Tunis Declaration

On July 26, 2011, a meeting of the Communist Party of Benin (PCB), the Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (PCOT), the Revolutionary Communist Party of the Ivory Coast (PCRCI), the Revolutionary Communist Party of Volta (PCRV) and “The Democratic Road” Organization of Morocco was held in Tunis. The parties exchanged their views on the international situation, the tasks that it induces for the proletariat, the revolutionaries and the peoples of Africa and propose signing the Declaration whose content follows:

1) The crisis of the capitalist and imperialist system, which arose in 2007-2008, is a structural crisis that has called neoliberalism into question and put the thought of Karl Marx on the agenda. This crisis is deepening, striking with full force the economies of the countries of the world, including the economies of developed countries such as Greece, Spain etc.

2) With the appearance in strength of emerging countries and the capitalist crisis, there is the exacerbation of inter-imperialist contradictions on the one hand and that between the imperialist powers and the emerging countries on the other hand, tending towards a multi-polarity in the leadership of world affairs, in contrast to the hegemonic unipolarity of the United States of America that existed since 1990-1992. This exacerbation of contradictions is leading to a redivision of the world with consequences of wars having their fields of operations in the neo-colonial and dependent countries. The recent intervention of the French army and that of other imperialist forces in the Ivory Coast to install one of their pawns (Ouattara) in place of another (Gbagbo), the current aggression by the forces of NATO, France, England and the United States in Libya under the false pretext of establishing a so-called democratic regime, thus undermining the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy, are acts that confirm what has been said above.

The signatory Parties condemn these imperialist aggressions against the peoples of these countries and call for their immediate cessation.

3) Africa, which is the epicenter of the world inter-imperialist contradictions because of the huge mineral resources that it abounds with, is thus suffering full force not only from the effect of these inter-imperialist rivalries with the consequences such as wars, but also all the ills of humanity such as hunger, illiteracy, disease and backwardness of all kinds. Africa is the most enslaved of all the continents and its liberation from the imperialist yoke will be a decisive milestone in the liberation of all humanity. This liberation is looming on all parts of the continent.

4) The signatories Parties state that the major urgent challenge for the emancipation of the proletariat and the peoples of Africa is the formation of vanguard parties, particularly communist parties and the strengthening of their union based on Marxist-Leninist principles, which must be remembered.

5) The Tunisian revolution underway, which began with the flight of the dictator Ben Ali on January 14, 2011, has inaugurated a new era of the revolution in the world, and particularly in Africa. Its impact, which can be seen up to now in the world and in Africa (in Egypt, Morocco, Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal etc.), show the proletariat and the peoples of the world and Africa in particular that by rising up, the people can get rid of all the powers including the dictatorial powers no matter how powerful they are.

The signatory Parties salute this great victory of the Tunisian people and encourage them to continue the fight until the completion of the revolution.

The PCB, PCRCI, PCRV, “The Democratic Road” Organization of Morocco and the other signatory Parties salute the PCOT for its important contribution to the movement that led to the overthrow of the dictator Ben Ali; they encourage it to continue along this road until the overthrow of the regime put in place by the latter and they assure it of their unwavering support for the achievement of this objective. They understand that the greatest support for the Tunisian revolution is for each Party to lead and carry out the revolution in their own country.

The PCB, PCOT, PCRCI and PCRV salute the struggle begun in Morocco by the February 20 movement to demand a democratic constitution chosen by the people. They denounce the repression by the Makhzen [royal elite – translator’s note] against the movement and express their full solidarity with the comrades of the Democratic Road and the February 20 movement.

The PCB, PCOT, PCRCI, PCRV, “The Democratic Road” Organization of Morocco and the other signatory Parties to this Declaration, call on the African communists, revolutionaries and patriots throughout the African continent to form themselves into real vanguard Parties particularly Communists Parties to lead the current and future struggles for the emancipation of the African proletariat and peoples so that they free themselves from the yoke of the imperialists and from capitalist exploitation.

Tunis, July 26, 2011

Communist Party of Benin (PCB)

Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (PCOT)

Revolutionary Communist Party of the Ivory Coast (PCRCI)

Revolutionary Communist Party of Volta (PCRV, Burkina Faso)

The Democratic Road (Morocco)

PCMLE: Police State

The threat and punishment against those who express their disagreement with government policy is on the agenda in this government. There is no organized social sector, which has expressed its opposition to the anti-people policies of the government that it is saved. This time, again, the darts are directed against high school students that express their rejection to the application of a bachelorship that, where it is seen, is fraught with problems and inconsistencies.

From United States, Correa announced the expulsion of students who go on demonstrations, criminal trials if they are older and cancellations to the, according to him, incite to young people to protest. The Minister of Education, Gloria Vidal, has issued the 324 Agreement to pressure the authorities and teachers to play the role of police in theinstitutions and suppress any attempt of public expression of students. If they do not do that they carry with the consequences.

On the complaint of the student leaders are known that the participants in the demostration are filmed and photographed to identify and punish them. It is not the only sector in which a control and monitoring system of this nature is established , which shows that we are on the threshold of establishing a police state. That strap looks a lot like colombian ex President Alvaro Uribe, who puts cameras in different parts of cities to control and repress the demonstrations.

The correísmo uses violence to control the social discontent. Repression is not only the things that look when the police attacked, gassed and beat the students, it is also applied in an almost hidden in order the population do not see or perceive. This is made on behalf of institutions and law. As more the government talks further violence must be exercised, therefore, in the capitalist system it legitimizes the use of violence against the working classes.

PCMLE

“The Father of Hate Radio”: Charles Edward Coughlin (1891-1971) – Facing the Corporate Roots of Fascism

By Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion!

Father Coughlin, “the Father of Hate Radio,” was born in Hamilton, Ontario. This rabidly right-wing, Catholic priest started with a weekly broadcast on WJR, Detroit’s “Good Will” station. CBS broadcast it nationwide in 1930 and 1931. He started his own radio network that grew to 30 stations. John Spivak, estimated that Coughlin’s broadcasts reached 40 million, said: “Only the President…had a bigger audience… The President spoke only on special occasions, the priest every Sunday…. To me, he was the most dangerous divisive influence in the country” (A Man in His Time, 1967).

Coughlin originally supported FDR, but turned against him in 1934 and created a political party, the National Union of Social Justice. Former Louisiana Governor, Huey Long was supposed to be their candidate, but he was assassinated in 1935. Journalist George Seldes said Long was America’s “first notable Fascist leader,…a very smart demagogue, [who] once said, ‘Sure we’ll have Fascism here, but it will come as an anti-Fascism movement.’” In the late 1930s, Coughlin called for FDR’s impeachment because he was “leaning toward international socialism or sovietism.”

Coughlin’s radio sermons praised Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The Nazi press praised Coughlin as “America’s most powerful radio commentator.” He ranted against Jews, the “Christ-killers and Christ-rejecters.” When a Boston Globe reporter asked him for proof that communists were influencing FDR, Father Coughlin belted the journalist in the face.

Coughlin’s weekly paper, Social Justice, reached one million. It was sold in 2,000 churches. In 1938, it reprinted the anti-Semitic forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

The Chinese Leadership headed by Deng Xiaoping have Launched a Military Attack on Vietnam

Article published in the newspaper “Zeri i Popoullit”

This article from  “Zeri i Popoullit” newspaper shows the principled stance of the Party of Labor of Albania against the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in response to aggression from the nationalist China-backed Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia. It also shows the PLA and Enver Hoxha’s opinion on the Pol Pot regime. The invasion of Vietnam by the Chinese revisionists begins the era of Chinese social-imperialism.

— Espresso Stalinist

February 21, 1979

THE CHINESE AGGRESSION AGAINST VIETNAM

The attack which the Chinese leadership, headed by Deng Xiaoping, has undertaken against Vietnam, is an event which makes the already complicated and disturbed international situation even more grave. Therefore, what is going on now on the Sino-Vietnamese border should be judged with cool heads, frankly and fairly. This must be done for the sake of the peoples, in the interests of the peoples and not in the interests of those ruling classes who are manoeuvring in these troubled situations behind the backs of the peoples and to their detriment.

Ten years ago the Soviet revisionist leaders ordered their tanks to advance on Prague. Czechoslovakia was subjected to a barbarous aggression which was condemned with great indignation and anger by the whole progressive world. This act of the leaders of the Kremlin demonstrated in practice that the Soviet Union had been transformed completely into an imperialist superpower. With its perfidious and brutal aggression against Vietnam, revisionist China, too, acted in the same way as the Soviet Union did in 1968 against Czechoslovakia.

The Chinese revisionists emerged openly before the world as an imperialist superpower, seeking spheres of influence and «living space». The chiefs of Beijing threw off their disguises. They did not wait until the year 2000, until they had completed their «modernizations» and transformed China into a great power equal to the Soviet Union and the United States and capable of competing with them for world domination. Their imperial dreams, their great-power obsession and their war-mongering ideology blinded their eyes and clouded their judgement. By sending their troops to attack Vietnam, the rulers of Beijing showed that their policy is a chauvinist and hegemony-seeking policy. The attack on Vietnam is a logical consequence of the social-imperialist line formulated by the Chinese leadership long ago, when Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai were alive, and put into practice now by Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng.

In order to save face, the Chinese leadership declare that their attack on Vietnam has a «punitive character». This claim is an expression typical of the old imperialist gun-boat policy applied by colonialists and neo-colonialists. China has attacked an innocent country and a heroic people who have never inflicted any harm on mankind but, on the contrary, have rendered it brilliant service while bearing the burden of extraordinary sacrifices and sufferings. Vietnam resisted and defeated American imperialism, the most ferocious enemy of the peoples and all mankind.

The people of Vietnam have never done any harm to the Chinese people, either, but, on the contrary, have been their friends. Throughout the centuries, however, the Vietnamese people have suffered continually at the hands of the rulers of China. Even in the war against American imperialism, the Chinese leadership, like the Soviet social-imperialist leadership irrespective of some slight aid they provided, hindered and damaged the anti-imperialist warof the people of Vietnam. At the time when the whole of Vietnam, from south to north, was in flames by the bombs of the giant American «B-52» aircraft, Nixon was welcomed with great honours in Beijing, and Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai made deals with the president of the United States to the detriment of the Vietnamese
people.

The Party of Labour of Albania has publicly condemned the dangerous policy pursued by China and has warned of the dangers which it presents for international peace and security. The analysis which our Party has made of the Chinese theory of «three worlds» and its ideological basis — «Mao Zedong thought», of the Chinese plans to transform their country into a big power and of the actions of China in the international arena, made it clear that it would not be long before China launched direct armed attacks on the freedom, independence and sovereignty of peoples. It has pointed out also that the feverish efforts and the aims of China to become a superpower, which would counterbalance both the United States of America and the Soviet Union, could not fail to lead to new frictions, to conflagrations and to wars which might have a local character, but could also have the character of a world war.

TDKP: On the Armenian Question and Reactionary-Chauvinist Campaigns

As a response to two significant “external” events of the last couple of years -events with roots in prolonged domestic problems- the ruling classes of Turkey did everything to mobilise the people onto the streets for their own reactionary aims. The government and its institutions launched hysterically nationalist campaigns, first against Italy, based on the Kurdish question, then against France, on the question of Armenian genocide. These campaigns went on for some time and involved reactionary incitements and various forms of action such as demonstrating in front of the embassies and consulates of these countries, boycotting and burning the goods produced by them, even banning education in their languages, etc.

The main objective for these campaigns was to incite the Turkish people with reactionary-nationalist prejudices and win them over to the establishment ideology, rather than to harm those countries economically or politically. In this way, the ruling classes would not only attain social support for their reactionary theses, which lack fairness and historical correctness, but they would also draw the attention of the working people to artificially created external problems, making sure that they support or at least keep silent about domestic problems, undemocratic and repressive practices and economic plunder. And, it did not take long before the organisers of this reactionary campaign held hands with the Italian and French imperialists.

What was the cause for these campaigns and for the worsening of the relations with France?

In January 2001, France officially recognised the genocide suffered by the Armenians in 1915.

It must be noted that the recognition of the genocide by French government was to do with its short and long term political interests rather than its sympathy for the sufferings of the Armenian people. With this recognition, it would secure the votes of the Armenian population in France as well as the support of Armenia in the fight for hegemony in the Caucasus. It was an irony that French imperialism was concerned with the Armenian genocide when it has a shared responsibility for dozens of massacres and genocides all over the world such as Rwanda where one million poor and defenceless people lost their lives.

Basics to understanding the nature of the independence of Kosovo

1. – Kosovo is a territory occupied since 1999 by NATO and the United States. It has one million eight hundred thousand inhabitants, mostly Albanians (of Islam). The Serb minority is 100-120000 inhabitants. With subsistence agriculture, its main economic resources are, at present, the European Union subsidies, work related withthe U.S. military base, remittances from migrants and organized crime (weapons, drugs, prostitution, theft luxury car), with organized military criminal gangs across Europe to finance the war against Serbia Kosovo Army (KLA) and the subsistence of their families.

2 .- Kosovo, with key support from the United States and Germany, has unilaterally declared an independent state, but major policy decisions regarding public spending, social programs, monetary and trade agreements will remain in the hands of government forces occupation of NATO and the United States.

3 .- The Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci, former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has links with crime syndicates (mainly drug trafficking, weapons and prostitution) Albanians and Europe, in close contact with mafias Albanian, Macedonian and Italian.

4 .- The occupation of Kosovo by NATO responds to U.S. foreign policy objectives. It ensures the militarization of strategic pipeline routes and transport corridors linking Western Europe to the Black Sea. It also protects the multibillion dollar heroin trade that uses Kosovo and Albania as transit points for shipments by sea of Afghan heroin to Western Europe. Kosovo is a U.S. colony in Europe.

5 .- Kosovo hosts a major U.S. military bases, Camp Bondsteel, with more than seven thousand American soldiers. There are indications that it could replace the U.S. airbase at Aviano in Italy.

6 .- The plans to build Camp Bondsteel under a lucrative multi-billion U.S. Defense Department with a subsidiary of Texas-based Halliburton, KBR, Dick Cheney was made ​​when he was president of Halliburton. The construction of Camp Bondsteel began shortly after the 1999 invasion under the Clinton administration. Work was completed during the Bush administration, after Dick Cheney resigned from his post as chairman of Halliburton. As in the past the objectives of U.S. foreign policy overlap and are intertwined with the personal enrichment of officials of the U.S. administration.

Resolution of the Xth Plenum of the CC

PCMLV. 2011

The events that shook the world confirm conclusively the classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The pauperization of the conditions of the proletariat, the constant mobilization of popular sectors to demand respect for their rights, they are unaware of avoiding a series of achievements attained over the years indicates that the masses feel the weight of the consequences of the general crisis of capitalism falling over his shoulders.

After the many strong mobilizations carried out in various European countries, the imperialists were given the task of proclaiming the crisis was overcome. Imposed despite the rejection of the workers and popular sectors usually a series of economic measures very negative for the exploited and oppressed majority, the protests in this situation are the order of the day, street clashes between law enforcement and lining the popular sectors of the international news scene. Is this a sign of deteriorating relations, the class struggle.

Despite the turbulent situation in the European countries seemed to have come down slightly, the intensity of conflicts had diminished in some way and the water as imperialist spokesmen were taking their cause, the actions of confrontation and rejection of bad social situation experienced by the exploited and oppressed masses to come back strongly again in the streets. Sooner or later the facts have to show that far were the solutions to the crisis of capitalism right now.

Major conflicts erupted in the so-called Maghreb countries, Tunisia’s people took to the streets to demand the resignation of dictator Ben Ali, which had about 24 years in power in that African nation. These reactions generated protest actions in different countries mainly in North Africa. In these nations the people took to the streets demanding the resignation of presidents or monarchs of the same. The proposal of the government to stop these actions was the repression, after watching the protests did not stop resorted to propose reforms, but these proposals did not appease the demands of the people.

Thus, the repression was not delayed by the governments of these countries. Dozens of wounded and dead was the answer they gave these governments when they saw that the street actions amounted to more and more people and spread in days and weeks. On the one hand the most advanced expressed their aspirations for democratic change and popular and revolutionary gains, while other sectors remained in the approach to change governments, planning, ethnic and tribal sometimes exploit these aspirations of the imperialists to support certain sides instead that it can continue to enjoy the support and benefits of their interests.

In Egypt, we saw the people on the streets rejecting Hosni Mubarak, who was 30 years in power, backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence and CIA. The Egyptian government took a policy of deep collaboration with the U.S., performing the role of police in the area with Israel, proyanki exposed positions in different situations, expose this government as one of the most subservient to the imperialist policies .

Finally, Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign, the incessant protests in different cities, the rejection of the offer of reforms and the growing protests despite the crackdown, said the imperialists that this doll now served them more out of power. For this reason, after seeing that the actions of rejection kept ever growing, the imperialists favored the departure of Mubarak. Of course, it was just a formality, since the maneuvers of the imperialists led the new Cabinet remains in the hands of the pro-imperialist, in this specific case, who assume power in Egypt are linked to the intelligence apparatus and military sectors, is responsible for the support of Hosni Mubarak in power, in other words it changed a lot not to change anything.

Trotsky Denies “Lenin’s Will”

In the Letter on the book by Eastman (Eastman’s Online Letter Book), written on July 1, 1925.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/07/lenin.htm

Translation:

“Eastman says in several places that the Central Committee” hid “the party a large number of documents of extraordinary importance, written by Lenin during the last period of his life. (These documents are letters on the national question, the famous “Testament,” etc.). This is pure slander against the Central Committee of our party. Eastman’s words express the impression that Lenin wrote these letters, which are advisory in nature and engages with the internal organization of the party, with the intention of having them [the letters] published. This does not accord with the facts. “

“Eastman’s claims that the Central Committee confiscated my pamphlets and articles in 1923 or 1924, or at any other time or by any means prevented its publications, are false, and are based on rumor fantastic.

Eastman is again mistaken in saying that Comrade Lenin offered me a post of chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, Council of Labor and Defense and for the first time I heard this book Eastman. “

“There is sincere worker who believe the picture painted by Eastman. It contains within itself its own refutation. Whatever the intentions of Eastman, this work is spoiled objectively nothing less than a tool of the counterrevolution, and can only serve the enemies of reason incarnate of communism and revolution. “

More on Right-Wing Hedonism

Postmodernists chafe against all forms of what they call “the norm” except moral equivalences. Postmodernists may rebel against this or that societal expectation, but no matter what they rebel against, they never cease to compare things that aren’t comparable and insist that everything is relative. One example is their perception of violence as being “all bad,” and thus magically a slave rebellion becomes “just as bad” as John McCain dropping bombs on Vietnamese. Oddly, this “moral equivalency” argument is one of the top weapons of the US ruling class, but the postmodernists use it nonetheless. This leads to pacifism, of course. They would make a world entirely out of things being all the same, all people having “rights” and being “equal,” even while they insist Postmodernism sometimes leads to pacifism (fascifism), but sometimes it also leads to right-wing hedonism.

The bedrock of the right-wing hedonist worldview is that people are too stiff, too shallow and too uptight to be damned properly, and perhaps if a human soul can muster some eye-catching depravity, they can be an exceptionally interesting being and leave a mark behind. Good, it announces, is easy while evil is unique. For a few particular souls, the path of debauchery and drinking deep the bitter dregs of human experience becomes as saintly as your typical crucifixion, in a different way of course. This isn’t even some sort of wallowing in degradation to pass through it like a baptism by fire, or some plucky fantasy about walking through hell in order to deepen existence. Rather, it is a seeking of one’s own ruin in order to obtain the “ultimate” carnal knowledge, indifferent to such concepts as good and evil in the first place.

Obviously it’s a mistake to believe that any sort of authority, regulation or limitation is restrictive. In fact such delusion should have died with the crass Romanticist era. Anyone who feels “oppressed” by a healthy bureaucracy in the form of an organization must be terribly insecure, or at least oversensitive. Right-wing hedonism is the chief sign of a petty-bourgeois intellectual who has overdosed on reality and is now dumb enough, hopefully temporarily, to believe that whatever breaks a norm is politically radical.

Unilateral entire debt suspension of payments – Greece out of Euro-EMU-European Union

Against the current strategic choice of the local big capital to keep the country inside Euro-EMU-EU

Today, in 2010, the working class and the popular working masses are undoubtedly confronted with a negative and extremely painful financial-political condition for their class interests, as a result of the global financial crisis and the bankruptcy of the Greek economy, which have led to an intensification of the country’s dependence from the EU and the IMF, through the imposition of the Memorandum and the demolition of workers’ and people’s rights. The imposition of the Memorandum has been justified as necessary to reduce the deficit and foreign debt, but its real objective is the intensification of workers’ exploitation of by foreign and local capital. This is a novel condition, the existence of which has to be initially verified and recognized, and then analyzed. These are necessary premises for the designation of the content and correct orientation of the class struggle of the working class in the current very difficult and crucial period.

The country’s current financial-political condition is characterized by:

1. the deep crisis and bankruptcy of economy,

2. occupation by the “troika” of Commission-ECB-IMF,

3. violent abolition of all workers’ conquests,

4. deterioration of the relations between Greece and EU, to the country’s detriment.

A. Global crisis and the collapse of the Greek economy

The crisis that keeps on shattering the entire capitalist world, as well as our country, burned out for years to come, in the hell that created massive unemployment of hundreds of millions of unemployed-half-unemployed humans, great poverty, hunger and the absolute immiseration of billions on the planet, the final illusory glow of the widely advertised by recently faded myth of capitalist “prosperity”, as well as the celebrated jabbers-myths of bourgeois and revisionist economist about “full employment,” “elimination of unemployment,” and a capitalist development “undisrupted by crises.”

Regardless of its existent singularities and main features as well as the way in which it broke out, this crisis is, as all the previous ones, a cyclical crisis of over-production, the root and cause of which exists within the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, which the other contradictions of this exploitative system are also connected with: the “the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of its appropriation.”

To You Beloved Comrade

Paul Robeson on Stalin

There is no richer store of human experience than the folk tales, folk poems and songs of a people. In many, the heroes are always fully recognizable humans—only larger and more embracing in dimension. So it is with the Russian, Chinese. and the African folk-lore.

In 1937, a highly expectant audience of Moscow citizens—workers, artists, youth, farmers from surrounding towns—crowded the Bolshoy Theater. They awaited a performance by the Uzbek National Theater, headed by the highly gifted Tamara Khanum. The orchestra was a large one with instruments ancient and modern. How exciting would be the blending of the music of the rich culture of Moussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Khrennikov, Gliere—with that of the beautiful music of the Uzbeks, stemming from an old and proud civilization.

Suddenly everyone stood—began to applaud—to cheer—and to smile. The children waved.

In a box to the right—smiling and applauding the audience—as well as the artists on the stage—stood the great Stalin.

I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Paul to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul, Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets.

EMEP: On the course of the crisis and the international situation

The economic crisis with its sharp deterioration especially in the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 -much sharper than that of the 1929 crisis-, relatively slowing down in the second quarter.

One of the characteristics of the recent crisis is the fact that it started in the US, the largest economy in the world, in the construction and manufacturing –especially metal, automotive and related industries- simultaneously with a crisis in the financial sector, overshadowing the former and profound enough to cause a total destruction, that it speedily joined up with the crisis burst out in the other advanced capitalist countries and has become a general crisis spreading over to dependent countries. This course of development has created the impression that the economic crisis had originated from the crisis in the financial sector in the US.

Bourgeois-capitalist circles claim that this crisis is a product of the economic policies, especially wrong financial and monetary policies which led to increasing speculation, over-inflation and “bubbles” in the financial sector; and they try to disseminate these theses using every means available. This misinformation campaign is accompanied by the propaganda that economic crisis can be prevented and overcome by correct economic policies and tighter regulations in the financial sector. This propaganda is designed to conceal the fact that capitalist economic crises are inevitable stages in the process of capitalist development, that they are a product of capitalist mode of production driven by profit and the market, thus developing in an anarchic and uneven way, that they are the apex of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, and an exploding manifestation of this contradiction. It aims to whitewash the capitalist system and prevent the discontent and anger of the workers and labourers from targeting the capitalist system directly. Moreover, this and similar other propaganda are used to stop people understanding the real cause of the crisis, its magnitude and its destructive effects; and legitimize the economic policies and attacks used to shift the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the proletariat and the peoples.

American Party of Labor Statement On The State Murder of Troy Davis

Troy Davis is dead.

Despite the appeals of many, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence in his case, the capitalist “justice” system decided that he must die.

Like a lynch mob in the American apartheid known as Jim Crow, the state has sanctioned murder in the name of punishing and terrorizing a community for its perceived trespasses. The events of yesterday aren’t simply a failing of a system, or a crime against a single individual. This is a crime against an entire community deemed “criminal” because of their skin color and class, and it is entirely intentional.

Capitalist “democracy” gives the pretense of being fair, just and impartial when it deals its punishments. The reality is far from it.

Capitalism uses its police as its representatives in class warfare. Their purpose, rather than to protect people or lofty and abstract principles like “justice,” is to protect and preserve the unjust antagonisms on which our society is constructed. To put it simply, they are the army of the wealthy, the defenders of their state. They are judge, jury and executioner in the streets when workers and the poor aren’t content with their lot. The system depends on such enforcers to maintain its everyday exploitation of working people.

It is for this reason that state repression cannot allow itself to be challenged. In the case that a police officer is killed, someone — regardless of guilt or innocence — needs to be made an example of.

Troy Davis was made to suffer and die not for a crime he committed, or even a crime committed by another person against a police officer, but to protect the everyday crime perpetrated by capitalism and its agents of repression.

The message that Troy Davis’ body sends is this: if anyone challenges the power of the police, anyone can be made a target for frame-up and murder.

If any reader still entertains illusions of “justice” being the end in mind of police forces and courts within capitalism, Troy Davis’ example is one of many that reveals how alien “justice” is to the American police and court systems.

There is no justice in a system which defends exploitation with state-sponsored murder.

There is no justice in a system which gives slaps on the wrists of corporate criminals who destroy the lives of millions, yet executes those whose guilt is in doubt.

In some of the last words he ever spoke, Troy Davis has asked those he has left behind to continue his fight.

We at the American Party of Labor condemn his murder, and the everyday terror police forces and the court system visit on working people in every corner of our country.

Troy Davis may no longer be with us, but Troy Davis and countless other victims live on in our minds and hearts as we struggle against a criminal justice system founded on the most criminal injustice.

We must not falter in this struggle, and we must not forget the sacrifice of those who we have lost to capitalism’s state repression.

Source

Enver Hoxha on Soviet Revisionism

We now know that Enver Hoxha, not Mao, was the first to come out openly against Khrushchevite revisionism, and did not vacillitate like the Chinese revisionists did on the question of “anti-Stalinism” in the USSR and Yugoslav revisionism, which served American imperialism.

— Espresso Stalinist.

After the Hungarian uprising Yugoslavia’s relations with the USSR cooled significantly in the 1957-1960 period. It was during this time that Hoxha was able to come to the defense of Stalin at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania on February 13, 1957. The author of the following work cited notes on the same page that, “After having defended the Soviet Union for her action in suppressing the Hungarian revolt and denouncing Yugoslav ‘revisionism,’ he declared that all campaigns which the imperialists and revisionists had started against Marxism-Leninism, against communism, were carried out under cover of struggles against ‘Stalinism.’”

“We are not in agreement with all those who attempt to discount the entire positive revolutionary side of Stalin, as experience, and who see only the black side of it . . . As is known, J. V. Stalin was a great Marxist. After Lenin it was he who protected Marxism-Leninism on all sides from revisionism and contributed greatly to the further development of science. Great merits are due to him in the preparation and development of the October Revolution, in the building of the first socialist state, in the historic victory over the invading fascists, in the development of the international communist and workers’ movement. For all these deeds Stalin enjoyed great authority, not only in the Soviet Union but throughout the world. But as is known, the propagation of Stalin’s personality cult caused serious mistakes and many violations of Soviet law. For that reason the Soviet Communist Party was fully justified in criticizing Stalin’s mistakes. In spite of all these mistakes, Stalin remains a great Marxist-Leninist. Stalin was never mistaken in such questions as the protection of the interests of the working class and of Marxist-Leninist theory, the fight against imperialism and against the other enemies of socialism. He was and remains an exemplary figure. Stalin’s tragedy was that when he made these serious mistakes he thought they were necessary for protection of the revolution.”

(Enver Hoxha, quoted by Stavro Skendi in Stephen D. Kertesz (Ed.). East Central Europe and the World: Developments in the Post-Stalin Era. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 1962. p. 204.)

The source given for Hoxha’s speech itself is Rruga e Partisë, Tirana, IV (February 1957), pp. 22-23.

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Enver Hoxha Quotes on Maoist Revisionism pt. 2

These quotes from Enver Hoxha show the PLA’s attitude toward the phenomenon of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” which portrayed itself as a movement of the working class but in reality was a decade-long student riot driven by the cult of Mao that maintained and preserved revisionist rule in China and welcomed the black reaction of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping.

Contained also in these quotes are the beginnings of the criticism of the cult of Mao which is still upheld in China to this day, as well as criticism of the revisionist economic practices of “new Democracy” in China wherein the bourgeoisie were allowed to exist and participate in government as well as receive fixed income from their property.

The culmination of the Mao cult was the publication of “Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung” by the Maoist revisionists in the leadership. All of these criticisms would be taken up publicly between China and Albania in the 1960′s and 70′s.

August 9th, 1966
Marx condemned the cult of the individual as sickening. However, we observe with regret that in recent months the Chinese comrades have embarked on the wrong, anti-Marxist course, of turning the cult of Mao almost into a religion, exalting him in the most sickening way, without giving the least consideration to the great harm this is doing to our cause, not to mention the ridicule to which it is giving rise.

We condemn this unrestrained, non-Marxist propaganda. But the fact is that our criticism on this question to Chou En-lai on his last visit here had no effect at all. Are we dealing with Marxists or religious fanatics?

The question arises; why all this unrestrained propaganda? I can explain it only, as the deafening beating of a drum to conceal some hostile activity.

Further, the Chinese comrades, who in so many things show themselves cautious and slow to move, now begun to smash things with axes. We agree that the axe should be used, where necessary, but in China it is falling upon every work of art, every literary creation, regardless of its overall progressive spirit.

Progressive world culture in general appears to have no value at all in the eyes of the Chinese comrades. To allow the students to display this terrible xenophobia, as is being done in China is a great mistake which has nothing in common with proletarian internationalism.

August 20th, 1966
A great puzzle! Astonishing events, dangerous to the great cause of Communism are taking place. We have a problem with many unknown factors; we have to try to see clearly into this dark Chinese forest with Marxist judgment.

The Proletarian Cultural Revolution against bourgeois elements in the field of culture should have been inspired by Marxist-Leninist, ideology and organised and led by the Party. There should have been no smell of mysticism, metaphysics or idealism in its essence, its
forms or its tactics. For then it is no longer a Proletarian Cultural Revolution, but however it may be portrayed, its opposite.

Chinese propaganda presents it as a revolution launched spontaneously from below, by the masses. But in reality it had to be organized. By whom? Here the figure of Lin Piao emerges. But how is it possible for such a Cultural Revolution to be launched by one person; while the Party and its Central Committee remain in the background? Only the Central Committee of the Party can take such decisions. It is a fact since 1956, when the 8th Congress of the CPC was held, more than five years have elapsed since the time when the 9th. Congress should have been convened. Why is this?

Normally, also, Plenums of the Central Committee of a Marxist-Leninist Party are held twice a year; but the recent Plenum of the CC of the CPC was held after four years delay! Then who is leading the Party? I suspect that since 1956, Mao has been left on the sidelines and turned into a mere symbol. Recently the Party has been completely over-shadowed by the name of, Mao Tse-tung. Behind the fanaticisation around the person of Mao Tse-tung lies something very dangerous.

August 26th, 1966
Today I read the 16-point document on the Cultural Revolution issued by the recent Plenum of the CC of the CPC. This implies that the enemy had deeply penetrated the party, to the point where it had taken over the leadership of whole Party committees.

One thing worries me: the role of the CC and of the Party as a whole emerges as weak. Another thing, strikes the eye. Although school pupils and students hold the initiative in the Cultural Revolution, the Party’s youth organisation is not to be seen anywhere. What is even more serious, there is no sign of the participation of the working class; it seems as if they are afraid of it.

Although power appears to be in the hands of the proletariat, it is possible that the bourgeoisie is still powerful and dangerous. The Chinese comrades admit this when the put the question: Which will win in China, socialism or capitalism.

Industry in China is declared to be socialist, but we see that the capitalists in enterprises still receive a fixed interest. This should not have been allowed. Instead of receiving crushing blows, all the enemies were “re-educated” and “placed in suitable jobs” where they could carry on hostile activity.

September 1st, 1966
What this “Red Guard” is and why it is being created is not clear to us. It has been said that, it is being formed “to carry out a radical purge of capitalist and revisionist culture.” But this task has been begun in an anarchic and confused manner.

Certain serious questions strike us at the start:

1. The “Red Guard” is composed mainly of youth, university students and school pupils. But it cannot be carried out by students alone.

2. If this is to be a revolution in favour of “proletarian culture,” it is amazing that is the working class and peasantry are sitting by as onlookers! Whatever the Chinese comrades say, nothing satisfactorily explains this.

3. What has become of the Communist Youth? Its voice is not being heard at all. It seems as if it does not exist. The only concrete thing which the “Red Guard” does is to praise Mao Tse-tung to the skies, presenting him as a god: in the full sense of the term.

September 20th, 1966
The true purpose of the “Red Guard” movement remains unknown to us. It is certainly acting without leadership or control.

The Chinese comrades simply must inform our Party about the full decisions of the recent plenum of the CC of the CPC. The “excuse” that the Chinese ambassador in Tirana has been away from his post for five months “doing his physical labour” in China is unacceptable. Even if the Chinese comrades continue on this wrong, non-Marxist-Leninist course, we shall never allow our Party to be committed to the course of the cult of the individual.

January 29th, 1967
It is now clear that Mao found himself in a minority, and for this reason had to rely on the army. The military fist under the direction of Mao and Lin Piao is the reality standing behind the Cultural Revolution.

April 7th, 1967
The “new form” which emerged from the Cultural Revolution appears to be that the Chinese moving towards the “unification of” the Party with the state”!?

April 28th, 1967
A Marxist-Leninist Party like ours, which is building socialism correctly, cannot proceed on the road advocated by the Chinese. A Marxist-Leninist Party like ours deepens the revolution, but not like that which is going on in China today.

July 14th, 1967
Posters in China say: “Mao Tse-tung Thought is the culmination of Marxism.” Surely Mao himself cannot approve such wild exaggerations. But the fact is that they are occurring.

Guided by hasty judgments, incorrect principles and ill-considered claims, the Chinese comrades could gravely damage the new Marxist-Leninist groups and parties which are in process of creation.

In seeking to establish that “Mao is the world leader” of international Communism, it could happen that if some Marxist-Leninist group or party does not put much emphasis on Mao and the Cultural Revolution while some deviators from Marxism-Leninism emphasize these things strongly, the Chinese comrades will prefer the latter. And the damage has been done.

The Chinese have reached the conclusion that the little red book, “Quotations from Mao Tse-tung” is “the culmination of Marxist-Leninist science and philosophy.” Such claims are infantile.

Today they are carrying on without an organised party. How can they advise the Marxist-Leninists of the world how to form and consolidate new parties?

August 15th, 1967
The Chinese press is liquidating Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and making a god of Mao, reaching the scandalous level of saying; “Those who do no follow the road of Mao and the Cultural Revolution are ‘deviators.’” This wrong. This is not Marxism, but Trotskyism.

January 16th, 1968
We have almost no contact with the Chinese comrades and do not know official1y what is happening there. They withdrew their ambassador in Tirana on the grounds that he was implicated in the activities of the Liu-Teng group. When will he be replaced? There is no signal.

January 19th, 1968
The main Chinese newspapers are publishing the directive on the re-organization of the Communist Party and the mass organizations. Thus it is confirmed that up to now the CPC has been broken up and that the Cultural Revo1ution was in fact led by Mao and the “Main Group of the Cultural Revolution.”

March 20th, 1968
In the international arena the voice of China is almost, if not completely, silent. Thus it is not acting wisely. For nearly a year they have not had an ambassador even here in our country. Can this be covered by the excuse: “We haven’t a good man?” Or is it in order to reflect their silent dissatisfaction that we are not shouting `hosannas’ to Mao and not following their mistaken tactic of silence in the international field?

We see a similar superficial stand on the part of the Chinese comrades, towards the new Marxist-Leninist groups and parties. They have contacts and give aid to many groups and Parties, even to those groups separate from or hostile to the new parties, justifying these undifferentiated contacts by saying: “We assist all groups that fight imperialism and modern revisionism.” But the struggle brings about differentiation, and this must, be followed up on a principled basis.

April 25th, 1968
Under the cloak of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese have shut themselves up completely in their own shell. They are merely publishing the quotations of Mao, in millions of copies, making millions of Mao badges, and spreading slogans in praise of him.

Nothing else, absolutely nothing else!

All China’s contacts with the outside world have been completely frozen if not broken off altogether. All China’s ambassadors have been withdrawn from the countries where they were serving. Neither their newspapers, nor Hsinhua, nor Radio Peking, deal with any international question.

Even with us their closest friends, contacts are glacial. They don’t allow our ambassador in Peking any contacts; he is isolated. An astonishing situation!

They have refused our invitation to send a delegation to the May Day celebrations, and have not invited any delegation from our side either. They carry on a “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” yet ignore the celebration of the proletarians! This too is astonishing!

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Enver Hoxha Quotes on Maoist Revisionism pt. 1

Enver Hoxha was the main architect and inspirer of the struggle which the Party of Labour of Albania waged against modern revisionism. After the open polemic with the Soviet revisionists began, he made an outstanding contribution to the defence of the Marxist-Leninist theory and the analysis of various forms of opportunism in the international communist and worker’s movement. In the 1970s, the Party of Labour of Albania, arrived at complete and accurate conclusions about the opportunist line of the leadership of the Communist Party of China.

Principled debates and confrontations over important ideological and political questions had taken place between the two parties over many years. The PLA had openly expressed to the leadership of the CP of China and Mao Zedong its reservations about and opposition to the vacillating, opportunist stands taken by the latter. Enver Hoxha’s analyses played a decisive role in determining the correct, cautious stands of the PLA towards the Chinese Party.

Among the important documents on this problem the books Imperialism and the Revolution (1979) and Reflections on China, in two volumes, with extracts from Hoxha’s Political Diary, are especially valuable. In these books he has made a comprehensive historical and dialectical analysis of the ideological concepts and the political activity of the CP of China. Under his leadership, the Party maintained its revolutionary line unaltered and made its own contribution to the Marxist-Leninist movement in the world. The following is the first part of the First Volume of Hoxha’s diaries which contain the Reflections on China.

Through these lenses we can see the uncomradely gestures the CCP, Mao Zedong, and Zhou Enlai made to the Marxist-Leninist Parties such as Kazimierz Mijal, leader of the outlawed Communist Party of Poland, which the CCP left out in the cold. We also looks at its degrading relationship with the Party of Labour of Albania, its non-socialist economy at a glimpse, the chaos of the ultra-leftist anarchist squabble of the Cultural Revolution, and its reactionary foreign policy that made concessions to Romanian and Yugoslav revisionism, as well, most dangerously to American imperialism and the butchers Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

July 4th, 1962
At the meeting he had with our comrades, Chou En-lai told them that it would be difficult for China to supply us with all the things concerning which agreements had been signed.

Our comrades rejected this because it smelled of economic pressure. We must be very cautious and cool-headed, for the enemy is striving intensively to separate us from China, striving to isolate us.

December 23rd, 1962
At a dinner which the Chinese comrades put on in Peking for a group of our building specialists, Li Hsien-nien said in his speech that we would not be able to build and bring into production the new projects which we receive from China within the agreed time.

And, speaking about modern revisionism, he said (without specifying them) that there were contradictions between the Party of Labour of Albania and the Communist Party of China, although they were in agreement on the general line. His statement about the construction of the new projects is untrue, since the work has not even begun. He might have mentioned that the Chinese had not delivered the blueprints on time: this is what is delaying the project.

August 21st, 1964
The stand of the Chinese towards the centrist and revisionist outlook of the Romanians is mistaken and opportunist. In his talk with the Romanian ambassador, Chou En-lai took a wrong and nationalist stand towards the Soviet Union, telling him of China’s territorial claims against the Soviet Union and accusing it (in fact, Lenin and Stalin, for this “robbery” took place in their time) of having seized Chinese, Japanese, Polish, German., Czech, Romanian, Finnish and other territories.

These are not Marxist-Leninist,but national-chauvinist positions. Regardless of whether mistakes may or may not have been made, to raise such matters now, in the middle of the ideological struggle against Khrushchevism, assists Khrushchov.

What a line the Chinese have! On the one hand they defend Stalin on the other they call him a robber. It is clear now why the Chinese do not want us to hold the talks we had decided upon with the Romanians. It is because we are in opposition to the Chinese’ positions!

September 4th, 1964
We gave the Chinese our reply in connection with the question of invitations to the 15th anniversary of the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China. Firstly, we told them that we considered it unacceptable that the Romanian Workers’ Party and government should be invited to send a delegation to the celebrations, since until yesterday they were attacking all of us publicly, were in complete solidarity with all the modern revisionists, have the most friendly links with the renegade Tito, and are accepting credits from the Americans and other imperialists.

The Romanians base their struggle against the Khrushchev group not on Marxism-Leninism, but economic and national-chauvinist considerations. Secondly, we wrote that we considered that official representatives of Marxist-Leninist Parties are excluded.

What will communists throughout the world think when they see the Romanians given pride of place at China’s celebrations while the Marxist-Leninist parties do not figure anywhere?

No tactical considerations can justify this action, which will be an astonishing thing beyond understanding for world opinion.

September 15th, 1964
Throughout the development of the struggle of Communist Party of China against the modern revisionists, it has displayed some astonishing vacillations in its tactics.

One remembers the Moscow Meeting of 1957, when Comrade Mao publicly supported Khrushchev approving his action in denouncing Stalin and in condemning the anti-Party group of Molotov, and advocating unity with the Khrushchev group.

When I met Comrade Mao in Peking in 1956; he criticised the “incorrect” actions of Stalin, particularly his actions in relation to Yugoslavia, describing the Yugoslavs as “good Marxists.”

October 6th,1964
Certain unprincipled stands of the leadership of the CPC cannot fail to cause us anxiety. Certainly the enemies of our enemies can be our true friends when they are with us ideologically and politically. In other cases they may be our temporary allies on certain questions, although we must not give way to them on questions of principle.

But the enemies of our enemies may be our enemies, so that both have to be fought. We must take advantage of the contradictions between them, but we must not make concessions to them or be duped by their demagogy.

I am afraid the Chinese comrades are not always, very clear on these matters.

We must consider modern revisionism the main enemy in the international communist movement, or the “Major Devil” as the Chinese call it. But this major devil comprises many devils, some greater and some smaller. Sometimes these devils appear united; sometimes they split because of the contradictions between them.

In the fierce and complicated struggle against modern revisionism, Marxist-Leninists have a wide range of tactics available, But these tactics must be based on proletarian principles, not bourgeois diplomacy.

Tito is just as dangerous as Khrushchev, if not more so, and must be fought determinedly. To underrate Titoism would be madness — for to do so is to underrate American imperialism, which speaks through the mouth of Titoism in the ranks of international communism. To underrate Titoism is betrayal.

October 13th, 1964
In reply to the request of our delegation for a reply to our letter concerning China’s borders with the Soviet Union, Comrade Mao said:

“We are not going to reply to you, because if we did, ‘polemics would arise. Perhaps after many years we shall reply to you.”

This reply reflects an unprincipled, incorrect and uncomradely attitude towards the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania. It shows that “Comrade Mao’ does not like comradely criticism. The fact Chinese comrades are avoiding consultations with us.

October 31st,1964
Chou En-lai has declared:

“The polemics ceased on October 16th Thus, for the Chinese the fall of Khrushchev is everything. They say in effect; “With Khrushchev gone Khrushchev is dead. We must forget the past. Nothing remains but to pack our bags quickly and dash off to Moscow, to kiss one another at the celebrations of the October Revolution.” What a comedy! What a dirty, feudal, fascist mentality!

All this is a provocation against us, for the Chinese comrades know very well that we shall not march with them along this treacherous road. So their intention is to go to Moscow and say: “The Albanians are no longer with us. We are the ‘infallible’ brain of the communist movement. Mao alone saw things correctly; all others were wrong — Khrushchev, Stalin and so on. Now one must say ‘Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao!”

In no way will we accept the revisionist views of the Chinese. Cautiously and progressively, we must make the Party aware of this new situation. It will be impossible to prevent our disagreements, with the Chinese from spreading from the ideological and political field to our economic relations. Coercions, delays and pressures will gradually develop. We must not, therefore, go blindly into projects, or become blindly dependent on the credits they might grant us, for they might cut them off at the moment they consider most effective.

November 15th, 1964
The Chinese are telling us nothing about the results of Chou En-lai’s visit to Moscow. This is out of order, neither friendly, comradely nor Marxist.

November 21st, 1964
Chou En-lai went to and returned from Moscow like Napoleon. He suffered an ignominious defeat. The Moscow revisionists provoked him, insulted him and humiliated him. What a disgrace for the Chinese.

All their indescribable enthusiasm, their “profound judgments” — all suffered fiasco. What will they do about the PLA? Will they admit their terrible mistake? They do not deign to give us an answer.

November 24th, 1964
The Soviets have offended the Chinese badly and have not made the slightest concession. Now the Chinese are very angry and have sworn their “implacable opposition” to the Soviet revisionists.

December 27th, 1965
We informed the Chinese comrades about the formation of the Communist Party of Poland. The CC of the CPC thanked us for the information, but pointed out that it does not have secret links with the Polish Marxist-Leninists and would not help them apart from the open stand in its press against revisionism. We believe, and have always believed, that the arousing of the masses to revolution in the revisionist countries of Europe is indispensable and, urgent.

We do not interfere in the internal affairs of any state, but one of the most deadly blows we can inflict on the modern revisionists is the all round support and aid we must give all Marxist-Leninists without exception, wherever they are fighting.

The Marxist-Leninist Position on Kosova – A Statement of the NCMLU (Britain)

Kosovar Albanian refugees crossing the border into Albania after being forced to flee their homes by Serb forces, 1999; Tom Stoddart--Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The NCMLU opposed the NATO imperialist aggression against Yugoslavia whilst also supporting the Kosovars. However, in revisionist circles, and also in circles claiming to be opposed to revisionism, this position was declared to be somehow “pro-imperialist”. This false claim was in fact used as a cover for the expulsion from the eGroups-based Marxist-Leninist-list of members from the NCMLU and Alliance (North America).

To arrive at this conclusion, these circles have had to discard the Marxist-Leninist principle regarding the right of nations to self-determination under imperialism.

Belgrade in flames after NATO bombing

The contradiction confronting Marxist-Leninists, which the revisionists ignored, was that while Serbia was fighting a just war against NATO, they were at the same time conducting an unjust, racist war against the people of Kosova. This type of contradiction is nothing new, and Marxist-Leninists must learn to deal with it. For instance, in the early nineties, when imperialism started its aggression against Iraq, while defending Iraq’s stand against imperialism, those who came together to form the present committee pointed out that, though Iraq was opposing imperialism, the regime was also waging an unjust war against the Kurdish people.

The duty of Marxist-Leninists was, in both cases, to oppose imperialist aggression and at the same time to expose the unjust wars against the Kurdish and Kosova peoples respectively.

Prachanda: Integration of People’s Liberation Army into Nepal Army Possible Within 4 Months

Himalayan Times, 2010-05-12

KATHMANDU: Chairman of the Unified CPN-Maoist Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ today said protracted political deadlock could end if PLA integration were effected within four months.

Addressing an interaction with intellectuals, industrialists, business community and members of the civil society, he said, “We’ll dismantle the barracks of the Young Communist League within four-five days. We are ready to break the relation of the party with the cantonments.”

Prachanda also claimed that the party was ready to categorise the Maoist combatants by mid-June. He said the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Commission for Missing People and the one to resolve contentious issues related to the constitution should be formed to resolve the vexed issues.

The talks between the three major parties were called off after the NC and UML urged the Maoists to give the number of the combatants to be integrated in the security forces on May 1.

Prachanda apologised for calling the general strike ‘indefinite’. “Our party has realised that organising indefinite general strike was a mistake and we would never repeat such a mistake,” he said.

Video: 100th Anniversary of Enver Hoxha Celebrated in Kosova

Men at War: Angola’s Liberation Leaders

December 12, 1975
Robin Wright

Behind the bitter civil conflict that currently divides Angola into three zones of influence and two separate governments are three men: Dr. Agostinho Neto of the Popular Liberation Movement (MPLA), Dr. Jonas Savimbi of the Union for Total Independence (UNITA), and Holden Roberto of the National Liberation Front (FNLA).

Dr. Neto is president of the Peoples Republic of Angola, based in the vast and central areas of the country. Dr. Savimbi and Mr. Roberto have formed an uneasy alliance in a joint government as the Peoples Democratic Republic, covering the northern and southern territories. Both governments claim to “truly represent all the people of Angola.”

Robin Wright recently spent five weeks in Angola and had an opportunity to meet each leader in his home base during a tour with the Conciliatory Commission or the Organization of African Unity. The report that follows is an assessment of these three distinct and disparate personalities.

Dr. Agostinho Neto:
Popular Liberation Movement (MPLA)
Luanda, Angola

Dr. Agostinho Neto has all the proper credentials for an African liberation leader — intellectual, guerrilla fighter and “prison graduate.” His varied career is spiced with experiences reflecting these diverse qualifications: a soft-spoken poet of protest, a physician who was arrested in front of his patients, and an exiled politician who came back into Angola carrying a machine gun to fight against the Portuguese.

A dignified, portly, almost professorial looking man, the 53-year-old leader of the MPLA is the best qualified man of the three leaders to run a newly independent country, politics aside.

Yet his quiet style may be a drawback, especially among a people — as in all Africa — where the fiery oratory of a demonstration is the main means of rallying support.

Addressing a crowd, Dr. Neto is a serious and sincere speaker, perhaps a little too technical for the masses. Many of his aides and ministers are better at eliciting cries of “the struggle continues” and “victory is certain.”

The MPLA leader is better in small clusters of officials or one-on-one, at dialogue and political discussions, which may explain why he is not as visible as other figures in the movement.

He comes on strong in private, especially about the alleged Marxist-Leninist leanings of the MPLA. “I totally reject the accusation that our movement is inspired by Marx or ruled by any outside force. When they ask about our ideology, we say we are progressives interested in real democracy, especially for the exploited man. We are interested in social reforms, in economic democracy.”

The MPLA is fortunate in that there are many skilled spokesmen and officials to maintain the momentum required in a “liberation” struggle. Initially an underground movement of better educated mesticos (mulattos), the MPLA attracted early intellectuals and urban-dwellers who had been trained in Portuguese-run schools or abroad. As a result, the Popular Movement has by far the highest number of skilled personnel to run an administration.

Dr. Neto, however, remains the figurehead in the heart of the masses. His picture in huge dimensions is visible on posters plastered on stores and homes throughout Luanda. And MPLA buttons and medallions are mainly miniatures of his bespectacled face.

The amiable leader has been a rallying figure for the liberation movement since his university days in Lisbon, when his poems of protest inspired other nationalists to the point he was arrested by Portuguese officials and jailed in the mid-1950s. A sample:
Realization

Fear in the air!
On each street corner
Vigilant sentries light incendiary glances
in each house
hasty replacement of the old bolts
of the doors
and in each conscience
seethes the fear of listening to itself
History is to be told
Anew
Fear in the air!

It happens that I
humble man still more humble in my black skin
come back to Africa
to myself
with dry eyes.

After finishing his medical studies in the late 1950s, Dr. Neto returned to Angola, but only to face a repeat of the trouble in Portugal. In June 1960 he was arrested in his consulting room in front of patients. Villagers who went to protest his detention were fired on by police, killing 30 and injuring over 200.

Deported to a jail in Cape Verde for three months, then imprisoned in Portugal for nine months, he gained international prominence after his daring escape in mid-1962 to Morocco. From that point on, Dr. Neto became inseparable from the liberation movement. At the MPLA’s first national conference in Kinshasa in December, 1962 — just five months after his escape — he was elected president.

Dr. Neto, member of the Mbundu tribe of central Angola, has traveled extensively as a revolutionary leader — receiving invitations from the Vatican, Peking, Moscow and countries throughout Africa. He has now reached a position he is obviously not willing to relinquish. His rivalry with the other movements has become a personal one, especially with Mr. Roberto, proven by the fact that he has not been interested in maintaining any of the many reconciliation agreements signed with the FNLA and UNITA.

He is uncompromising about the MPLA’s militantly socialist platform, according to aides, and thus any alliance with the other two movements is unrealistic. “They are not truly representative of the Angolan people,” Dr. Neto says often.

“Their military relies on reactionary South African forces,” he told the OAU, “They could not make any progress without them. They have more people than we do in their territories, but they still turn to outsiders. Where is the support of the people?”

“Until the OAU and the United Nations unequivocally condemn the foreign invasion, we will never accept the intervention of these organizations which effectively are helping neo-colonialism in our country.”

But despite Dr. Neto’s hard line, many foreign diplomats and political observers believe he is in political trouble and will eventually be replaced.

“After the military situation is settled, or perhaps even because the MPLA is falling back, Neto will be dumped for a fresher figure. The Revolta Activa (a dissident group within the MPLA started by the Andrade brothers) is quietly getting stronger. They may take control of the party, or else elements in the mainline will react to the dissenters by putting in a new president,” one knowledgeable foreign source explained. It remains unclear, however, who would replace him.

It appears more likely at this stage that the bitter civil conflict that rages in Angola will keep Dr. Neto in power. While the MPLA is dependent on Soviet, Cuban and other socialist sources to back their war effort, his links with these allies gives him enough leverage to stay in power.

But should a political settlement be negotiated, Dr. Neto would be too militant and too representative of the MPLA old guard to be acceptable as a possible chief of state. An MPLA military victory, allowing time for attention to political debate within the movement,

Dr. Jonas Savimbi:
Union For The Total Independence of Angola (UNITA)
Silva Porto, Angola

Walking towards the thronging crowd awaiting his arrival, Jonas Savimbi oozed with charm and warmth. Smiling, waving, he worked his way through the mobs, shaking many outstretched arms, to the stairs of the platform from which he was to speak.

The occasion was the presentation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Conciliatory Commission to the people of southern Angola, but the charismatic Savimbi was the only real focus of attention.

“Sa-VIM-bi, Sa-VIM-bi,” the crowd chanted. Another smile, another wave. “Sa-VIM-bi, Sa-VIM-bi,” the roar went up louder.

In his fiery oratory style Dr. Savimbi started to address the 100,000-strong audience. But he had to stop. Chants of “Sa-VIM-bi, Sa-VIM-bi” continued to drown out the public address system.

Of the three Angolan liberation leaders, the handsome, 41-year-old UNITA chief is clearly the most popular among his people. As one American-educated aide suggested with pride: “He is Angola’s John F. Kennedy.” To many, Dr. Savimbi is UNITA.

But that is fact as well as a product of his character. Dr. Savimbi founded UNITA in 1966 after a longstanding feud with the FNLA’s Holden Roberto finally forced him to leave that organization. At an OAU meeting in Cairo in 1964 Dr. Savimbi, then FNLA Foreign Minister, announced his resignation and accused Mr. Roberto of “flagrant tribalism,” and corruption. He alleged that Mr. Roberto had set up a “commercial empire in the Congo” (now Zaire) and that FNLA administrators were “wage earners and profiteers who enriched themselves on the money of New York financial circles and other international organizations.”

Within two years, Dr. Savimbi built up his first meager, 12-man force into a sizeable army, gaining popularity and support as the only leader to work within the country alongside his men in battle against the Portuguese.

“Leaders must fight alongside the people and not stay abroad, sending ‘second-class’ fighters to face the Portuguese,” he explained.

The bearded leader mixes often and easily with the people as well as the military. He is accessible to the point that his aides lament the awaiting workloads that may not be handled that day.

He is as concerned about the availability of scarce foodstuffs as he is on arms. “This is not just a war between soldiers. We are fighting for all the people, to ensure a better -way of life. We must consider their needs too,” he commented during an encounter in Silva Porto.

Dr. Savimbi is perhaps too involved with small matters, critics charge. He does not delegate enough authority and a weak bureaucracy is one of the reasons for UNITA’s poor showing in the past.

But there may be no alternative for the Swiss-educated, Chinese-trained leader, for finding skilled personnel is difficult in his stronghold in southern Angola. Among the Ovimbundu, the rural tribe that dominates the South, the only means of education during the Portuguese era were a few protestant mission schools. Most are farmers and have little time or interest in formal education. Thus at an administrative level there are few qualified to share the burden.

As a result, Dr. Savimbi is the chief politician and military leader. When journalists need answers to questions on either matter he is the only source. But he is extremely cooperative with the press, especially in comparison with the abrasive Roberto and the reticent Neto.

“Welcome. Have a seat,” he greets reporters in either fluent English, French or Portuguese. “What would you like to discuss — the war, our platform, our people?” He sits back and smiles, waiting for the onslaught of questions he answers constantly.

How would he describe the politics of UNITA?

“I am not communist because it serves no purpose. Nor am I a capitalist. Socialism in this country is the only answer. Those who led the country to independence cannot become the exploiters of the people. We want a socialist system, but which? There is the orthodox one and the extremist one. We want the democratic one, social democracy.”

What about the role of foreign companies, necessary for the development of Angola’s vast reserve of minerals?

“I am against nationalization; it is a disease which saps the strength of a national economy. The real question is the renegotiation of allowable profits. Foreign companies need their profits, they would not invest without them. But the people of Angola need their share. When Angola is independent the investors must know that the people will have a greater share.”

What about economic cooperation with South Africa? Can the two countries coexist peacefully?

“We support completely the atmosphere of detente. There is a need to live together peacefully in this area, that is a must. That is why we back completely the initiatives of Presidents Kaunda, Nyerere and Seretse Khama. Prime Minister Vorster is an intelligent leader and he must know that the independence of Angola will have an effect on South Africa.”

“I hope the future leader of this country will be realistic. We have a dam at Cunene (a power source for South Africa). We have investments involving South Africa. Should we ostracize them? I hope that a leader here will be realistic enough to cooperate with any country despite differences in political systems.”

What is your evaluation of the current military situation?

“Since October the war has changed. We are no longer fighting only the MPLA, but also the Cubans. The MPLA used to run when fired on, but the Cubans held out under fire. Since then the real war has begun.

Is there another solution possible to the Angolan crisis other than a military victory by one side?

“I think there can be only a political solution. No military solution is realistic. In the past the MPLA conquered 11 of the 16 district capitals in Angola. Now we have retaken them and more. But this cannot go on forever. They take cities and lose cities and so do we. The result is only a disastrous loss of life and the total ruin of the country.”

“Only elections — free elections — under OAU control can provide a final solution. But first there will have to be a short period of transitional government in which both sides would be represented. But in the end, the ballot must decide, not bullets.”

What about the alleged presence of foreign troops in the South?

“We have white specialists, but not necessarily mercenaries or South Africans. Obviously our white Angolan brothers are also fighting in our ranks. Let me tell you that after the Soviet and Cuban intervention on the MPLA side, the MPLA are not entitled to criticize us for whatever outside help we may obtain.”

This is one question that draws a rare show of anger from the normally soft-spoken man, and he ends the interview on that note. Later he apologizes for his abruptness and says “It is a touchy matter and the MPLA is lodging vicious charges against us. We are sensitive about it.”

But the alliance with South Africa — officially or unofficially is well known. Several sources claim that Dr. Savimbi was in South Africa briefly on Nov. 10, a day before independence, although the purpose of his mission is unknown.

The need for such an alliance is pragmatic since UNITA has traditionally had the fewest outside sources for aid, funds and military equipment. The merger with the FNLA has provided a new source of weapons; during the OAU stop in Silva Porto, two Air Zaire planes were offloading large crates — no passengers — at the local airstrip. But this dependence puts UNITA in a weak position in the merger and Dr. Savimbi would surely prefer to have his own contacts in case the uneasy alliance breaks down. South Africa, with many investments in southern Angola, is a natural source.

Dr. Savimbi was quoted recently as saying: “If Holden had been as open-minded in 1964 as he is now I would never have left him. He how appreciates Angola’s needs.”

But political observers think it is a most unnatural relationship that wll collapse, either after a victory over the MPLA, or after the new joint government has had time to factionalize.

There are already reports that the UNITA-FNLA union almost collapsed during negotiations on positions in the new government in Kinshasa, at which the FNLA initially insisted that it be given the key ministries. And in Lusaka, UNITA officials would not recognize the FNLA credentials held by journalists trying to get into the South.

For Dr. Savimbi to continue to play a key role in the war, he must have some bargaining power. The fact that the Ovimbundu, the largest single Angolan tribe, could win a plurality in an election offers him a limited degree of leverage, as does his political position in between the militantly socialist MPLA and the centrist FNLA. But a foreign source of support — in this war now led, fought and financed by outsiders on all sides — gives him the edge he needs.

UNITA could not be ignored in any political settlement, but while the future still appears to depend on a military victory, Dr. Savimbi is practical enough to know he must have the cards in the meantime to stay in the game.

The UNITA leader — strong, determined and still idealistic — remains a dark horse. But in the bitter civil conflict in which Mr. Roberto and Dr. Neto are irreconcilable enemies, Dr. Savimbi may be the only compromise satisfactory in either a political or military settlement.

Holden Roberto:
National Liberation Front (FNLA)
Ampriz, Angola

In contrast to his UNITA counterpart, Holden Roberto is a hard, introverted man, appearing almost sinister under his ever-present dark glasses, worn even in dark rooms or on a cloudy day. He is blunt and often abrasive, spending most of his time huddling with his tight groups of aides and ministers, rarely “wasting time” on public appearances. Reporters joke about the glare felt even from behind his glasses.

During the afternoon he spent with the OAU, Mr. Roberto made no effort to sweet talk the Commission. In his “welcoming” address he declared: “The Angolan problem must be settled by the Angolan people. We do not need the assistance of negotiators outside this country, not even those in Africa.”

During a brief personal encounter with the trim, 53-year-old FNLA leader, this reporter found him to be almost hostile. I encountered him, dressed in fatigues, strolling alone up and down the empty reception room where he was to meet the OAU officials. Guards said he had been there, alone, for the past two hours awaiting the delayed Commission.

I approached and identified myself as an American journalist who wanted to talk briefly before the OAU arrived. “I’m busy, can’t you see?” he said angrily. “Who do you think you are? Can’t you wait until the others arrive?

I attempted to plead the case of American interests, which drew only anger. “We are fighting for Angolans, not Americans. The people of Angola are my only concern, not the Americans.”

The conversation went on for about 20 minutes in the same vein, at which point I acknowledged defeat and asked if I could at least get some photos of him alone. “No, get out.” And then to a guard, “Get this woman out until the OAU arrives.” And I was summarily escorted from the empty banquet room.

Mr. Roberto’s straightforward style may be the result of the long and hard haul as Angola’s first modern liberation leader. It has been a difficult period, spotted by intra-organization feuds and splits, and the problems of obtaining aid and arms.

First to establish a government-in-exile, Mr. Roberto is considered more of an administrator than a military commander, despite the increase in time spent on the northern front in recent weeks.

Critics charge that his prime interest in Angola is not political, but economic. They point to the fact that he left Angola for Zaire at the age of two and has spent more time outside than inside the country. As a result, his Portuguese is weaker than his French and English.

But there is no doubt that he is the leader of the militant Bakongo, the northeast tribe that dominates the FNLA. In fact, his first political alliance was with Uniao das Populacoes de Angola (UPA), which wanted to restore the ancient Kongo kingdom in a country separate from both other Angolans and the Portuguese.

It was only after a trip to the All-African Peoples’ Conference in Ghana in 1958 that he abandoned tribal politics and helped broaden the movement into a liberation struggle against the Portuguese.

Although it was the MPLA that launched the first assault against the colonial regime on February 4, 1961, it was the UPA that made the first major attack in March. The fiery-tongued Roberto rallied his young militants in the underground movement for the attack, which led to the deaths of an estimated 750 Portuguese and 20,OOO Africans. After the fighting some 150,000 Bakongo fled to Zaire, many of them joining Mr. Roberto’s ranks.

The following year Mr. Roberto negotiated the merger of UPA with the Partido Democratico de Angola for the birth of the FNLA, over which he reigned supreme until an attempted overthrow in 1965-66 prompted him to turn temporarily to business and property interests in Kinshasa.

A boost from Zaire President Mobutu Sese Seko, a distantly related in-law, and new aid from the United States and China in the early 1970s encouraged him to focus full attention again on the liberation struggle. During the last years of the liberation struggle he became the leading opponent of the Portuguese.

Reporters find the FNLA chief a reluctant interviewee, at best. He does not like to talk politics and lists the movement’s objectives simply as: “land reform, education and economic development.” He prefers to have FNLA Minister of Information, Hendrick Vaal Neto, or his American-educated aide, Paul Tuba, do the talking for him.

Unlike Dr. Savimbi, Mr. Roberto pulls the strings from outside Angola, at his base in Kinshasa. He has only recently begun flying into Carmona, the FNLA headquarters in Angola, or Ampriz regularly. For his session with the OAU in Ampriz he spent only the afternoon, scurrying back to Zaire as soon as the meeting was over.

The son of a Baptist missionary, Mr. Roberto’s style is firm and authoritative, reflecting his upbringing. Part of the session in Ampriz was spent displaying Russian 122mm rockets seized from the MPLA on the northern front.

“Look,” he said to the Commission angrily, “These are the weapons used by the MPLA — Russian rockets. They fired 400 of them against our troops two days ago. How can anyone say the MPLA represents the Angolan people? It is a communist organization supported by the Soviets and they have no right to claim any part of this country.”

He then pulled out a 12-year-old boy, an MPLA prisoner-of-war, captured during the same skirmish. “Do you see what they have to resort to to fight us — children. They don’t have the backing of the people so they bring in small children. How can anyone ask such a small boy to fight?” he demanded, glowering.

Mr. Roberto obviously is not out to win friends, just a war. His approach, however, has led to several reports that he is in political trouble within his movement and that Daniel Chipenda, the former MPLA commander who switched sides in 1974, and N’Gola Kabangu, the FNLA Prime Minister, are out to unseat him. But it is difficult to tell just how deep the division goes.

However, at this point, it seems clear that Mr. Roberto’s only means of achieving his long-time goal of leading an independent Angola wll be through a military victory. His tribal backing does not represent a large enough segment of the population to win an election, and the long-standing feud with the MPLA would make his presence in any alliance, resulting from a political settlement, unfeasible. In the long term, the chances of Mr. Roberto achieving his goal look slim.

Received in New York on December 12, 1975

©1975 Robin Wright

EMEP: No to NATO and Missile Defence System

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government keeps lying to the peoples of Turkey. Prior to the NATO’s Lisbon meeting, AKP authorities, Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu both stated that they had objections to the certain articles of the Missile Defence System Project that was put on agenda by NATO.

Following the Lisbon meeting, in which Turkey was represented by President Abdullah Gul, official statements said Turkey succeeded in presenting its case, as if its objections to the Project were actually put under consideration. During NATO Lisbon meeting the Missile Defence System Project was approved, NATO – EU relations were discussed with both non-NATO member EU countries and NATO member non-EU countries as well as updating the road map and making new decisions on Afghanistan occupation. The objections of the AKP government to the Project were represented as not mentioning any country name as the Project is organised against any particular country or countries (from which Iran should be understood), employing some Turkish staff members in the command echelon and specifying where exactly the enemy missiles would be shot by the Missile Defence System.

None of these objections were put on the agenda during the Lisbon summit. Despite not mentioning any particular country name, it is obvious that this Missile Defence System Project was organised against the peoples of the Middle East, notably of Iran and Syria. Certain critical issues such as where exactly the enemy missiles would be shot by the Missile Defence System, in which country the System would be located and who would push the launch button were not negotiated during the Lisbon summit. When the Missile Defence System Project is actualised, whatever are the objections of the AKP government, the United States administration would be the one, which will be in charge of decision making and pushing the launch button as the head of NATO. The Missile Defence Projects also paves the way for missile and missile hardware sales to Turkey and other NATO members. The US weapon monopolies are certainly the ultimate winners of this Project. The Missile Defence System Project caused the AKP foreign policy to collapse. The policy called “zero problem with neighbour countries,” which is so called conducted by the Foreign Minister Davutoglu, has also turned out to be a monstrous lie. Missile Defence System Project means problems with the neighbours; it means the participation of Turkey as a border gendarmerie in the threat posed by the EU and US to the neighbour countries.

It also means being a part to the conflict on Israel’s side on behalf of the US. Since the day one of its foundation, our Party (EMEP) defends the idea that Turkey should drop out of NATO membership. NATO is not a defence organisation; it is a war machine that aggressively poses a threat for the peoples of the world as well as standing as the gendarmerie of the international imperialist capital. NATO, which tried to fool the peoples of the world with the big lie that it was defending the so called World Peace against the threats posed by USSR and Warsaw Treaty for a long time, increased its power and strengthens its presence after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty. When the role of NATO in the recent occupations and assaults is considered, it is clear that NATO is not an organisation which protects the World Peace, but threatening it. Turkey should immediately drop NATO membership and focus on peace and friendship policies with its neighbours.

NATO should be dispersed.
Nuclear weapons should be eradicated.
The armament race that is teased by imperialist monopolies should be terminated.

Kamil Tekin Surek
Vice President
Press Statements

PCOF: On Tibet

For the events in Tibet

We want to take a position on the events taking place in Tibet over the juncture of the Olympic Games based on Marxist-Leninist our criteria.

Tibet is a province of China.

There is a Tibetan people which is a national minority, as there are other ethnic minorities in this vast country as China.

In Tibet many ethnicities living across the Tibetan, which should be able to continue to live peacefully and harmoniously with one another.

There are separatist movements that proclaim the independence of Tibet and the establishment of a theocratic regime around the Dalai Lama, an obscurantist regime. These movements and the Dalai Lama himself has always been supported by imperialism after them find a way to destabilize China, if not disintegration, with a view that has nothing to do with the interests of the Tibetan people, let alone the peoples of China.

The riots that broke out in the Olympic Games have nothing spontaneous. The coverage of the world media reveals the unilateralism of the past given the orchestrated block outs in games other people, particularly those of Palestinian and Iraqi people.

How it can be seen behind this campaign, the hand of U.S. imperialism, the CIA and other imperialist forces who want to weaken in any way to China, its political system to the fully opened this huge market, have unlimited access to the riches of this vast country.

However, biznes already doing in this country whose managers have been launched to get into a savage capitalism that throws large sections of the peasantry, workers, a part of the youth in the nets of the system, which we fight every day here in our country. But the imperialists managers involved in the development of capitalism in China and benefit from it, fearing both the emergence of a competitor the same size.

Find again the same conflicts in the war on the issue of boycotting the Olympic Games, while the imperialists want to make enormous profits from these games that are advertised on a global scale, and making teachers lesson in democracy. And when the North American managers who are leading that campaign, or Sarkozy, saying “no, not you!”.

It is obvious that Chinese managers would not let the insurgency grow and destabilizing movements supported by imperialism without reaction. The reaction is consistent with their class nature: that of a middle class which usurps the name of communist and defending tooth and nail to its interests.

I will not stir our view with that of the international response: we condemn the maneuvers to destabilize China.

We do not support the claim of secession of Tibet posed by reactionary circles.

We support the rights of all Tibetans and people of China should be respected, the issues raised be resolved by political means, and the suppression does not solve any problem.

March 31, 2008

NATO is a threat to liberties and national sovereignty

Revolusjon Norway

60 years with NATO are 60 years too many

The formation of NATO in 1949 was aimed directly at socialism, at the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies in Europe that had emerged victorious in the aftermath of the anti-fascist WW2. It was aimed at infringing the influence of the strengthened communist parties all over Europe, and simultaneously subduing all the European member countries and curtailing their sovereignty under the thumb of US imperialism. The Marshall plan was the main economic and financial instrument of US imperialism to subdue the «beneficiary» countries to US tutelage. In 1955, West Germany was included in the NATO alliance, thus breaching all agreements between the WW2 allies on never accepting the remilitarization of Germany.

The dominating Social Democratic party (Labour Party) in 1948 played the primary role in paving the road to Norwegian NATO membership through attacking and pursuing the Communist party (which had won great authority throughout the war of anti-fascist resistance and published the second largest newspaper immediately after the war). By ways of lies, intimidation and persecution, the protests and resistance from communists and democrats and a large section of opponents within the Labour party itself were silenced, and the way was paved for NATO and US.

For almost half a century Norway has been a potential battleground and manoeuvre area for thousands of NATO troops, and has been a hub of espionage. The North and Arctic Sea has been NATOs playground, with Norway playing an important role in surveillance and intelligence. Although Norway pretended to have official «objections» to the NATO nuclear strategy, supposedly not permitting nuclear weapons to be stationed on its territory, this was a hoax. In the 60′ies NATO had actual plans of devastating most of Northern Norway by use of nuclear mines as a measure of «defence»!

NATO is an instrument to suppress internal unrest and opposition in any member country. Years ago, it was revealed that NATO exercises in Norway were targeted at handling social unrest among workers and students. Tens of thousands of progressive citizens, including their children, have been under surveillance from the 1950′ies onwards. NATO is sure to give a helping hand to imperialist governments fearing the increasing rage of their own workers and peoples who are victimized by the consequences of the evolving grave economic crisis.

The «new concept» adopted by NATO in the 90′ies has corresponded to a grave and aggressive change in the foreign and military policy of Norway. As a small, but ambitious imperialist country, Norway is eager to defend its assets and investments in energy resources in the Caucasus and the Middle East. The war on Yugoslavia in 1999 was the first time Norwegian soldiers were involved in external military operations not sanctioned by the UN. Since 1999, Norway has been active in several illegitimate wars. Currently some 6-700 troops are taking part in the murderous occupation of Afghanistan. This is occurring under a government coaliton calling itself «red and green», consisting of the Labour party, a rural party and the Socialist Left Party (SV). The latter originated from and has been founded on opposition to; yes, NATO!

Nowadays there is much talk of a closer Nordic Defence Cooperation between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. While the two first countries are not members of NATO, the two latter are not members of the EU. The main intention of this plan, presented as a positive bolstering of the traditional Nordic cooperation, is in effect quite different. The intention is to pave the way for Swedish and Finnish integration with the aggressive NATO alliance on the one hand, and Norwegian and Icelandic integration with the EU on the other. If the Danish prime minister Fogh Rasmussen becomes new general secretary for the NATO, this plan will be sustained.

NATO and EU both threaten the sovereignty and the freedoms of our own peoples and of other peoples and nations worldwide. Both of them must be rejected and defeated by the peoples and the working class.

“I Am at Home”: Paul Robeson at Reception in Soviet Union

Interview by Vern Smith, Daily Worker, January 15, 1935

Moscow, U.S.S.R.-“This is Paul Robeson, the greatest American singer!” declared the famous film director, Eisenstein, introducing Robeson to a reception in his honor, attended by nearly all the celebrities in Moscow’s theatre and art world. The reception was given in the “House of the Kino,” palatial club house of the workers of the movie industry.

I repeat the words of Eisenstein, master of ceremonies at the reception, not by way of informing the public as to who Robeson is, for that is well enough known, but to show the tone of the feeling of the workers and the artists of the Soviet Union towards this visiting Negro singer, son of a slave in the United States-to show the wholehearted appreciation of these Russian sons of serfs who now are freed by their own efforts.

The reception was long and brilliant and lasted until about 2 a.m. But somehow in the course of it, Robeson found time to answer a few questions from the Daily Worker correspondent.

I began with the obvious: “Have you noticed a race question in the Soviet Union?”

An undercurrent of laughter rumbled under Robeson’s big mellow voice as he answered: “Only that it seems to work to my advantage!”

And then he explained. He has been studying the Soviet Union for two years, studying the Russian language also for that length of time, has been a regular reader of the Pravda and Isvestia for months, and knows something about the solution of the race question here. He knows that the Soviet theory is that all races are equal-really equal, socially equal, too, as well as economically and politically. He expressed delight but no surprise when I informed him of the election to the Moscow Soviet of the American Negro, Robinson, working in the First State Ball Bearing Plant here.

But what he admitted he had not been expecting was the simple, wholehearted, affectionate welcome that lay in store for him. Robeson declares himself that he knows he has made a sufficient place for himself by his singing and acting, that even in the capitalist world some of the bitterest aspects of Jim-Crowism and white chauvinism are not applied to him. But it is just this feeling that a condescending exception has been made of him that is missing here. Here there is just the enthusiastic joy of Russian workers and artists, they or their fathers also once slaves of capitalist and landlord, who now welcome in addition a man they feel is a brother artist from abroad, coming with a real desire to honestly know and understand the new life they have made for themselves.

“I was not prepared for the happiness I see on every face in Moscow,” said Robeson. “I was aware that there was no starvation here, but I was not prepared for the bounding life; the feeling of safety and abundance and freedom that I find here, wherever I turn. I was not prepared for the endless friendliness, which surrounded me from the moment I crossed the border. I had a technically irregular passport, but all this was brushed aside by the eager helpfulness of the border authorities. And this joy and happiness and friendliness, this utter absence of any embarrassment over a ‘race question’ is all the more keenly felt by me because of the day I spent in Berlin on the way here, and that was a day of horror-in an atmosphere of hatred, fear and suspicion.”

Commenting on the recent execution after court-martial of a number of counter-revolutionary terrorists, Robeson declared roundly:

“From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!

“It is the government’s duty to put down any opposition to this really free society with a firm hand,” he continued, “and I hope they will always do it, for I already regard myself at home here. This is home to me. I feel more kinship to the Russian people under their new society than I ever felt anywhere else. It is obvious that there is no terror here, that all the masses of every race are contented and support their government.”

Robeson commented on the absence of slums, on the huge building of workers’ apartments in the factory districts, such districts as are invariably slums in capitalist cities. He declared that he will make an extensive study of the club life of the Soviet worker, especially as the clubs are centers of instrumental and vocal musical training, and of dramatic art.

[Robeson has developed a theory, based on his knowledge of Central Asian folk music and drama, and on his recent three months experience in Africa in connection with the filming of a motion picture scenario based on African life, that a new vehicle of expression, not drama, and not opera, can be evolved from these arts of primitive peoples. He sees certain underlying consistent bases in all this art of primitive civilizations. He hopes to supplement his observations by a study of Chinese folk music and drama.

He has selected the Soviet Union as a most proper center from which to conduct his researches, and as the only country giving him unstintedly the social and other environment in which he can systematically complete his research and work towards this new form of artistic expression. He says that he intends to remain in the Soviet Union until about the middle of January, then will have to return to England for the final completion of the film of African life and to wind up his other affairs there. Then sometime during 1935 he will come with his whole family to the Soviet Union for a prolonged stay, working on his researches and on the first steps of the new form of drama and opera, meanwhile singing and acting in the Soviet theatres and moving pictures.]

At the reception given in his honor here, Robeson sang, besides several Negro workers’ songs and spirituals, four selections in the Russian language: two from the opera “Boris Godunov,” one old folk song and a Cossack lullaby. Hearty applause and the voiced opinion of those present testified to his progress in the rather difficult Russian language.

He has deliberately and for a long time been laying plans and preparing to move to the U.S.S.R. as the most suitable center for the important work of artistic innovation which he has in mind, and because he had decided on the basis of much evidence that it is a place where a man may do such work with greatest freedom and facility. He said in his interview that he is more than satisfied that the Soviet Union is just such a place.

Chinese Social-Imperialism in Africa

Published in Reorganization by the KKE (1918-1955):

The year 2006 was a milestone for Sino-African relations. Only the first half of the Chinese President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited 10 African countries. In November of that year took place in Beijing in the third session of the Forum on Sino-African Cooperation (FOCAC), involving 48 of the 53 African countries. In January, no, last year, China published the “document of Chinese policy in Africa” ​​by presenting the objectives of the Chinese presence and the means to achieve them. On January 30, and the Chinese president goes to visit 10 new African countries.

Bilateral trade has jumped from 10 billion. In 2000 to $ 55 billion. $ 2006, making China the third largest trading partner after the U.S. and France. 156 loans to 31 countries, worth $ 1.38 billion donated by China in 2004, and truncate their duties on 190 products. By the end of 2005, China has undertaken over 720 projects in Africa, awarded 18,000 scholarships, sent 15,000 medical personnel who treated her roughly 170 million Africans and political support.

The many rewards: raw materials and energy sources (see below for oil), African support for China on human rights committee of the UN and the withdrawal of the Olympic Games in 2008. And despite the low purchasing power of Africans, Chinese and competitors know that this is offset by the same population of Africans.

Historically, the period of Mao and Chu Lai In the absence of significant economic exchanges across political and mutual projects such as the Tanzania-Zambia Railway in the ’70s, whose existence is in China. Just $ 770 million was a record volume of bilateral trade in 1977.Apo the early ’90s, however, the emphasis was on “cooperation” for the “exploration and exploitation” of energy sources, technology and trade.

Bill Bland on “Stalinism”

‘STALINISM’

An Address to the Sarat Academy in London

on 30 April 1999 by Bill Bland

I am grateful to the Sarat Academy for inviting me to speak to you on ‘Stalinism’.

However, your choice of subject presented me with some difficulty, since I am a great admirer of Stalin and the word ‘Stalinism’ was introduced by concealed opponents of Stalin – in particular by Nikita Khrushchev – in preparation for later political attacks upon him.

Today, in fact, ‘Stalinism’ has become a meaningless term of abuse employed to denote political views with which one disagrees. The Conservative press sometimes even describes Tony Blair as a ‘Stalinist’ -giving Stalin, were he still alive, ample grounds for a libel action!

Stalin always referred to himself modestly as ~a pupil of Lenin’ and shall follow his example and interpret the subject of ‘Stalinism’ as ‘Marxism-Leninism

Perhaps the nearest figure to Stalin in British history is Richard the Third, whom everybody ‘knows’ – and I put the word ‘knows’ in inverted commas – from their school history books and Shakespeare to have been a cruel, deformed monster who murdered the little princes in the Tower.

It is only comparatively recently that serious historians have begun to realise that the commonly accepted portrayal of Richard was drawn by his Tudor successors, who had seized the throne from him and killed him.

Naturally, they then proceeded to rewrite the chronicles to justify their usurpation of the throne – even altering his portraits to present him as physically deformed, as a physical as well as a moral monster. In other words, the picture of Richard which has become generally accepted today was the result not of historical truth, but of the propaganda of his political opponents.

It is, therefore, legitimate to ask: is the picture of Stalin presented to us by so-called ‘Kremlinologists’ historical fact or mere propaganda?

The ‘Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (the Soviet Union), which was constructed under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, no longer exists. Is it therefore true to say – as many people do – that this means that socialism in the Soviet Union failed?

I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. Tn his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%

Indeed, it is an undisputed fact under the centrally planned economy instituted under Stalin, Russia was transformed in a few decades from a backward agrarian country into an advanced industrial country which by 1941— 45 had become powerful enough to defeat a German aggression able to draw upon the resources of the whole of Western Europe.

It is common to hear Stalin described as a ‘dictator.”

The strongly anti-Soviet American writer Eugene Lyons once asked Stalin directly: ‘Are you a dictator?’ Lyons goes on (and I quote:)

“Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side.

‘No’, he said slowly, ‘I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party”.

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Maoist China’s Foreign Policy: 1970s and 1980s

The Third World

Asia

(a) SOUTHEAST ASIA. Only in China’s traditional “sphere of influence” has the People’s Republic given consistent material support to powers abroad – to North Korea and North Vietnam – and verbal support to movements against governments with which it has friendly diplomatic relations.

In the case of VIETNAM extended recognition and material aid before the Soviet Union, and its artillery was an important factor in the final siege of Dien Bien Phu. However, at the Geneva Peace Talks in 1954, both the Soviet Union and China tried their utmost to persuade the Vietminh to accept partition and not to sweep the French out of Vietnam. [36] It was not clear whether this flowed from the same fear of extending the war as guided Stalin in his efforts to force the Chinese Communists to make concessions to the Kuomintang in the 1930s. However, the Vietnam problem remained unsolved and broke out in a much more massive form in the 1960s.

As we have seen, China’s role in the second war in Vietnam involved both an expanded flow of aid and a careful stabilization of its role with the United States. The détente with Nixon provoked a reaction in Hanoi, but perhaps the Vietnamese simply wished to keep both its powerful patrons at arm’s length. The new united State took over the claims of its southern half, including the Paracel (Hsisha) and Spratly (Nansha) islands in the South China Sea, both of them also claimed by the People’s Republic. It is said there may be oil reserves beneath the islands, and also that China fears the establishment of a Soviet base in the area which would dominate the far eastern shipping lanes. Whatever the reasons, China stated her position unequivocally: “All islands belonging to China must certainly return to the bosom of the motherland”, and “The archipelagos of the South Sea are our sacred territory and we have a responsibility to defend them.”. [37]

Perhaps this territorial issue became as sharp as it did because of the estimate of the Soviet threat, which also caused China to revise her attitude towards four countries hitherto seen as US clients – Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore.

In 1971, THAILAND, in the view of the People’s Republic, was ruled by the “Thanom clique” of American puppets. However, the first contacts between the two regimes were made in that year. They agreed to end hostile radio propaganda and open up trade. The Thai Prime Minister, Pramoj Kukrit, made a State visit, and signed an agreement with China, Article 8 of which instructed Chinese nationals in Thailand to “abide by the law of the Kingdom of Thailand, respect the customs and habits of the Thai people and live in amity with them”. [38] that is, not to “make revolution”. Mao, according to Kukrit, denied that any aid was given to insurgents in Thailand or to the clandestine Voice of the Thai People radio; he advised Kukrit not to be troubled by the insurgents of the Thai Communist Party – “since it is small, it should not be dangerous”. No protest was made when the Thai civilian régime was once more overthrown with great bloodshed in the autumn of 1976.

In the PHILIPPINES President Marcos was engaged in a four-year programme of establishing a civilian dictatorship, destroying all opposition, including both supporters of Mao Tse-tung thought (operating for several years as partisans in the Central Luzon province) and a Muslim rebellion in the south. In September 1974, Marcos’ wife, Imelda, was invited to China where she met Mao and was offered Chinese crude oil in a trading agreement. In June the following year, her husband followed her on a State visit. Marcos was overwhelmed by the hospitality, referring to China as the “natural leader of the Third World” (Chou reassured him that no material aid went to the Communist rebels in Luzon), and adopting the slogan of “self-reliance”. Indeed, the President, one of the closest allies of the United States in the east Pacific, despatched a stream of missions to China to learn how to copy certain institutions, and even set up a “Commune” in Leyte, Manila.

MALAYSIA made the same transition. In 1970, the NCNA reported that the “Rahman-Razak clique” was terrified by the guerillas of the Malaysian Communist Party and its power was crumbling. [39] Nonetheless, diplomatic relations were announced in 1974, and half of the “clique”, Tun Abdul Rahman, duly made the pilgrimage to Peking. He was assured no material aid was being given by the Chinese to the Malaysian guerillas. Later, in April 1975, the Prime Minister was upset by the Chinese Communist party’s greetings to the Malaysian party on the occasion of its forty-fifth foundation anniversary (the actual message was critical of the warring factions of the party, and urged it to stay away from the urban areas). No doubt the Chinese ambassador reassured the Malaysian Prime Minister that the message had no real significance. However, it could be used as a bargaining counter on some future occasion, much as Stalin tried to use the Chinese Communist party in bargaining with Chiang Kai-shek.

SINGAPORE’s opposition has been successively repressed by the régime of Lee Kuan Yew. On his State visit in 1976, Prime Minister Hua Kuo-feng assured him that Singapore’s treatment of rebels would evoke no protest from China (an assurance published in the Singapore press but not in the Chinese).

What were the contradictions the People’s Republic sought to exploit in these four cases? They were not utilizing any “major contradictions” at all, nor were they trying to compete with the United States, which was no longer seen as an enemy. It was a simple territorial security exercise, an exercise that in all but open expression consigned the domestic rebels to insignificance and permitted the regimes concerned to claim that they had Chairman Mao in their support.

INDONESIA remained, at the time of writing, the last country of the area (apart from Singapore) without diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic. The régime under General Suharto originally came to power through a military coup in 1965. Up to that time, Indonesia was governed by President Sukarno, basing himself latterly on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and the army. The PKI had followed a policy of creating a United Front, but without independent territories or armed forces. In practice, this meant sacrificing its radical policies – for example, land reform – to maintaining the alliance with forces that, in some cases, represented those liable to suffer in any land reform. It meant also that the PKI offered entirely uncritical support for Sukarno, calling for a strengthening of his government (his so-called “Guided Democracy”). Sukarno, on the other hand, needed a civilian counterweight to the powerful army, which the PKI provided. Sukarno therefore protected the party from the army and advanced its position in the government (although never in the decisive agencies governing the defence forces). Under Sukarno’s patronage the party became the largest Communist party outside the Eastern Bloc, with a claimed membership of three million, and between eight and ten million in party front organizations. But it was captive to Sukarno’s purposes, for it could raise radical demands for domestic change only at the cost of its position in the Indonesian government.

China gave strong support both to the PKI and to Sukarno, even though the PKI’s policy was one of united front without armed struggle. It was impossible to have the one with the other; had the PKI tried to create its own military forces, the army would have seized power.

In September 1965, a section of the palace guard launched a coup against the main leadership of the army. The army counter-attacked, alleging that the conspiracy was hatched by the PKI and China; it was further alleged that China had flown arms in to the leading air force base for use in the coup. The military rapidly won control, and there followed one of the most appalling massacres in modern history. More than half a million people were slaughtered by the army and its supporters; 200,000 PKI members lost their lives, including forty-five of the fifty central committee members. Many hundreds of thousands of others were gaoled.

TDKP: Kurdish movement’s direction of development

The Turkish bourgeoisie’s war threat to Syria with the support of US imperialism, the driving of the PKK leaders out of Syria, and the bringing of A. Ocalan to Turkey through an international operation -all these events have inflamed discussions about the Kurdish question both in Turkey and in the international arena. Although it is not the first time it appeared on the agenda, the question which arises now is: “What will happen next?” Besides their declarations about the “importance of co-operation against terrorism”, the leaders of the US, the EU countries, Russia, the Arab and Balkan states expressed their views that “Turkey should utilise this opportunity to recognise the cultural rights of the Kurds”. It was obvious that they all were concerned about their own bourgeois imperialist interests and objectives, and that they were making plans as to how and to what extent they could benefit from this question.

The ruling classes of Turkey have chosen to use the “Apo operation” (Apo is the nickname for Abdullah Ocalan) as an instrument to conceal the Kurdish question and the country’s social problems. The authorities, including the Military General Council, the President and government officials, claimed that there is no such thing as a Kurdish question, and intensified propaganda about the “elimination of terror”. Military and police attacks have been intensified and the state of emergency has been spread over the whole of Turkey.

Following Ocalan’s flight from Syria with the intervention of US imperialism and his arrival in Rome, the Turkish authorities sought to create a “national mobilisation” with the propaganda that Italy and Germany as well as Syria and Greece “support separatist terrorism”. Chauvinist and reactionary propaganda was designed to promote reactionary prejudices amongst the most backward sections of the working people and to cover up the attacks and repression on the Kurds. The collaborator bourgeoisie and the top officials of the dictatorship too knew well that the “Apo operation” would in no way keep the Kurdish question out of the agenda.

Right-Wing Hedonism

What hedonists and postmodernists revived and kept alive in the deeply conservative and libertarian writings of Anton LaVey and the Marquis De Sade probably like about perverted, forbidden things is their hostility to the commonplace.

To Ayn Rand life is selfish, rational egoism. People who are steeped in the orthodox myths of religion naturally find their fascination in the conception of outlawed horror. Such people take the idea of “sin” seriously and of course, drink in the dark allurement.

People like myself, with a materialist view of history, see little charm in things banned by religiousity. We recognize the primitiveness of religious attitude and thus find no element of attractive devil’s dance in the wholesale violation of its morality insofar as the action does not inherently cause fun within itself outside of such “sin.”

Meanwhile, the filth and perversion to which De Sade and LaVey’s obscenely orthodox minds visit upon their own universes seems like nothing more than a profound maladjustment, no more enlightening or interesting than a bout of fever.

Now that the veil of hocus-pocus mystery has been ripped away from such carnal things by science, they are no longer sufficient distraction for the human being as a producer. We seek to produce new things outside of the carnal, which is merely a side-dish as of now. We must be obliged to hunt settings and constructions beyond the new designs for Caligula’s bedroom.

PCOF on Kosovo

February 17, the parliament of Kosovo declared independence

The population of Pristina celebrates what it believes to be independence, waving Albanian and North American flags. The Serbian population of Kosovo refuses to separate from Serbia, whose leaders immediately condemned the secession of this province to consider an integral part of Serbia. The tension is growing, threatening the outbreak of a new Balkan war.

The proclamation of Kosovo’s independence, which the Bush years as proclaimed desire is to end in the dissolution of former Yugoslavia.

This course encouraged slowly Western imperialist powers, first the American imperialism, who wanted to get rid of all traces of East bloc and weaken, eliminate the influence of Russia.

Within 17 years, from war to war, “ethnic cleansing” to “humanitarian interference” by intensive bombing (78 day bombing of Serbia) to “surgical strikes” that have caused dozens of “collateral damage”, the imperialist powers redefined the boundaries . Cause exacerbation of existing nonstop nationalist, then pushing the troops of local allies to cut the region to create entirely dependent small states. A democratic solution that respects the rights of nations, nationalities and ethnic minorities have been systematically torpedoed by bombing and nationalist similar treatment.