not a single Marxist mind in the Central Committee capable of understanding . . . the social underpinning of the events now occurring. … The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat.

But … the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony.

That’s the reason why the Comintern’s directives are not fulfilled.

That is why I now believe the question of the Party is the main question of the Chinese revolution”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov C9 Jul1 1927), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; pp.140-41).

In 1929, Stalin even favoured military intervention in Manchuria in support of the Chinese Revolution:

“I think that it’s time to think about organising an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria. … We need to organise two double-regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine-guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops, … to occupy Harbin and, after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government. …This we can, and I think should, do. No ‘international law’ contradicts this task”.

(Josef V, Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (7 October 1929), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 182).

Video: 46 years of the PCMLE

Bill Bland on the Enforced Resettlements in the Soviet Union

INTRODUCTION

In response to an article by Alliance: Alliance number 13: “Chechnya – Oil And the Divided Russian Capitalists”, we received a letter from one “A.E.”

A.E. essentially asked us to substantiate a Marxist-Leninist position on Chechnya, given that “the national rights” were violated.

The exact note we received was as follows:

“In discussion of Alliance’s article “Chechenya, Oil, and the Divided Capitalist Class” it was brought up that:
in 1936 Chechenya-Ingushetia became not a “union republic” within the USSR, but an “autonomous republic” within the Russian “union republic” and hence didn’t have the right to self determination with respect to either the USSR or Russia;
and in 1944, not just rebel Nazi sympathizers were “transported away from the front”, but virtually the entire Chechen-Ingush population was removed, and even thousands of Chechen Red Army men were deported.

How does Alliance justify the position set forth at the beginning of its article on Chechenya?”

Our to date best answer was given by the late Comrade Bland. We re-print this. We had hoped to update this article with new materials from the archives, but time has marched on and we have been unable to obtain time.

Lest it be thought we are prevaricating, Bland’s response is a a very good reply.

THE ENFORCED RESETTLEMENTS

(A paper read by Bill Bland to the Stalin Society in London in July 1993)

Introduction

In the course of his secret speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956, Nikita Khrushchev alleged that, on Stalin’s initiative, five small nations were deported from their homes to other regions of the Soviet Union:

“All the more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude Violations of the basic Leninist ‘principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state., We refer to the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations. . . Already at the end of 1943 . . a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived., In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944 all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to far-away places from the territory of the Kabarda-Balkar Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardin Republic”.

(Russian Institute, Columbia University: ‘The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism: A Selection of Documents’; New York; 1956; p. 57).

The Transplanted Nations

The five small nations referred to by Khrushchev were

1) the Karachai (some 76,000 in 1939), speaking a Turkic language, mostly Sunni Muslims, who lived on the northern slopes of the Caucasus mountains.

A Karachai-Cherkess Autonomous Region was established in January 1922 for the Karachai and Cherkess (Circassian) peoples, and divided in 1926 to form separate Karachai and Cherkess Autonomous Regions. The Karachai Autonomous Rekion (‘A’ on map) (area: 3,800 square miles) elected 3 representatives to the Soviet of Nationalities. It was occupied by German troops between August 1942 and January 1943.

2) the Kalmyks (some 134,000 in 1939), speaking a Mongol language, mostly

Buddhists, who lived a few hundred miles north of the Caucasus Mountains to the west of the Volga.

The Kalmyk Autonomous Region (area: 28,000 square miles) was established in November 1920 and transformed into the Kalmyk Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (‘B’ on map) (capital: Elista) in October 1935. In 1937 it elected 9 representatives to the Soviet of Nationalities. The area was occupied by German troops from late 1942 to January 1943.

3) the Chechens (some 408,000 in 1939) and

4) the Ingush (some 92,000 in 1939);

were closely related ethnically and linguistically. They spoke a Turkic language, were mostly Sunni Muslims, and lived on the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains.

The Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘C’ on map) (area: 6,000 square miles; capital: Grozny) was established in December 1936 by the amalgamation of the Chechen and Ingush Autonomous Regions. It sent 6 representatives to the Soviet of Nationalities (5 Chechens and 1 Ingush). German troops occupied the western part of the republic in the autumn of 1942 but were halted at the approaches to Grozny.

5) the Balkars (some 43,000 in 1939), speaking a Turkic language, mostly Sunni Muslims, who lived on the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains.

The Kabarda-Balkar Autonomous Region was established in January 1922 and transformed into the Kabarda-Balkar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘D’ on map; area: 4,800 square miles; capital: Nalchik) in December 1936. It sent 4 representatives to the Soviet of Nationalities in 1937. The area was occupied by German troops between October 1942 and January 1943.

MAP ONE :

Limits of German Advance (1942-43).

A : The KARACHAI Autonomous Region.

B : The KALMYK Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

C : The CHECHEN-INGUSH Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic,

D The KABARDA-BALKAR Autonomous Region.

But, in fact, three further small nations were forcibly resettled at this time which Khruschev refrained from mentioning in his secret speech. These nations were:

6) the Volga Germans, who came to the Volga region during the reign of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, numbered some 382,000 in 1939, were German in ethnical origin, and mostly Mennonite or Lutheran in religion. They lived in the region of the Volga near the city of Saratov.

The German Volga Labour Commune was established in October 1918, and transformed in February 1924 into the Volga-German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘E’ on map) (area: 10,500 square miles; population: some 605,500 in 1939; capital: Engels). The area was not occupied by German forces.

7) the Crimean Tatars, who numbered some 202,000 in 1939, spoke a Turkic language, were mostly Sunni Muslims and lived in the Crimean Peninsula.

The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘F’ on map) (area: 10,000 square miles; population some 1,126,800 in 1939; capital: Simferopol) was established in the Crimean Peninsula in October 1921. The area was occupied by German forces between 1941 and 1944.

8) the Meskhetians (so called only after the late 1950s) who numbered some 150,000 people of various ethnical origins but all speaking Turkic languages, mostly Sunni Muslims, living in the south-west of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (in the area marked ‘G’ on map), near the Turkish border. The area was not occupied by German forces.

MAP 2

E : The VOLGA-GERMAN Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

F : The CRIMEAN Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

G : The MESKHETIANS.

The data above are drawn from:

—- ‘The great Soviet Encyclopedia’; New York; 1973-83.

Robert Conquest: ‘The Nationa Killers: The Soviet Deportation of Nationlaities’; London 1970.

Walter Kolarz: ‘Russia & Her Colonies’; London; 1952.

Ronald Wixman: ‘The peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook’; London; 1984.

The Dates of the Resettlements

According to Khrushchev in his secret speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the dates of the resettlements were as follows:

End of 1943: The Karachai.

End of December 1943: The Kalmyks.

March 1944: The Chechens and Ingush.

April 1944: The Balkars.

(Russian Institute, Columbia University: op. cit.; p. 57).

According to Robert Conquest, the dates of the resettlements of the Volga Germans and the Crimean Tatars were as follows:

August 1941: The Volga Germans.

c. June 1944: The Crimean Tatars.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 100).

To Conquest the date of the resettlement of the Meskhetians is unknown” (Robert Conquest: ibid.; p. 100).

But the American historian Ronald Suny fixes the date as 1947:

“More than 2,000 Georgians were settled in these depleted lands in December 1943. Four years later about 8,000 Muslims in Georgia, the Meskhetian Turks, . . were deported to Central Asia”.

(Ronald G. Suny: ‘The Making of the Georgian Nation’; London; 1989; p.289).

The Places of Resettlement

The nations forcibly resettled in 1941-47 were exiled to eastern regions of the USSR, as shown on the map below:

Map 3

The Total of the Resettled

The total number of persons resettled in 1941-47 was as follows:

Chechens: 408,000

Volga Germans: 382,000

Crimean Tatars: 202,000

Meskhetians: 150,000

Kalmyks: 134,000

Ingush: 92,000

Karachai: 76,000

Balkars: 43,000

1,487,000

Robert.Conquest gives a slightly higher estimate of

“. . . approximately 1,650,000″.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 65).

The Political Changes

Consequent upon the enforced resettlements, certain political changes were made:

1. The Karachai Autononmous Region (‘A’ on map One) was dissolved and most of its territory ceded to the Georgian SSR.

2. The Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘B’ on map One) was dissolved and most of its territory ceded to a new Astrakhan Region of Russia.

3. The Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘C’ on map One) was dissolved, and most of its territory transferred to a new Grozny Province of Russia.

4. The Kabarda-Balkar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘D’ on map One) was renamed the Kabarda ASSR, with much of its territory ceded to the Georgian SSR.

5. The Volga-German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘E’ on map Two) was dissolved and most of its territory transferred to the Saratov Province of Russia.

6. The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (‘F’ on map Two) was dissolved and its territory renamed the Crimean Province of Russia.

The Reasons for Khrushchev’s Omissions

One must consider why Khrushchev should have omitted from the charges made at the 20th Congress the enforced resettlement of three small nations who were so resettled. He condemns in general as

“. . . monstrous . . . rude violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state . . . the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations”. (Russian Institute, Columbia University: op. cit.; p. 57).

but makes no mention of three of the peoples resettled in precisely the same way:

“Khrushchev’s speech . . . named only the Chechens, Ingush, Baikars, Karachai and Kalmyks as suffering peoples, making no reference to the Volga Germans, the Crimean Tatars or Meskhetians”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 142).

Yet:

“Khrushchev had clearly implied that the whole deportation was a crime and should be reversed”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 143).

And one can hardly credit Khrushchev with a desire to whitewash Stalin’s alleged crimes.

Indeed, the Secretary of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Aleksandr Gorkin*,

“. . . who had been a signatory to the original deportation decrees”, (Robert Conquest- ibid.; p. 145).

said in a speech to the Supreme Soviet in February 1957:

“The practical implementation of measures for the restoration of the national autonomy of these peoples requires a certain amount of time.. . .

The resettlement of citizens of the stated nationalities who have expressed a desire to return to regions of former residence must be conducted in an organised manner”.

(A. Gorkin, in: ‘Pravda’, 12 February 1957, in: Robert Conquest: ibid.; p. 146).

Nor can Khrushchev’s failure to mention in his secret speech three of the resettled peoples be attributed to ignorance of the fact of their resettlement. For a published decree of the Presidiuum of the USSR Supreme Soviet of August 1941 lays down:

“The State Committee of Defence has been instructed to carry out urgently the transfer of all Volga Germans”.

(Decree of Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, 28 August 1941, in: ‘Bulletin of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR’, No. 38, 2 September 1941, in: Robert Conquest: ibid.; p. 63).

And a similar published decree of June 1946 records that:

“.. . during the Great Patriotic War, the Chechens and the Crimean Tatars were resettled in other regions of the USSR”.

(Decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet, 25 June 1946, in: ‘Izvestia’ , 26 June 1946, in: Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 47).

What, then, distinguished the unmentioned Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars and Meskhetians from the other resettled nations?

Only the fact that the peoples mentioned were permitted by the Krushchevite revisionists to-return to their original home areas, while the unmentioned peoples were not:

“Two of the suppressed republics failed to re-emerge.. . . In 1964 a decree was published publicly rehabilitating the Volga Germans, but still not granting them the right to return to their old settlements. That is, the accusations were at last withdrawn, but the punishment remained in force. From the timing this rehabilitation seems to have been connected with Khrushchev’s effort to secure a detente with West Germany. . . .

It was not until 1967 that a decree actually withdrawing the accusations against the Crimean Tatars . . . was promulgated. . . .

Like the Volga Germans, the withdrawal of the accusations against the Crimean Tatars . . . was not accompanied by an abrogation of the official penalties. . . .

Lastly, an unpublished decree of the Supreme Soviet of 31 October 1956 freed the Meskhetians from MVD control, without giving them the right to return home”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 179, 183, 185, 186, 187).

The Official Motives for the Resettlements

The official reasons for the resettlements were stated to be state security.

In seven out of the eight cases (that is, in all the cases except that of the Meskhetians), the peoples resettled were accused of mass treachery during the Second World War. The measures of enforced resettlement in these cases were presented not as a mass punishment, but as a Preventive measure to avoid the necessity of mass punishment:

“According to trustworthy information received by the military authorities, there are among the German population living in the Volga area thousands and tens of thousands of diversionists and spies who, on a signal being given from Germany, are to carry out sabotage in the area inhabited by the Germans of the Volga.

None of the Germans living in the Volga area has reported to the Soviet authorities the existence of such a large number of diversionists and spies among the Germans; consequently, the German population of the Volga conceals enemies of the Soviet people and of Soviet authority in its midst.

In case of diversionist acts being carried out at a signal from Germany by German diversionists and spies in the Volga-German Republic or in the adjacent areas and bloodshed taking place, the Soviet Government will be obliged, according to the laws in force during the war period, to take punitive measures against the whole of the German population of the Volga.

In order to avoid undesirable events of this nature and to prevent serious bloodshed, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR have found it necessary to transfer the whole of the German population living in the Volga area into other areas”. (Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: Decree of 28 August 1941, in: ‘Bulletin of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR’, No. 38, 2 September 1941, in: Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 62).

“During the Great Patriotic War . . . . many Chechens and Crimean Tatars, at the instigation of German agents, joined volunteer units organised by the Germans and, together with German troops, engaged in armed struggle against units of the Red Army; also at the bidding of the Germans they formed diversionary bands for the struggle against Soviet authority in the rear; meanwhile the main mass of the population of the Chechen-Ingush and Crimean ASSRs took no counter-action against these betrayers of the Fatherland.

In connection with this, the Chechens and the Crimean Tatars were resettled in other regions of the USSR”

(Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: Decree of 25 June 1946, in: Robert Conquest” ibid.; p. 47).

Khrushchev himself denies that the resettlements were dictated by security factors:

“This deportation action was not dictated by any military considerations”. (Russan Institute, Columbia University: op. cit.; p. 57).

Many anti-Soviet historians accept this view, according to which Stalin was a thoroughly evil man who woke up one morning and said: ‘What can I do today that’s really nasty? I know! I’ll transplant the Chechens — who are loyal Soviet citizens — to Kazakhstan!’.

But this theory has problems for anti-Soviet historians, who are fond of telling us that socialism was so awful that every sensible Soviet citizen welcomed the Nazis with open arms.

The truth lies between these two extremes. While there were individual traitors among all the nations of the Soviet Union, a few small nations were guilty of mass treachery.

An authoritative textbook of Soviet law tells us:

“In the background of patriotic enthusiasm which inflamed the nations of the Soviet country united against the common enemy . . . there stand out strangely the monstrous, criminal and treacherous acts of some small, backward nations which gave support to the enemy in the expectation of receiving ‘privileges’ from him at the expense of the other nations of the Soviet Union. These acts called for necessary and extraordinary measures by the Soviet State in the interests of the USSR as a whole”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 81, citing: Ilya D. Levin (Ed.): ‘Soviet State Law’; Moscow; 1947).

Alexander Dallin* recounts that early in the Soviet-German war:

“. . . revolts broke out among some of the Caucasian Mountaineers. Most widepread in the Muslim areas, particularly among the Chechens and Karachai, these rebellions prepared the ground for a change of regime . . . Faced with a concentrated German onslaught and a lack of support from the indigenous population, the Red Army retreated from Rostov to the Greater Caucasus Mountains without giving battle. . . .

In the Karachai region the bulk of the Muslim Mountaineers accorded the Germans a more genuine welcome than in most other occupied areas.

The Germans . . . announced the formation of a Karachai voluntary squadron of horsemen to fight with the German Army. . . .

During the entire occupation, there was no evidence of anti-German activity in the Karachai area. . .

After the conquest of the Crimea (by the Germans — Ed.) they and other Tatar ‘volunteers’ were organised in auxiliary military units to fight on the German side”.

(Alexander Dallin: ‘German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945: A Study of Occupation Policies’; London; 1981; p. 244, 246, 258).

“The Germans were welcomed by practically the entire population of the Crimea and the . . . Muslim areas of the northern Caucasus. . .The Balkars were Muslims and unlike the Christian Kabardinians, collaborated en masse with the enemy”.

(Robert Magidoff: ‘The Kremlin vs. the People: The Story of the Cold Civil War in Stalin’s Russia’; New York; 1953; p. 20, 22).

“The Muslim Balkars were more outspokenly pro-German than the mostly non-Muslim Kabardinians. Although the Germans did not penetrate far into the Chechen-Ingush ASSR (south of Grozny) , these two peoples appear to have made no secret of their sympathy for the Germans. . .

Altogether, :.the Tatars’ record was as bad as could be. They had formed a police force under German control and had been highly active in the Gestapo”.

(Alexander Werth: ‘Russia at War: 1941-1945′; London; 1964; p. 579-80, 838).

“When the German armies occupied the Northern Caucasus region many mountaineers manifested their hostility towards the Soviet regime. They attempted to use the retreat of the Red Army to free themselves from what they considered the ‘Russian yoke’. Over twenty years of Soviet rule had not altered their imagined conviction that Russia’s foes were their friends. . . .

In Chechenia, it would seem that Muslim opposition to the Soviet regime was never quite suppressed. . . . The mullahs, who were powerful opponents of the Soviet regime, even managed to keep alive the illegal Shariah courts. . . .

The hostile attitude of the Chechens towards the Soviet Russian regime was often manifested. . . .

The Ingush . . . showed themselves no less loyal to Islam”.

(Walter Kolarz: op. cit.; p. 185, 187).

“In most Crimean cities the German advancing army was met with jubilation and calls of ‘liberators’ from the local Tatar population. . .

Manstein* was relatively successful in his attempts to gain active support from the Tatars. According to both German and Tatar evidence, the Germans persuaded between 15,000 and 20,000 Tatars to form self-defence battalions that were partially armed by the Germans and sent into the mountains to hunt down partisan units. . . . From the various Caucasian peoples over 110,000 volunteers were recruited; and the Kalmyks provided about 5,000 volunteers. . . .

Large numbers of Tatar villagers as well as six organised Tatar self-defence battalions fought hard against the Soviet partisans.,

(Alan W. Fisher: ‘The Crimean Tatars’; Stanford (USA); 1987; p. 153, 155, 159).

“A large part of the Crimean Tatar population did not consider the government in Moscow to be their ‘sovereign’ nor the USSR to be their country. . . .

Tatar ‘collaboration; with the Germans took the following forms.. . .

First, early in 1942 the Germans encouraged the creation of ‘selfdefence’ battalions of Tatars to ‘defend’ their villages against the activities of Soviet partisans in the Crimea. . . . According to German records, between 15,000 and 20,000 Crimean Tatars formed these military units. Second with German aid, Tatars established local ‘Muslim Committees’ to take over the responsibility for most non-political and non-military affairs”.

(Alan W. Fisher: ‘The Crimean Tatars, the USSR and Turkey’, in: William 0. McCagg, jun. & Brian D. Silver (Eds.): ‘Soviet Asian Ethnic Frontiers’;. New York; 1979; p. 12).

“As German troops overran western Russia in July and August 1941, they came across German villages.. . .

When German (or Romanian) soldiers arrived in such a village, they were greeted as liberators. . . .

Some of them (the Soviet Germans — Ed.) . . . volunteered for work in the Reich during the war. . . . Some of these defected fully to the Nazis and served in the German armed forces”.

(Adam Giesinger: ‘From Catherine to Khrushchev: The Story of

Russia’s Germans’; Battleford (Canada); 1974; p. 304, 313).

“German reports make it clear, too, that a Soviet writer was not exaggerating when he wrote that right from the beginning pro-Soviet partisans in the Crimea ‘were deprived of the support of the local population”‘.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 100, citing: Ivan A. Kozlov: ‘In the Crimean Underground’; Moscow; 1948).

The Case of the Meskhetians

The Meskhetians are a special case among the transplanted nations in that their transplantation took place later than that of the other nations in 1947 — and they were not accused of treachery:

“The peoples of Meskhetia were never charged with collaborating with the Germans”.

(S. Enders Wimbush & Ronald Wixman: ‘The Meskhetian Turks: A New Voice in ‘Canadian Slavonic Papers’, Volume 17, Nos. Soviet Central Asia’, in: 2/3, (summer/fall 1975), p. 320).

“It was not alleged against them (the Meskhetians Ed.) that they had collaborated with the Germans — who had not come within hundreds of miles of the area. In fact, the move was represented as not being of a penal nature at all”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 48-49).

But during the Second World War, the Allied Powers had occasion to complain on several occasions that Turkey was permitting Germany to violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 on the Dardanelles. Thus, in June 1945 immediately after the end of the war, the Soviet government demanded revision of the Convention to allow for Soviet forces to share in the administration of the straits and the return of certain frontier areas taken from Soviet territory by what the Soviet government declared were ‘imposed’ treaties in 1921.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 7,737).

While the Western Powers had, during the war, supported demands for a revision of the Montreux Convention, Churchill* in February 1946 signalled the end of Anglo-American partnership with the Soviet Union when he declared in Fulton:

“From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 7,771).

Thus, in August 1946 Turkey, with the backing of the US imperialists rejected the Soviet proposals for joint supervision of the straits on the grounds that:

“. . the Soviet demand for the participation in the defence of the Straits is incompatible with Turkish sovereignty”. (‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,102).

In that month (August 1946) Moscow Radio broadcast a series of captured documents from the German Foreign Office which revealed, for example, that former Turkish Prime Minister Sukru Saracoglu* told the Germans in August 1942:

“As a Turk, I passionately desire the destruction of Russia”. (‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,076).

When in March 1947, US President Harry Truman asked Congress for immediate ‘aid’ to Turkey, the Soviet newspaper ‘Izvestia’ commented:

“American ‘assistance’ to Turkey is obviously aimed at putting that country under US control”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,493).

It was at this time that, as a measure of defence, the Soviet government resettled the Turkic Meskhetians living on the Soviet-Turkish frontier. Robert Conquest comments:

“The Meskhetians are in fact best described as Turkish. . . . The population was one which might be thought to have Turkish sympathies.”

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 48).

Incidentally, one of the first changes in Soviet foreign policy after the death of Stalin and the coming to power of the new Soviet revisionist leadership was the renunciation, in May 1953, of the Soviet territorial claims on Turkey and of its demands for a revision of the Montreux Convention.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 13; p. 13,101).

Contrary to Marxist-Leninist Principles?

According to Khrushchev, the resettlements were carried out in violation of the Marxist-Leninist principles on the national question:

“All the more monstrous are those acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state. We refer to the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations”.

(Russian Institute, Columbia University: op. cit.; p. 57).

But Lenin always insisted that:

“. . . the interests of Socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination”.

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ‘On the History of the Question of the Unfortunate Peace’ (January, 1918), in: ‘Selected Works’, Volume 3; Moscow; 1967; p. 533).

As did Stalin:

“In addition to the right of nations to self-determination, there is also the right of the working class to consolidate its power, and the right of self-determination is subordinate to this latter right. . . . The right of self-determination cannot and must not serve as obstacle to the working class in exercising its right to dictatorship. The former must yield to the latter”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Reply to the Discussion on the Report on National Factors in Party and State Affairs, 12th Congress of RCP (April 1923), in: ‘Works’, Volume 5; Moscow; 1953; p. 270).

Clearly, if there were valid reasons to regard the resettlements as necessary for the security of the socialist state, they were fully in accord with Marxist-Leninist principles on the national question.

Contrary to Soviet Legality?

According to many Soviet revisionist sources, the enforced resettlements were contrary to Soviet legality:

“In December 1943, in violation of socialist legality, the Kalmyks were uprooted from the republic’s territory and resettled in the country’s eastern regions”.

(‘Great Soviet Encyclopedia’, Volume 11; New York; 1976; p. 365).

“In March 1944, as a result of violations of socialist legality, the Balkars were resettled in regions of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan”.

(‘Great Soviet Encyclopedia’, Volume 11; ibid.; p. 320).

But an authoritative book on Soviet law sets out the circumstances in which groups of citizens may legally be resettled in other parts of the Soviet Union:

“Resettlement is carried out by the state organs of the USSR:

1) for the purpose of realising measures connected with state security and defence of state frontiers;

2) for the purpose of acquiring lands for agricultural production”.

The first function is carried out by the organs of state security”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 82, citing: Semen S. Studentiev, Viktor A. Vlasov & Ivan I. Evtikhiev: ‘Administrative Law of the USSR’; Moscow; 1950).

The resettlements with which we are here concerned were carried out, as we shall see, for the first of these two purposes — that is, for reasons of state security and defence of state frontiers — and so were carried out legally by the state security services.

Genocide?

Anti-Soviet historians often describe the enforced resettlements as acts of ‘genocide’. This is implied in the title of Robert Conquest’s book on the transplantations — ‘The Nation Killers’.

In fact, the UN. Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in December 1948, defines genocide as an act:

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical or religious group, as such”.

(UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (December 1948), in: Edmund J. Osmanczyk: ‘The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Relations’; New York; 1990; p. 328).

But enforced resettlement of national groups can in no way be identified with intent to destroy them. Indeed, even such a hostile commentator as Robert Conquest is compelled to admit:

“Nothing here matches the horror of the Nazi gas chambers. These nations were not physically annihilated”. (Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 11).

In fact, the resettled peoples were allotted land and given state assistance to build a new life in the areas in which they were resettled. The Volga Germans, for example, were resettled:

“with the promise that the migrants shall be allotted land and that they should be given assistance by the State in settling in the new areas”.

(Decree of Presidium of USSR Supreme Soviet, 28 August 1941, in: Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 62-63).

while the resettled Chechens and Crimean Tatars

“. . . were given land, together with the necessary governmental assistance for their economic establishment”.

(Decree of Presidium of USSR Supreme Soviet, 25 June 1946, in: Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 47).

The Collective Nature of the Decisions on Resettlement

As we have seen, Khrushchev describes Stalin as the:

“initiator”

(Russian Institute, Columbia University: op. cit.; p. 57).

of the resettlements.

This may well be true, but the decisions on resettlement were undoubtedly collective and not individual decisions.

Robert Conquest testifies that the defector Colonel Grigory Tokaev:

“Had some access to what was being said in high political and military circles”

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 99).

and Tokaev asserts

“. . . that the Soviet General Staff reported in 1940 that the population of the northern Caucasus would prove to be a handicap in case of war and recommended that the ‘special measures’ be taken in good time.

The actual decision to deport the Chechens is described by Tokaev as having been taken initially at a joint meeting of the Politburo and High Command on 11 February 1943, almost a year before it was put into effect”.

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 99).

Incidentally, Tokaev states that:

“It . . . the operation was beautifully planned”

(Grigory A, Tokaev: ‘Comrade X’; London; 1956; p. 259).

and that:

“Beria was in charge of the operation”.

(Grigory A. Tokaev: ibid.; p. 257).

And although Krushchev denounced (some of) the resettlements three years after Stalin’s death, Conquest points out that at the time:

“He (Khrushchev — Ed.) does not claim that he made any protest”. (Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 192).

The Political Background to the Treason

We have seen that the disloyalty which brought about the resettlements was a mass phenomenon only in a few small nations of the Soviet Union, and so cannot be regarded as the result of an incorrect national policy on the part of the Soviet Marxist-Leninists.

In fact, even anti-Soviet historians testify to the overall success of the Soviet national policy in the time of Stalin:

“The so-called Lenin-Stalin nationality policy has achieved outstanding successes in enabling once backward peoples to modernise themselves”.

(William 0. McCagg, junior & Brian D. Silver (Eds): Introduction to:

‘Soviet Asian Ethnic Frontiers’; New York; 1979; p. xiv).

Speaking to the highlanders of the Caucasus in 1920, Stalin said:

“In granting you autonomy, Russia restores the liberties which were stolen from you by the bloodsucking tsars and the tyrannous Tsarist generals. …

Each of the peoples — Chechens, Ingush, Ossetians, Kabardinians, Balkars, Karachais, and also the Cossacks who remain within the autonomous highland territory — should have its National Soviet to administer the affairs of the given people in accordance with its manner of life and specific features”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Report on Soviet Autonomy for the Terak Region, Congress of the Peoples of the Terek Region (November 1920), in: ‘Works’, Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; p. 415).

Even Robert Conquest admits:

“One of the most characteristic things in the life of the Soviet minorities is the care taken to provide them with a Soviet literature of their own”. .

(Robert Conquest: op. cit.; p. 41).

The nations who succumbed to mass treachery were subject to special pressures — of foreign nationalism (German or Turkish) and -in the case if the Causasus — of reactionary Muslim mullahs.

Particularly important in the background to the treachery was the political activity in the North Caucasus of concealed revisionist conspirators. At his treason trial in March 1938, Vladimir Ivanov* admitted:

“In 1929 1 was sent to the North Caucasus as the Second Secretary , Bukharin suggested to me that I should form a group of Rights in the North Caucasus. IL-’ added that the North Caucasus would play a very important part in our struggle against the Party and the Soviet power”.

(Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites’; Moscow; 1938; p. 118).

Ivanov’s evidence on this point was confirmed by another defendant in the same trial — Aleksey Rykov*:

“RYKOV: The Right centre devoted special attention to the North Caucasus owing to . . . the specific character of its traditions.

VYSHINSKY: To organise kulak actions, kulak insurrections?

RYKOV: of course”.

(Report of Court Proceedings ibid.; p. 165).

Conclusion

THE ENFORCED RESETTLEMENT OF EIGHT SMALL NATIONS OF THE SOVIET UNION IN 1941-47 WAS A LEGAL MEASURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARXIST-LENINIST PRINCIPLES, NECESSITATED BY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO SAFEGUARD THE SECURITY OF THE SOCIALIST SOVIET UNION.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

CHURCHILL, Winston L. S., British journalist, historian and conservative

politician (1874-1965); President, Board of Trade (1908-10); Home Secretary (1910-11); First Lord of Admiralty (1911-15); Minister of Munitions (1917); Secretary for War and Air (1919-21); Secretary for Colonies (1921-22); Chancellor of Exchequer (1924-29); First Lord of Admiralty (1939-40); Premier (1940-45, 1951-55).

CONQUEST, G. Robert A., British diplomat, historian and poet (1917 research fellow, London School of Economics (1956-58); senior fellow, Columbia University, New York (1964-65); fellow, Smithsonian Institution, Washington (1976-77); senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford (1977- research associate, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA (1983- ) — Alexander, German-born American historian (1924- to ZUSA (1940); associate professor (1958-61), professor (1961- ), Columbia University, New York senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford, USA (1971-78).

GORKIN, Aleksandr F., Soviet revisionist civil servant (1897-1992); Secretary, USSR Central Executive Committee (1937-38); Secretary, Presidium of USSR Supreme Soviet (1938-57); Chairman, USSR Supreme Court (1957-72).

IVANOV, Vladimir I., Soviet revisionist politician (1893-1938); Secretary, North Caucasus, Regional Committee, CPSU (1927-31); Ist Secretary, Northern Regional Committee, CPSU (1931-38); USSR Commissar of Timber Industry (1937-38); found guilty of treason and executed (1938).

MANSTEIN, Fritz E. von, German military officer (1887-1973); field marshal (1942); commander on Soviet front (1942-43); imprisoned for war crimes (1943-53).

RYKOV, Alexsey I., Soviet revisionist politician (1881-1938); chairman, Supreme Council of National Economy (1918-21); RSFSR/USSR premier (1924-30); USSR Commissar for Communications (1931-36); expelled from CPSU (1937); found guilty of treason and executed (1938).

SARACOGLU. Sukru, Turkish national-bourgeois politician (1887-1953): Minister of Finance (1927-30); Minister of Justice (1933-38); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1938-42); Premier (1942-46); President, National Assembly (1948-50).

SUNY, Ronald G., American historian (1940- ); lecturer, Columbia University, New York (1967-68); assistant professor (1968-72), associate professor (1972-81), Oberlin College, Oberlin, USA; professor, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1981- ).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conquest, Robert: ‘The Nation Killers: The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities’; London; 1970.

Dallin, Alexander: ‘German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945: A Study of Occupation Policies’; London; 1981.

Fisher, Alan W.: ‘The Crimean Tatars’; Stanford (USA); 1987.

Giesinger, Adam: ‘From Catherine to Khrushchev: The Story of Russia’s Germans’; Battleford (Canada); 1974.

Kolarz, Walter; ‘Russia and Her Colonies’; London; 1952.

Lenin. Vladimir I. : ‘Selected Works’, Volume 3; Moscow; 1967.

Magidoff, Robert: ‘The Kremlin vs. the People: The Story of the Cold Civil War in Stalin’s Russia’; New York; 1953.

McCagg, William O,-Junior, & Silver, Brian D. (Eds.): ‘Soviet Asian Ethnic Frontiers’; New York; 1979.

Osmanczyk, Edmund J.: ‘The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Relations’; New York; 1990.

Russian Institute, Columbia University: ‘The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism; A Selection of Documents’; New York; 1956.

Stalin, Josef V.: ‘Works’, Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; & Volume 5; Moscow; 1953.

Suny, Ronald G.: ‘The Making of the Georgian Nation’; London; 1989.

Tokaev, Grigory A.: ‘Comrade X’; London; 1956.

Waxman, Ronald: ‘The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook’; London; 1974.

Werth, Alexander: ‘Russia at War: 1941-1945′; London; 1964.

Wimbush, S. Anders & Wixman, Ronald: ‘The Meskhetian Turks: A New Voice in Soviet Central Asia’, in: ‘Canadian Slavonic Papers’, Volume 17, Nos. 2/3 (summer/fall 1975).

‘Bulletin of the Supreme Soviet’.

‘The Great Soviet Encyclopedia’; New York; 1973-83.

‘Izvestia’.

‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’.

Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites’; Moscow; 1938.

Review of Less Than Zero

Less Than Zero is a novel, or perhaps a very short semi-autobiography, about rich young Americans in college, in Los Angeles. In a word, it’s a much less innocent Catcher In the Rye.

Reading this 22,000-word novel (barely longer than a short story) is as easy and as inexplicable as the feeling of gazing out a sunny window for a long period of time.

As the reader may or not may not know, your author is a near life-long fan of Mr. Ellis’s work, even though I am quick to label it reactionary. As I’ve mentioned before in my essay on postmodernism, his documentary-like style does an excellent job of examining the emptiness of life under bourgeois capitalism while at the same time doing all it can to romanticize the basis of it.

Ellis sneers at the age’s excesses while at the same time flaunting its greatest achievements. The good news is, that is barely pronounced here at all, and not nearly to the extent it would be in his second book, The Rules of Attraction.

Most of the focus is on the main character Clay, who narrates the story alone, but Ellis has masterfully made it feel as though it is third-person rather than first. This is because Clay is a passive narrator; he makes no harsh judgments. He does not limit our vision to his own. Clay has no investment in the world around him —- he merely watches and observes, opportunistically waiting for a chance for personal gain.

He is as confused and as hesitant as a youth with no identity to go with his lines of cocaine would be. In effect, this means there is never any overbearing “voice” or narrator in the story to impose a definite moral compass. Hence the reader will join Clay in his amoral, directionless carnality and in his careful disconnection.

There is much that is remarkable about Less Than Zero, for example the fact that it has virtually no plot (which is very much a good thing, there are far too few stories without plots these days; it only makes it more life-like), but more than anything what stands out is something Ellis is known for —- his descriptions of sexual encounters.

These are far less frequent here than say, in his magnum opus novel American Psycho, but they are his typical fare in that they have no pornographic appeal (quite the opposite), and are narrated with an emotionless, callous tedium and arrogant boredom which is fairly common in modern fiction, but never done quite this well. In fact, these sex scenes are only concentrated versions of the attitude of which the rest of the novel is made.

A book like this, which deals with the deepening disconnections between people under the alienation of capitalism by brutally insisting on the facts, is common, but Ellis has a voice of his own that is refreshing and pure.

Two of the consequences of the breakdown of religious belief under today’s imperialism (polls today show today that less people are religious than ever before) are

1) an increase in social awareness, and, paradoxically,

2) an increase in the focus on individualism and the physical side of life.

For if there is no higher plane beyond the grave, then surely the sole purpose of life, the highest goal any being can dedicate himself to (or so the capitalist logic goes), is to expanding and enhancing himself, to improving oneself by amorally experiencing every sensation in this world.

Taken as a whole, Ellis’s books are moralistic vilifications of human nature as selfish, bratty and excessively hedonistic, all the time not realizing that these are merely symptoms of a larger disease: the alienation felt by all, especially the youth he seems so disgusted with, under capitalism. As brilliantly honest and taboo-bashing as his stories are on the surface, and as hilariously dead-on his parodies of the so-called “American dream” may be, deep down his purposes are undeniably conservative.

Mr. Ellis would not answer to someone calling him a pessimist, though all his books are about angsty, egoistic and childish characters dealing with loneliness and drug addiction. What makes him unique is that he avoids the trap that his fellow postmodernist writers, such as the infamous Chuck Palahniuk, so often run into. Ellis refuses to say that by desensitizing oneself to the ugliness of the world, one will end up finding life more worth living, nor does he repeat the older-than-dirt cliché that “ugliness and violence can be beautiful in a way.”

No, Ellis is far too royalist for that. He has cultivated the image of the California Bohemian, the libertine, eccentric and educated “artist” who while stressing fulfillment, also stresses ethics. He sees no “better” possible relations for mankind, he sees only the avoidance of “excessive” excesses. In his mind’s eye, he sees himself as the post-beatnik, clean-cut rebel, while at the same time the lone guardian of a feudal code of honor, a pair of hands holding back the deluge of a thousand spoiled young Marquis De Sades.

To add a personal touch to this review, I read this marvelously short book that says so much in one day, in perhaps two sittings. There are no chapters to speak of, merely sections of perhaps a few paragraphs each, separated by spaces. It makes the work gently episodic but never choppy. There is nothing here as outwardly violent and raw as the sex-and-murder scenes from his later American Psycho – there is nothing here that seeks to “grab the reader by the throat” or make him experience challenging slices of animal emotion.

Less Than Zero flows so smoothly and so straightly that it can only be compared to a modern, R-rated Catcher In the Rye. Never have I read a book that so beautifully captures the lost, barren irreverence of youth while doing it in such a streetwise manner. There is never any attempt to impose an intensity or a purpose to the narrative; it merely exists. As such, it is intensely relaxing even as it is profound and fleeting.

Here, Ellis does something that so few authors can do gracefully: he relaxes his grip, and he lets the story flow.

Articles about Partido Bandera Roja

“It is worth mentioning the international communist movement: the need to reinforce the Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties as the main factor of proletarian internationalism, basing the relation among the parties on fraternal work and comradeship, but also on criticism and self-criticism. In that respect, one must mention the example of the attitude towards Bandera Roja, an organisation that refused to accept the criticism of the majority and was therefore expelled from the ranks of the Conference for its support for the Venezuelan oligarchy and imperialism, which tried to oust the popular government of Hugo Chavez.” — ICMLPO (Unity & Struggle)

Published: Monday, January 19, 2004
Bylined to: Patrick J. O’Donoghue

Bandera Roja says Chavez Frias has dragged left-wing banners into the mire

Celebrating 34 years of existence, Bandera Roja (BR) leader, Gabriel Puerta Aponte comments that Venezuela’s last guerrilla group is fighting the damage and mud-raking that the Chavez Frias administration has thrown over the traditional banners of the Left through the President’s demagogy … “what’s required now is not a left-wing, radical or revolutionary government ( that will come later) but a government that can get us out the crisis as soon as possible.”

In the company of BR general secretariat members, Armando Diaz, Rafael Venegas and Pedro Veliz Acuna, Puerta rejects accusations that BR is sharing policies with its traditional adversaries: Accion Democratica (AD) and the Christian Socialists (COPEI) as a compliment and says it shows political maturity … “if we speak about reconciliation, this is the best way to show that BR is not full of hatred … if we don’t show our sincerity, we would be like those taking about plurality, integration, unity but who want to hog everything when it comes to electoral processes.”

BR considers the unity factor as the Coordinadora Democratica’s biggest challenge and calls on would-be breakaway parties, Primero Justicia (PJ), Proyecto Venezuela (PV) and Causa R to sit down and discuss matters inside CD with transparency and responsibility.

There can be no return to the past, Puerto points out … ” the past is represented by a practice and conduct vis-a-vis power … before it was AD and COPEI … now it’s Movimiento Quinta Republica (MVR) and allies … Chavez Frias represents the past and continues the old practices of political cronyism, corruption, political segregation and treating the country like a feudal lord.”

“Chavez Frias has not approved a single measure that has annoyed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and foreign capital has been the greatest beneficiary with this government.”

BR now sees itself as attempting to consolidate a center-left tendency in Venezuela along with other parties, preparing for any pendulum political movement that could produce a right-wing government, unwilling to facilitate change in Venezuela.

Published: Monday, January 22, 2007
Bylined to: Patrick J. O’Donoghue

Bandera Roja celebrates anniversary but doesn’t answer the real question

VHeadline.com News Editor Patrick J. O’Donoghue writes: In a statement marking its 37th anniversary, former guerrilla group Bandera Roja (BR) has called President Hugo Chavez Frias’ 21st-century Socialism a farce.

BR still considers itself an organization of Marxist-Leninists, “product of a collective struggle in which sacrifices and the contribution of hundreds of militants and leaders have helped overcome great obstacles and difficult situations to put BR where it is now.”

BR general secretary, Rafael Venegas accuses the President of being responsible for an economy that has lowered the standard of living, increased the number of beggars, housing deficit, infant mortality and with levels of violence and insecurity that have left 14,000 people dead last year.

• The organization also accuses the government of squandering Venezuela’s wealth inside and outside of Venezuela by ” buying consciences and rewarding loyalty, allowing corruption to become an extended cancer.”

The challenge for the party nowadays, Venegas states, is to convince people that the government’s Socialism is just a smokescreen to ultimately concentrate power in the hands of the Caudillo (Leader) and reinforce despotic, authoritarian and totalitarian power.

The National Assembly’s decision to grant a special legislative powers to the head of state, Venegas quips, should open up the possibility of confiscating salaries of deputies and he suggests that the money could be used to create a foundation to help street children.

Bandera Roja has yet to explain its alliance with a right- wing opposition over the past 7 years, whose first move in government will undoubtedly be to ban Bandera Roja as an extremist organization.

Source

The Tunisian PCOT: Vanguard of the Revolution

Two months have passed since the glorious revolution of January 14. In this period the town has made significant progress with its struggle and sacrifice.
After overthrowing the two governments Ghanouchi, the Tunisian people managed to impose their demands for a constituent assembly, the dissolution of the “Democratic Constitutional Union” and the political police. It also imposed great progress on freedom of expression, organization, assembly and demonstration. More despite all this, the revolution is half way and great danger looming over it, dangers that grow day by day.

Holds the power not the people who stood up against tyranny, exploitation and corruption, still in the hands of reactionary forces, which, through an interim and transitional government try to take over the revolution and reduce to a simple washing of the facade of the old regime. Kaid Beji Sebssi Mbaza and are not controlled, have refused to recognize the “National Council for the Protection of the Revolution” to avoid any control, on the contrary, have set up a consultative body for which they themselves have appointed members.

Kaid Beji Sebsso Mbazaa and have accepted the election of a Constituent Assembly but it is they who have set the election date without taking into account the interests of the people. Moreover, the dissolution of RCD, has not prevented reconstitution under the cover of new parties and organizations linked to them as the “National Union of Tunisian women.” It has been found that the dissolution of the political police has been limited to a mere formality as it continues to exist, practice of repression and torture, surveillance, wiretapping, cuts in internet … Some of his most notorious high positions the Ministry of Interior, responsible for killings and torture have not been bothered in the least.

Threats have resurfaced as in the days of the old regime under the pretext of “combating violence and disorder.” Police have repressed “sitting” in the Casbah and Mahdia. Multiply the discourses that distort the aspirations of citizens on security, to the detriment of social and political problems in order to divert the revolution.

Despite the suspension of the Constitution, the draconian laws are still valid: the press and association laws, parties, meetings and demonstrations. These laws should have been repealed and replaced by decrees that guaranteed freedoms, to avoid serious problems to the people.

The administration remains under the control of symbols “desturianos” of tyranny and corruption, and impose on the various government positions. They have renovated the old oppressive practices on the population, marginalized Protection Committees of the Revolution, local, regional and try to annihilate them.

The situation in the economic and financial means are similar, those responsible for looting the people, accomplices of the gang, maintain their power as if nothing had happened. Justice has not changed, undermined by corruption, which confirms the Magistrates’ Association. The media are still under the yoke of the henchmen of the regime of Ben Ali and maintain the same performance. No progress was made in the plans to prosecute and convict the representatives of tyranny and corruption, in which we must include the murderers of martyrs of the revolution in Sidi Bouzi. Buzayane Menzel. Regueb, Thala, Kassewrine, Tunisia and elsewhere. Re-emerging members of the circle next to Ben Ali and continue their provocative activities.

In the economic field, the transitional government did not show any willingness to take urgent measures in this critical period, the benefit of the masses. Most of the population, particularly in marginalized regions, feels that there is no change in their situation, enough criticism. Unemployment and high cost of living, still beating, public services deteriorate and the government shows no willingness to face these difficulties.

The government has not taken the time for revolution, even the minority who condemn the looting practiced by relying on despotism.
The government continues to enforce the terms of the budget decided by the dictator Ben Ali in December last, in which priority is given to the repayment of external debt contracted by the former regime, and to finance its massive security apparatus. Despite its temporary nature, this government has not hesitated to contract new external debt, nor has taken any steps to reduce prices of products and services that were under the control of monopolies of ruling members of the band. The families of the martyrs have not been compensated, not any action has been decided for impoverished regions.

The government justifies its position, relying on their provisional nature under the guise of not “take the magic wand” to fix the problems …

However, the government is discouraging the pursuit and prosecution of the gang of looters of public money and the confiscation of their property. Also, what prevents you from suspend debt repayments for some time, and use to solve people’s problems, as has been done in other countries? Why the price of basic food, water and electricity, not down? Why has not removed the charge on her television? Why not give any aid to the inhabitants of Sidi Buzid so they can electrify their wells? Why does not include proposals to hire senior teachers unemployed graduates?

The Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia insists on the dangers that threaten the revolution, because it assumes its responsibilities. The people have the right to use all legal means to defend his revolution and its achievements, to confront the dangers that threaten it, is entitled to fight the government restricting their freedoms and trying to reduce activities to the debates the ‘highest court. ”

This period requires deepening the revolutionary process to achieve the objectives:

1 .- Keeping the National Council for the Protection of the revolution as a tool to control the provisional presidency and ensure the transition period.

2 .- To postpone the Constituent Assembly election until after the summer, to allow the people to choose consciously, and political forces well prepared.

3 .- To prevent the leaders of the RCD to organize new parties.

4 .- Dissolution effective and transparent political police and the prosecution of torturers, murderers and looters.

5 .- Clean up public administration and public semi eliminating corruption and representatives of repression.

6 .- Clean up the judiciary and allow them to be the judges who choose the Superior Council.

7.-Cleaning the media sector, eliminating the regime figures removed.

8.-The repeal of repressive laws and to respect people’s rights to freedom of expression, assembly and demonstration.

9 .- urgently Stop the murderers of martyrs and those responsible for crimes against the people, judging by the representatives of the old regime, confiscate their property and deposited their fortunes abroad.

10 .- Stop payment of foreign debt for three years and devote that money to create jobs and development of marginalized regions. Refrain from contracting new loans that would undermine the independence of our country.

11 .- Lower prices of basic consumer products, water, electricity, gas and the removal of the canon of the TV.

12. Urgently compensate the families of martyrs and victims of repression and looting during the revolution and during the events of the mining area of ​​Benguerdane, etc.

Workers’ Communist Party of Tunisia

PCMLV Communiqué of Solidarity with the People of Tunisia

The Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela (PCMLV) expresses its solidarity with the people most enthusiastic of Tunisia and Comrade General Secretary Hamma Hammami brother Workers’ Communist Party of Tunisia (TCO) members of the International Conference Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO) inflicted by the crushing blow to imperialism, taking the path of popular rebellion dictator Ben Ali. Showing that in the wake of the general crisis of capitalism in its imperialist phase and last, are the prelude to the proletarian revolution.

Political analysis made in our last meeting of the ICMLPO warned the aggression of the capitalists in their efforts to shift the burden of the crisis on the battered back the world’s workers, our response would be the organization and mobilization accompanying workers’ struggles , student, peasant and finding the failure of capitalism.

The fear of a chain of protest and rebellion in the constantly increasing Magre for European imperialism, as Americans, are attentive to developments in Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, and Egypt, Ivory Coast, where the imperialist French, U.S. and British joined the chorus satanic attempt to impose international community in Ivory Coast opposition candidate Alassane Ouattaro thus preparing the status of a civil war to create the conditions for a military coup supported by the UN. The legitimate political position of President Laurent Gbagbo to respect the sovereignty of Ivory Coast has led to the expulsion of the ambassador of Great Britain and Canada, and economic pressures and threats from the U.S. State Department.

We see events in North Africa, southern Africa the Middle East in particular in Tunisia encouraged to continue the struggle against authoritarian governments, operators and fascists who repress the people tightening all forms of domination without any contemplation, struggles every day unmask operators and dictatorial regimes in the world.

The case of Tunisia and the growing rebellion in different countries demonstrations, protests and strikes in different continents is not an isolated case, is the result of the deepening general crisis of capitalism that since last year, is specifically expressed in Western European countries and now in the countries of North Africa, as a result of neoliberal policies, as higher prices on basic goods, unemployment, which increasingly threaten stability, the miserable conditions of life workers and people in general, which is far from being diminished. It is for them that the Marxist-Leninist communist parties of the world have the responsibility to lead and support the struggles of workers in the construction and building of socialism only alternative to the failure and bankruptcy of the capitalist system.

But at the moment when the bourgeoisie supposedly moderate Democrat Tunisia aims through deception and betrayal appease revolutionary proposals, and thus frustrate the hopes of the peoples of Africa in particular the people of Tunisia.

Long live the struggle of peoples against capitalism!
Viva the people of Tunisia!

Marxist Leninist Communist Party DE VENEZUELA

Emek Gençliği: Marcelo Rivera Must Be Released Immediately!

Emek Gençliği, or Labour Youth, is the youth wing of the Labour Party of Turkey (EMEP).

Latin American countries, Ecuador, came up once more after the events of Sept. 30. South America’s other “populist”, “leftist” governments in line with the government of Rafael Correa came to power in a wide range of popular support by taking the back. However, recent events lead to the outbreak of the developments in the public sector wage cuts, including the government of Ecuador has begun to turn itself back into power with the power of the people.

However, what is the reason we’re here today in protests against Correa’ya coup attempt against him in the police nor the Correa’ya to support the claim that there is.

This hot developments from the eyes of a kidnapped Ecuadorian government to protest about the process here.

Rafael Correa’s government some time ago, the parliament passed the law of higher education to eliminate the autonomy of the university. The students went on to fight against this attack. Marcelo Rivera, President of the General Union of University Students of Ecuador, about a year, “resort to terrorism” is being held in jail slanderous. Again, that is a member of a group Alvaro antifascist Quito’daki Parades, only three months in prison for neo wants to avoid attacks.

Correa, the country’s largest mass organization, the Ecuadorian Association of Educators (UNE) has also entered into a full confrontation. Teachers claim all kinds of “corruption” as the accused Correa, “their noses sürteceğini declared.

We

- Ecuador’s government to stop the pressure applied by young people who want a better future,

- Marcelo Rivera, and Alvaro Parades’in in prison to be released

- The pressure on the Student Youth Association would like to see the ending.