Left Anticommunism: the Unkindest Cut

BY MICHAEL PARENTI

Despite a lifetime of “shaming” the system, NOAM CHOMSKY, America’s foremost “engagé” intellectual, remains an unrepentant left anticommunist.

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

Genuflection to Orthodoxy

Many on the U.S. Left have exhibited a Soviet bashing and Red baiting that matches anything on the Right in its enmity and crudity. Listen to Noam Chomsky holding forth about “left intellectuals” who try to “rise to power on the backs of mass popular movements” and “then beat the people into submission. . . . You start off as basically a Leninist who is going to be part of the Red bureaucracy. You see later that power doesn’t lie that way, and you very quickly become an ideologist of the right. . . . We’re seeing it right now in the [former] Soviet Union. The same guys who were communist thugs two years back, are now running banks and [are] enthusiastic free marketeers and praising Americans” (Z Magazine, 10/95).

Chomsky’s imagery is heavily indebted to the same U.S. corporate political culture he so frequently criticizes on other issues. In his mind, the revolution was betrayed by a coterie of “communist thugs” who merely hunger for power rather than wanting the power to end hunger. In fact, the communists did not “very quickly” switch to the Right but struggled in the face of a momentous onslaught to keep Soviet socialism alive for more than seventy years. To be sure, in the Soviet Union’s waning days some, like Boris Yeltsin, crossed over to capitalist ranks, but others continued to resist free-market incursions at great cost to themselves, many meeting their deaths during Yeltsin’s violent repression of the Russian parliament in 1993.

Some leftists and others fall back on the old stereotype of power-hungry Reds who pursue power for power’s sake without regard for actual social goals. If true, one wonders why, in country after country, these Reds side with the poor and powerless often at great risk and sacrifice to themselves, rather than reaping the rewards that come with serving the well-placed.

For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.

Adam Hochschild: Keeping his distance from the “Stalinist Left” and recommending same posture to fellow progressives.

Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they “weaken their credibility” (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in the Cold-War condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters. Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.

The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.

Even when attacking the Right, the left critics cannot pass up an opportunity to flash their anticommunist credentials. So Mark Green writes in a criticism of President Ronald Reagan that “when presented with a situation that challenges his conservative catechism, like an unyielding Marxist-Leninist, [Reagan] will change not his mind but the facts.” While professing a dedication to fighting dogmatism “both of the Right and Left,” individuals who perform such de rigueur genuflections reinforce the anticommunist dogma. Red-baiting leftists contributed their share to the climate of hostility that has given U.S. leaders such a free hand in waging hot and cold wars against communist countries and which even today makes a progressive or even liberal agenda difficult to promote.

A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83). Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.
•••••

•••••

Sorely lacking within the U.S. Left is any rational evaluation of the Soviet Union, a nation that endured a protracted civil war and a multinational foreign invasion in the very first years of its existence, and that two decades later threw back and destroyed the Nazi beast at enormous cost to itself. In the three decades after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets made industrial advances equal to what capitalism took a century to accomplish–while feeding and schooling their children rather than working them fourteen hours a day as capitalist industrialists did and still do in many parts of the world. And the Soviet Union, along with Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, and Cuba provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world, including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa.

Left anticommunists remained studiously unimpressed by the dramatic gains won by masses of previously impoverished people under communism. Some were even scornful of such accomplishments. I recall how in Burlington Vermont, in 1971, the noted anticommunist anarchist, Murray Bookchin, derisively referred to my concern for “the poor little children who got fed under communism” (his words).

Slinging Labels

Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anticommunists as “Soviet apologists” and “Stalinists,” even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society. Our real sin was that unlike many on the Left we refused to uncritically swallow U.S. media propaganda about communist societies. Instead, we maintained that, aside from the well-publicized deficiencies and injustices, there were positive features about existing communist systems that were worth preserving, that improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people in meaningful and humanizing ways. This claim had a decidedly unsettling effect on left anticommunists who themselves could not utter a positive word about any communist society (except possibly Cuba) and could not lend a tolerant or even courteous ear to anyone who did.

Saturated by anticommunist orthodoxy, most U.S. leftists have practiced a left McCarthyism against people who did have something positive to say about existing communism, excluding them from participation in conferences, advisory boards, political endorsements, and left publications. Like conservatives, left anticommunists tolerated nothing less than a blanket condemnation of the Soviet Union as a Stalinist monstrosity and a Leninist moral aberration.

That many U.S. leftists have scant familiarity with Lenin’s writings and political work does not prevent them from slinging the “Leninist” label. Noam Chomsky, who is an inexhaustible fount of anticommunist caricatures, offers this comment about Leninism: “Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution [sic] because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals.” Here Chomsky fashions an image of power-hungry intellectuals to go along with his cartoon image of power-hungry Leninists, villains seeking not the revolutionary means to fight injustice but power for power’s sake. When it comes to Red-bashing, some of the best and brightest on the Left sound not much better than the worst on the Right.

At the time of the 1996 terror bombing in Oklahoma City, I heard a radio commentator announce: “Lenin said that the purpose of terror is to terrorize.” U.S. media commentators have repeatedly quoted Lenin in that misleading manner. In fact, his statement was disapproving of terrorism. He polemicized against isolated terrorist acts which do nothing but create terror among the populace, invite repression, and isolate the revolutionary movement from the masses. Far from being the totalitarian, tight-circled conspirator, Lenin urged the building of broad coalitions and mass organizations, encompassing people who were at different levels of political development. He advocated whatever diverse means were needed to advance the class struggle, including participation in parliamentary elections and existing trade unions. To be sure, the working class, like any mass group, needed organization and leadership to wage a successful revolutionary struggle, which was the role of a vanguard party, but that did not mean the proletarian revolution could be fought and won by putschists or terrorists.

Lenin constantly dealt with the problem of avoiding the two extremes of liberal bourgeois opportunism and ultra-left adventurism. Yet he himself is repeatedly identified as an ultra-left putschist by mainstream journalists and some on the Left. Whether Lenin’s approach to revolution is desirable or even relevant today is a question that warrants critical examination. But a useful evaluation is not likely to come from people who misrepresent his theory and practice.

Left anticommunists find any association with communist organizations to be morally unacceptable because of the “crimes of communism.” Yet many of them are themselves associated with the Democratic Party in this country, either as voters or members, seemingly unconcerned about the morally unacceptable political crimes committed by leaders of that organization. Under one or another Democratic administration, 120,000 Japanese Americans were torn from their homes and livelihoods and thrown into detention camps; atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an enormous loss of innocent life; the FBI was given authority to infiltrate political groups; the Smith Act was used to imprison leaders of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and later on leaders of the Communist Party for their political beliefs; detention camps were established to round up political dissidents in the event of a “national emergency”; during the late 1940s and 1950s, eight thousand federal workers were purged from government because of their political associations and views, with thousands more in all walks of life witchhunted out of their careers; the Neutrality Act was used to impose an embargo on the Spanish Republic that worked in favor of Franco’s fascist legions; homicidal counterinsurgency programs were initiated in various Third World countries; and the Vietnam War was pursued and escalated. And for the better part of a century, the Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party protected racial segregation and stymied all anti-lynching and fair employment bills. Yet all these crimes, bringing ruination and death to many, have not moved the liberals, the social democrats, and the “democratic socialist” anticommunists to insist repeatedly that we issue blanket condemnations of either the Democratic Party or the political system that produced it, certainly not with the intolerant fervor that has been directed against existing communism.

Pure Socialism vs. Siege Socialism

The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today's grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and life styles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess.

The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundamentals as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not. As the political philosopher Carl Shames argued:

How do [the left critics] know that the fundamental problem was the “nature” of the ruling [revolutionary] parties rather than, say, the global concentration of capital that is destroying all independent economies and putting an end to national sovereignty everywhere? And to the extent that it was, where did this “nature” come from? Was this “nature” disembodied, disconnected from the fabric of the society itself, from the social relations impacting on it? . . . Thousands of examples could be found in which the centralization of power was a necessary choice in securing and protecting socialist relations. In my observation [of existing communist societies], the positive of “socialism” and the negative of “bureaucracy, authoritarianism and tyranny” interpenetrated in virtually every sphere of life. (Carl Shames, correspondence to me, 1/15/92.)

The pure socialists regularly blame the Left itself for every defeat it suffers. Their second-guessing is endless. So we hear that revolutionary struggles fail because their leaders wait too long or act too soon, are too timid or too impulsive, too stubborn or too easily swayed. We hear that revolutionary leaders are compromising or adventuristic, bureaucratic or opportunistic, rigidly organized or insufficiently organized, undemocratic or failing to provide strong leadership. But always the leaders fail because they do not put their trust in the “direct actions” of the workers, who apparently would withstand and overcome every adversity if only given the kind of leadership available from the left critic’s own groupuscule. Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country.

Tony Febbo questioned this blame-the-leadership syndrome of the pure socialists:

It occurs to me that when people as smart, different, dedicated and heroic as Lenin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Ho Chi Minh and Robert Mugabe–and the millions of heroic people who followed and fought with them–all end up more or less in the same place, then something bigger is at work than who made what decision at what meeting. Or even what size houses they went home to after the meeting. . . .

These leaders weren’t in a vacuum. They were in a whirlwind. And the suction, the force, the power that was twirling them around has spun and left this globe mangled for more than 900 years. And to blame this or that theory or this or that leader is a simple-minded substitute for the kind of analysis that Marxists [should make]. (Guardian, 11/13/91)

To be sure, the pure socialists are not entirely without specific agendas for building the revolution. After the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, an ultra-left group in that country called for direct worker ownership of the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without benefit of managers, state planners, bureaucrats, or a formal military. While undeniably appealing, this worker syndicalism denies the necessities of state power. Under such an arrangement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against the U.S.-sponsored counterrevolution that savaged the country. It would have been unable to mobilize enough resources to field an army, take security measures, or build and coordinate economic programs and human services on a national scale.

Decentralization vs. Survival

For a people’s revolution to survive, it must seize state power and use it to (a) break the stranglehold exercised by the owning class over the society’s institutions and resources, and (b) withstand the reactionary counterattack that is sure to come. The internal and external dangers a revolution faces necessitate a centralized state power that is not particularly to anyone’s liking, not in Soviet Russia in 1917, nor in Sandinista Nicaragua in 1980.

Engels offers an apposite account of an uprising in Spain in 1872-73 in which anarchists seized power in municipalities across the country. At first, the situation looked promising. The king had abdicated and the bourgeois government could muster but a few thousand ill-trained troops. Yet this ragtag force prevailed because it faced a thoroughly parochialized rebellion. “Each town proclaimed itself as a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary committee (junta),” Engels writes. “[E]ach town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack [against bourgeois forces].” It was “the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other.”

Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency–which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack. One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government. The years of foreign invasion and civil war did much to intensify the Bolsheviks’ siege psychology with its commitment to lockstep party unity and a repressive security apparatus. Thus, in May 1921, the same Lenin who had encouraged the practice of internal party democracy and struggled against Trotsky in order to give the trade unions a greater measure of autonomy, now called for an end to the Workers’ Opposition and other factional groups within the party. “The time has come,” he told an enthusiastically concurring Tenth Party Congress, “to put an end to opposition, to put a lid on it: we have had enough opposition.” Open disputes and conflicting tendencies within and without the party, the communists concluded, created an appearance of division and weakness that invited attack by formidable foes.

Only a month earlier, in April 1921, Lenin had called for more worker representation on the party’s Central Committee. In short, he had become not anti-worker but anti-opposition. Here was a social revolution–like every other–that was not allowed to develop its political and material life in an unhindered way.

By the late 1920s, the Soviets faced the choice of (a) moving in a still more centralized direction with a command economy and forced agrarian collectivization and full-speed industrialization under a commandist, autocratic party leadership, the road taken by Stalin, or (b) moving in a liberalized direction, allowing more political diversity, more autonomy for labor unions and other organizations, more open debate and criticism, greater autonomy among the various Soviet republics, a sector of privately owned small businesses, independent agricultural development by the peasantry, greater emphasis on consumer goods, and less effort given to the kind of capital accumulation needed to build a strong military-industrial base.

The latter course, I believe, would have produced a more comfortable, more humane and serviceable society. Siege socialism would have given way to worker-consumer socialism. The only problem is that the country would have risked being incapable of withstanding the Nazi onslaught. Instead, the Soviet Union embarked upon a rigorous, forced industrialization. This policy has often been mentioned as one of the wrongs perpetrated by Stalin upon his people. It consisted mostly of building, within a decade, an entirely new, huge industrial base east of the Urals in the middle of the barren steppes, the biggest steel complex in Europe, in anticipation of an invasion from the West. “Money was spent like water, men froze, hungered and suffered but the construction went on with a disregard for individuals and a mass heroism seldom paralleled in history.”

Stalin’s prophecy that the Soviet Union had only ten years to do what the British had done in a century proved correct. When the Nazis invaded in 1941, that same industrial base, safely ensconced thousands of miles from the front, produced the weapons of war that eventually turned the tide. The cost of this survival included 22 million Soviets who perished in the war and immeasurable devastation and suffering, the effects of which would distort Soviet society for decades afterward.

All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not “make inevitable” the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of “suspect” nationalities.

The transforming effects of counterrevolutionary attack have been felt in other countries. A Sandinista military officer I met in Vienna in 1986 noted that Nicaraguans were “not a warrior people” but they had to learn to fight because they faced a destructive, U.S.-sponsored mercenary war. She bemoaned the fact that war and embargo forced her country to postpone much of its socio-economic agenda. As with Nicaragua, so with Mozambique, Angola and numerous other countries in which U.S.-financed mercenary forces destroyed farmlands, villages, health centers, and power stations, while killing or starving hundreds of thousands–the revolutionary baby was strangled in its crib or mercilessly bled beyond recognition. This reality ought to earn at least as much recognition as the suppression of dissidents in this or that revolutionary society.

The overthrow of Eastern European and Soviet communist governments was cheered by many left intellectuals. Now democracy would have its day. The people would be free from the yoke of communism and the U.S. Left would be free from the albatross of existing communism, or as left theorist Richard Lichtman put it, “liberated from the incubus of the Soviet Union and the succubus of Communist China.”

In fact, the capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe seriously weakened the numerous Third World liberation struggles that had received aid from the Soviet Union and brought a whole new crop of right-wing governments into existence, ones that now worked hand-in-glove with U.S. global counterrevolutionaries around the globe.

In addition, the overthrow of communism gave the green light to the unbridled exploitative impulses of Western corporate interests. No longer needing to convince workers that they live better than their counterparts in Russia, no longer restrained by a competing system, the corporate class is rolling back the many gains that working people have won over the years. Now that the free market, in its meanest form, is emerging triumphant in the East, so will it prevail in the West. “Capitalism with a human face” is being replaced by “capitalism in your face.” As Richard Levins put it, “So in the new exuberant aggressiveness of world capitalism we see what communists and their allies had held at bay” (Monthly Review, 9/96).

Having never understood the role that existing communist powers played in tempering the worst impulses of Western capitalism, and having perceived communism as nothing but an unmitigated evil, the left anticommunists did not anticipate the losses that were to come. Some of them still don’t get it.

International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO): On the International Situation

The most significant development in the world capitalist economy, since the last meeting of our Conference is undoubtedly the intensification of the symptoms that prove the trend toward a new recession in all fields, after a certain rise in the second quarter of 2009, followed by a period of stagnation. Despite the trend towards a rise in the second quarter, world industrial production shrank 6.6% in 2009 and rose 10% in 2010. The industrial production of June 2010 exceeded its previous level before the crisis of 2008. But starting from the first quarter of 2011, the growth lost momentum and fell to 0.4% in the last quarter of that year. In 2011, world industrial production declined by half (5.4%) compared to the previous year. In the first quarter of 2012, after a weak rise, the growth declined. The growth was 1.8% in the first quarter, 0% in the second and 4% in the last quarter of 20l2. All the data show that, despite fluctuations, a decline persists that began in the first quarter of 2011, which led to zero level in the middle of this year [2012] and is heading for a new period of decline.

Industrial production in the European Union, which is a larger economic power than the U.S.; in Japan, which is third largest world economic power; in India, one of the largest economies in Asia, have had consecutive declines in the third quarter of 2011 and in the first two quarters of 2012 compared to the same period last year. Industrial production in Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America, has also entered into decline in the last two quarters. North African countries like Tunisia and Egypt, and other countries such as Argentina, Colombia and Peru, are in similar situations.

The rate of growth of industrial production in China, in the first and second quarters of 2012, was 11.6% and 9.5%, while it was 14.4% in 2010 and 13.8% in 2011. The downward trend continued in July, 9.2% and in August, 8.9%. China, which grew by 12.9% and 12.3% in the crisis years (2008 and 2009), was, along with India, one of the factors that prevented a further sharpening of the crisis and that allowed the world economy to enter into a new period of growth. The situation in that country has changed considerably. Now it is a country that is accumulating stockpiles in the steel industry, which is facing a slowdown in the construction sector, which has important holes in the financial sector. Those countries that saw lower growth rates despite the stimulus measures to revive the domestic market, are now unable to play the same role as before. The industrial production of Mexico and the Confederation of Independent States (CIS), including Russia, continues to grow. However, while the industrial production in the major countries and the volume of international trade are falling, for these countries also, a decrease is expected.

Unlike simple commodity production, a more rapid growth in the production of the means of production, compared to consumer goods, is a condition for expanded reproduction. But with the capitalist mode of production producing for an unknown market, with the sole purpose of obtaining profits, a consistent development of the two sectors is impossible and this is one of the factors that makes crises inevitable. In the last three years, as well as before, these two sectors have not developed consistently. In the first sector, demand has fallen, the volume of growth has fallen, stockpiles are accumulating and capacity utilization has fallen. In 2010 and 2011 the steel industry, an important component of the production of means of production, grew faster than the consumer goods sector. According to data from the World Steel Union, the growth rate in production was 15% in 2010 compared to the previous year, but in 2011 the figure fell to 6.2%. In January raw steel production saw a sharp drop to 8%, and it has stayed at 0.8% in the period from January to May of 2012. In August of 2012 raw steel production fell 1% in relation to 2011. In the same period, raw steel production rose 3.3% in Japan (a significant increase if one takes into account the major fall due to the tsunami) and 2.6% in India. It has fallen by 1.7% in China, 3.8% in the U.S., 4.4% in the EU, 7.1% in Germany, 15.5% in Italy and 3.8% in the Confederation of Independent States (CIS). The iron stockpiles in Chinese ports reached 98.15 million tons (an increase of 2.9%) belonging to the steel complexes. And stockpiles of Chinese coal are at their highest level in the last three years.

In manufacturing, a very important element of the production of the means of production, production and demand have declined in many countries. This decline has been one of the reasons for the cooling of industrial production in Germany, for example. In the capitalist mode of production, the agricultural sector, by its level of development and its technical basis, is always behind industry. Agricultural production is largely affected by the natural conditions, climate changes, droughts, storms and other natural catastrophes. Agricultural production is increasingly under the control of the monopolies and the speculative maneuvers of finance capital. In 2010 world agricultural production, including the production of cereals, has shrunk due to various factors such as bad weather or the expansion of plots reserved for bio-fuel production. On the other hand, in 2011, agricultural production has progressed thanks to better weather conditions, and also to increased demand and higher prices due to speculation. For example, wheat production increased by about 6%.

In 2009 the volume of world trade has declined 12.7%. According to data from the World Trade Organization (WTO), that volume registered a growth of 13.8% in 2010, and only 5% in 2011 (according to figures from the CPL, the growth was 15.2% in 2010, and 5.8% in 2011). The volume of world trade has grown by 0.5% in the final quarter of last year, and by 0.9% and 0.5% in the first and second quarter of 2012 respectively. During the first two months of the third quarter (June and July), the volume of world trade recorded a negative growth of -1.5% and -0.2% compared to the previous months.

World industrial production reached and surpassed the pre-crisis level of 2008, in June 2010, while the volume of international trade did not surpass this until November 2011. If we compare the data of July 2012 with the level reached before the crisis of 2008 (that is, April 2008), we see an increase of 9.5% in world industrial production and an increase of 5% in the total volume of growth in world trade.

The data on the increase of the volume of world trade is one of the most important that shows an evolutionary trend, although it does not exactly reflect the volume of growth of world trade. These data show that for the last three years, the world capitalist production has increased rapidly and that the capitalist world is once again facing the problem of overproduction, which is the source of all its crises. Decreased production, closing or reduction in work capacity of enterprises, rising unemployment and poverty; needs in abundance and the restriction of markets are the inevitable consequences of overproduction. The sharp slowdown in world industrial production has been shown above. The events in North Africa and the austerity measures taken in countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc., are factors that are aggravating this process and its consequences.

Towards a New Financial Crisis

The crisis of 2008 broke out as a financial crisis, at the same time as the crisis deepened in other sectors, such as industry and trade, it developed with contacts in the finance sector with serious consequences for the following period. The most destructive consequences for the monopolies and the eventual collapse of the financial sector were avoided by transferring of billions of dollars into the coffers of the monopolies by the capitalist States. This rescue operation was only possible by accepting a debt to financial markets with very high interest rates, and the issuance of money into the markets. The end result is an extreme State debt, an increase in the debt and interest burden, a rise in the price of gold and the loss of value (devaluation) of almost all currencies.

Countries at different levels have entered a vicious circle that has elements of new currency and financial crises, in which they can finance their budget deficit, their debts and interests, having to borrow again. The capitalist world began a period of growth starting in the second quarter of 2009, with the weight inherited from the 2008 crisis. However, this period of growth has enabled recipient countries to breathe a little, turn the wheel that was on the verge of suffocating them. The growth of the world economy stopped and even lowered the price of gold for a moment. In some countries, such as China that had a significant growth rate, the ratio of the public debt to GDP decreased. But in other countries, such as Japan and the U.S., a substantial debt has continued, even during the period of growth of the capitalist world economy. The U.S. public debt represents the sum of $16 billion (the debt of Germany, which grew until the second half of this year, is 8 billion). Other capitalist countries are in a similar situation. The increasing debt is almost the condition of financial sustainability and economic growth. And this is the path that is leading directly to a new financial crisis that may profoundly affect all sectors of the economy.

The highly indebted countries have not been able to achieve a period of growth after the financial crisis and the fall in world industrial production that took place between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009; this period has led to a financial crisis that has affected the other sectors of the economy that has led them to bankruptcy. The first example of this process was in Greece, where the weakness was such that the industry, very weak, was largely liquidated when it joined the EU. After the 2008 crisis, in 2009, the economy of this country did not grow, and by the end of the year it was on the verge of bankruptcy. This country, followed by others such as Portugal, Spain, Hungary, etc., has not been able to get out of the crisis and stagnation. However, important differences should be noted in its debt in relation to the GDP.

Austerity measures never seen before, except in times of war or crisis as deep as 1929, have been imposed on the indebted countries. The result of these measures has been to impoverish the people, destroy the economy and reduce the internal market and foreign trade. These austerity plans have been applied (despite the opposition and struggle of the working class and peoples) under the control of the creditor imperialist powers, the international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and European Union, and above all with the support of the collaborator monopoly bourgeoisie and its representatives, these enemies of the people. They have transferred billions of dollars to foreign banks, completely betraying the national interests. The national pride of the people, their right to sovereignty and independence have been trampled upon. A country like Britain that had a strong financial sector, but since mid-2011 has seen its industrial production and its economy reduced, has been forced to march along with the countries implementing austerity measures.

The significant decrease in the volume of growth of world industrial production, which began in the second quarter of 2011, is developing the elements of a new international financial crisis and is contributing to the degradation of the situation of the highly indebted countries. They failed to enter a period of growth parallel to the process of growth of the world capitalist economy following the crisis of 2008-2009. While the debate over the future of the Euro and the European Union is sharpening, the communiqués on the economic trends of the advanced capitalist countries and the indebted countries have sown confusion in the stock markets, barometers of the capitalist economy. Although world industrial and agricultural production and the volume of international -trade have exceeded the highest level before the crisis of 2008, the indices of the most influential stock markets remain below that level.

Although we are not yet experiencing the outbreak of a financial crisis of major proportions, everything makes it appear that the process is advancing towards such an eventuality. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (FED) has announced that it will not raise interest rates and that it will start a process of purchasing bonds for an amount of $2,000 billion dollars, at the rate of $40 billion per month. Japan has announced a similar measure and has begun a program of buying bonds to the tune of $695 billion.

Germany has had to relax its rigid policy towards the indebted countries and the European fund for the intervention in countries facing difficulties has increased. China, along with measures of revival that it has already applied, announced a new investment package to renovate its infrastructure. The price of gold is rising again. In 2008, the intense intervention of the capitalist States began after the outbreak of the crisis. Now, however, the capitalist States have gone into action before the shocks and bankruptcies at the same level as in 2008 start in the major capitalist countries and worldwide. However, these interventions, which can have some influence on the process of development, cannot change the orientation and the inevitable outcome.

The Sharpening of the Inter-Imperialist Contradictions and the Growing Danger of Conflicts

Uneven, unbalanced development is the absolute law of capitalist development. This process after the crisis of 2008 was not balanced, it deepened the antagonistic contradictions in the evolution and development of the relations between sectors, countries, regions, production and markets, etc. The industrial production of the advanced capitalist countries, including the U.S. and Japan, except Germany (ignoring the high level of 2008), did not reach the level of 2005. Germany, which has exceeded the pre-crisis level and has had a growth in industrial production of 11.5% in 2010 and 9% in 2011, has consolidated its position within the European Union and the Euro zone. Without separating itself from the bloc led by the United States, it has penetrated into new markets, new fields of investment, sources of raw materials, basing itself on its economic and financial strength, and above all, on its technical superiority in the industry of machine construction.

As in previous years, China, both because of its industrial production and its economy in general, was the country that had the most significant growth among major economies. It has modernized and increased the technical basis of its industry, and it continues to reduce the difference in its level of development with the other imperialist powers. Russia is going through a similar process. For the United States and its allies, these two countries, one considered as a vast market and production area with a trained and cheap work force, and the other a solid country, appear today as their main rivals to fight against.

The inevitable result of the change in the balance of power is the great demand for a piece of the pie by the emerging forces, using all means to get it and a new redivision of the world according the new balance of power. The recent development of the world economy is another factor that exacerbates the contradictions and the struggles among the major imperialist powers. Last year in the Middle East, in Africa and the whole world, the rivalry and struggle to expand their sphere of influence has accelerated. The production of weapons, the arms race is intensifying. China and Russia have renewed the technical basis of their arms industry. According to a report by the Congress of the United States, arms sales by these countries have tripled in 2011.

China, which increasingly needs more raw materials, energy and fields of investment for its growing economy, and Russia, which is slowly recovering, are intensifying their expansionist desires and their efforts to get their piece of the pie. Therefore, it is a top priority for the U.S. and its allies to prevent China, a young imperialist power in full development, and Russia, from achieving new markets in the field of energy and raw materials. When the Obama administration states that beginning next year the priority strategic objective for the United States will be Asia, and that the deployment of the U.S. military will be renewed according to the new situation, this is merely affirming that reality. The crisis of the archipelagos shows the level of tension between Japan and China; Japan has declared its intention to improve its military capability. The military maneuvers in the region have intensified.

The consequences of the change in the balance of power in the world have been clearly visible since last year. Russia and China were forced to accept Western imperialist intervention in Libya, even though that intervention was contrary to their interests. The intervention ended with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, the near collapse of the country, the destruction of its economy, the degradation of working and living conditions, the transfer of the country’s wealth into the hands of the Western imperialist States, etc. Russia and China lost a good part of their positions, including their oil agreements. After the fall of the Gaddafi regime, Mali has been dragged into war and divided. But the main objective is Syria. The attempts by the Western imperialist powers to topple the Syrian regime and put in a puppet government to fully control the country are intensifying. The United States and its allies have mobilized all their forces within Syria and outside of it in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They are stirring up the religious contradictions, they use and manipulate the popular discontent towards the regime and they try to prepare the ground for a military intervention as in Libya. Meanwhile Russia is arming Syria, strengthening its military base located in that country and sending more warships to the Mediterranean.

To bring down the Syrian regime, put in place a puppet government, dominate the oil-rich Middle East, control the eastern Mediterranean, block the expansion of China and Russia in the region and expel them as they did in Libya, to encircle Iran, weaken its influence and liquidate its closest allies, are very important objectives. Syria is the only country in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean where Russia has a military base. This small country has become a place of intense struggle between Russia and China on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. The Middle East is a powder keg on the verge of religious conflicts.

Contrary to what they did in Libya, Russia and China are opposing a military intervention that would alter the balance in the Middle East and result in the domination of the United States and its allies over Syria. But they have left the door open for a possible compromise that would guarantee their interests and renew the Syrian regime which is having more and more difficulties to survive.

As the case of Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Ivory Coast and Libya show, the imperialist interventions that have had the support of the liberal “defenders” of freedom and democracy, of the pseudo-socialist parties that emerged from the former revisionist parties, have resulted in increased military budgets at the expense of the workers, in the destruction of the productive forces of those countries, in many disasters, the impoverishment and decline in all social aspects. The aspiration of the peoples for the right to sovereignty and national independence, democracy and freedom has never been the concern of the occupiers. Their objective was to further prolong their system maintained by the defeat inflicted on the working class in the middle of the last century, a defeat that guaranteed their super-profits, the expansion of their spheres of influence and the weakening of their rivals. The imperialist powers, which are using all means to achieve this goal, do not lack in demagoguery and low maneuvers to disorient the people’s anger.

Now a period of sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions is beginning, which economic-financial and political-military interventions will multiply. It is increasingly important to fight against such intervention, to develop the united fight of the workers and peoples, in both the advanced and backward countries,.

Organize the Resistance of the Workers in the New Stormy Period

The army of unemployed is growing on the world level, especially in countries in total-debt crisis, in the countries in which the economy is declining, stagnating or is in crisis. In Greece and Spain, unemployment has reached 25%. In these countries, unemployment among the youths, including college graduates, reached 50%. In the Euro zone in the second quarter of 2012, the level of unemployment reached 11.2%, according to official figures. In countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, where manufacturing has fallen from 9.6% to 7.5% in the first quarter of this year (2012), the number of unemployed continues to grow. In South Africa, the most developed country on the continent, the unemployment rate exceeds 25%.

In the current period, in almost all fields, from education to health care, drastic measures have been taken, the retirement age has been delayed and pensions have fallen. The gains of the working class worldwide are targeted for cuts or elimination. While direct taxes on the workers are increasing, no measures are taken to disturb the local and international monopolies, when even within the framework of this system one could increase taxes on the banks and the local and foreign monopolies. Wages continue to fall, etc. Many countries are suffering from a process of absolute impoverishment.

In recent years practices have been imposed worldwide such as sub-contracting labor, precarious and part-time work, an increase in the age for retirement, etc. In Germany, for example, one of the most developed countries in the world that has had significant growth rates in industrial production, according to the Federal Administration of Statistics, 15.6% of the population lives below the poverty line, a figure that rises to 26% among the immigrant population.

Last year, on a world scale and in each country, the workers and peoples movement has developed with various demands, in different forms and also at different levels. The struggles carried out in those countries with a “debt crisis” have been outstanding for their broad social base, for their responses and the experiences gained. The miners’ strike in South Africa, the youth movement and the strikes in Chile, the popular movements in Tunisia and Egypt, etc. are powerful examples of the workers and peoples struggles.

Starting with Greece, Spain and Italy, in various countries with a “debt crisis,” strikes, general strikes and huge demonstrations have taken place. In Greece and Spain, hundreds of thousands of people have expressed their anger in front of the parliaments on the days when these were voting for austerity measures. But the workers and peoples movement, despite some more advanced attempts, has remained within the framework of peaceful demonstrations, general strikes of one or two days and limited resistance. The strikes of long duration, the resistance or occupation of factories, have been limited to one enterprise or one sector.

The austerity measures have affected not only the proletariat and semi-proletarian masses of the cities and countryside; they have also affected the petty bourgeoisie and non-monopoly bourgeois strata. Even the less dynamic strata, the traditional base of the bourgeois parties, have been mobilized given the current situation. The social base of the struggle against the bourgeoisie in Power and against imperialism has expanded, to the point where in some dependent countries the mobilization has taken the character of a movement of the whole nation, except for a handful of monopolists. The conditions are maturing for the working class and its revolutionary parties, as representatives and the vanguard of the nation, to decide to organize and advance the movement and the united front of the people.

But despite the great movement, the groups of international finance capital and the local monopoly bourgeoisies have not given in (except in the recent delay of the austerity measures in Portugal). They have decided to implement these measures even at the cost of demeaning the image of the parliaments and weakening their social base. However, the masses are realizing through their own experience the impossibility of repelling the attacks with one or two day strikes or through peaceful demonstrations. Sharper forms of struggle and unlimited general strike are beginning to be considered by the more advanced strata.

It is clear that the bourgeoisie in Power, with their hostile character towards the people, is assuming a position of national betrayal. The traditional parties of the bourgeoisie and parliaments have lost credibility and the mass support for those parties is weakening (especially toward those in government that are implementing austerity measures). The social basis of monopoly capital is weakening. Among the masses who have felt their national pride hurt by the imperialists, the discontent, anger and will to struggle against the major imperialist powers, beginning with the United States and Germany, against institutions like the IMF or the EU, and against the local monopoly bourgeoisie that is collaborating with them, is developing.

The trade union bureaucracy and reformist parties and social trends are following a backward line of “least resistance,” not only in their forms of organization and struggle, but also at the level of political demands and platform. Clearly, this attitude is contributing to weakening their influence among the workers. The attacks and harshness of the social conditions are also affecting the lower strata of the labor bureaucracy and aristocracy and are sharpening the contradictions within their ranks.

The struggles in the countries with “debt crisis” are being developed on a program of protest against the bourgeois governments and parties, against institutions such as the IMF and the EU that are imposing draconian measures and they are demanding their withdrawal. At first this was natural and understandable in the context of a spontaneous movement. But the inability to go beyond those narrow limits is one of the major weaknesses of the movement. This weakness can be overcome with the work of agitation that shows the masses the way out of this difficult situation in which the people and the country find themselves, denouncing the social forces that are an obstacle to that way out. This work of agitation is reinforced by putting forward appropriate demands, slogans and forms of struggle among the masses.

Especially in Greece, certain small groups (that also have weaknesses) have proposed relatively advanced demands and platforms. But the forces capable of influencing the movement are not even concerned with organizing the work necessary to promote the fight on all fronts. The absence or great weakness of a revolutionary class party, has been felt strongly, as it cannot influence the movement.

Linked to the evolution of the world economy, the period that is beginning will be one of further degradation of the living and working conditions for the workers and peoples, a period of intense economic and political attacks, of discontent, anger and militancy among workers, as well as sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions and conflicts. We must draw lessons and conclusions from the recent developments and the historical experience of the working class and peoples; we must advance, renewing our work and reorganizing our parties.

Tunisia, November 2012

Source

Tunisia’s ‘unfinished revolution’ — interview with Workers’ Party militant

By Peter Boyle

November 16, 2012 – Green Left Weekly – Abdel Jabbar Madouri (pictured above) has been a militant in Tunisia since his early secondary school days. He was jailed three times (in 1987,1993 and 2002) because of his political activism. After every arrest, he was tortured and then sentenced to more then 12 years in jail. Madouri spent four years in hiding during the Ben Ali regime. He was also deprived of the right to work or to obtain a passport.

Madouri is also novelist and member of the League of Free Writers and some of his novels were banned by the dictatorship. Today he is member of the national committee of the Tunisian Worker’s Party and is editor of its newspaper Sawt Echaab(People’s Voice).

Green Left Weekly interviewed Madouri by internet with with the assistance of and translation from Arabic by Tunisian journalist Haithem Mahjoubi.

* * *

The sacrifice of the young Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi opened a new wave of popular revolt across the Arabic countries and beyond to Spain and eventually the whole world through the Occupy movement. But how much has been gained by the revolution in Tunisia? Is the democratic space still opening up?

We can say that this revolution has achieved certain aims such as the abolition of the ex-ruling party (though elements of it still operate freely but with little public support), freedom of expression and media and also the dissolution of the hated secret police, if only in a formal way.

The revolution also achieved for the first time a democratic election despite some failures and lack of transparency and equal opportunity in the election campaigns. The election of the constituent assembly was one of the goals that people fought to achieve, unfortunately, the Islamic Ennahdha coalition exploited the revolution win a majority in those elections.

Many of the tasks of the revolution remain unfinished because of the strength of the forces of counter revolution seeking to circumvent the revolution. Among these unfinished tasks are the enforcement of accountability; an investigation and end to corruption in government institutions; a purge state agencies, bringing those responsible to account for crimes against the people – especially putting on trial those who murdered the martyrs of the struggle – and redress for their victims.

What has been achieved by the one-year-old Constituent Assembly? And did the workers’ movement and the left have much input into its decisions?

More then a year after the election, the Constituent Assembly has still not drafted laws that reflecting the demands of the revolution. With the majority of assembly members, of representatives, Ennahdha is able to pass laws for its own benefit. This has made it clear to the people that this is no revolutionary government but a government of a new dictatorship working against the completion of the tasks of the revolution.

The people’s rejection of this government can be seen in the growing demonstrations and sit-ins in public squares and in the streets in front of government offices.

So the revolutionary process is moving slowly along with the transitional to equality.

Amnesty International says there have been some reversals of the democratisation. Protesters, activists and journalists have been attacked. What is the situation for freedom of political expression and organisation?

The Ennahda government has used the Islamic fundamentalist Salafist militias to attack independent journalists so that it dominate public media and put its loyal supporters and allies in charge of the main media institutions. It has refused to put to into practice laws guaranteeing media freedom and establishing an independent commission for information.

So, journalists are still fighting for independence and freedom.

What is the state of the trade union movement? How strong is your party in the trade union movement? Is there a problem with corruption and co-option of trade union leaders by the capitalist parties and the state?

The General Union of Tunisian Workers (UGTT) is the biggest union in Tunisia. The UGTT has been organised since 1952 and is playing a very important role in fighting the government’s plans.

It is true that this union suffered from corruption during the Ben Ali regime, but after the revolution it has regained its integrity, energy and a leading role social and political struggles in cooperation all with other popular organisations.

The Worker’s Party is is very strong in the UGTT. The trade union movement is working with the newly formed Popular Front, which was launched in October by 12 political parties that are all active in the UGTT.

The constituent parties of the Popular Front are left-wing parties and progressive nationalists that participated in the revolution and suffered repression under former dictatorship.

The Popular Front is the now largest political force apart from the ruling Ennahda and the “Tunisia Appeal” party, which represents the remnants of the old regime.

How much danger does Tunisia face from the religious fundamentalists?

Islamic fundamentalism remains part of the political landscape of Tunisia and occasionally expresses itself through attacks on bars, artists and police. Some fundamentalists have been killed in clashes with the police.

But the popular resistance has led to the isolation and decline of the influence of the fundamentalists. The recent manifestations of Salafist violence is due to growing government complicity with these groups.

There have been some recent significant strikes in Tunisia. Can you explain what this was about?

We’ve been organising several workers’ campaigns to claim three main things. First, the passing and implementation of the laws to regulate working conditions which remain precarious for most workers. Second, wage increases to keep up with the rising cost of living and better working conditions, especially working hours and occupational safety. Third, regulation of employment and dismissal of workers in public institutions.

Can you explain the recent protests about women’s rights in Tunisia?

Since it came to power the current government has tried to circumvent the demand for women’s rights, especially in relation to polygamy, the regulation of the minimum age of marriage and gender equality in rights and duties. But its attempts have failed because of the resistance from civil society, including the women’s associations which are very strongly engaged. Still the struggle women’s rights in Tunisia remains strong challenge.

Will the elections promised for June 2013 satisfy the popular will in Tunisia? How well do you expect the left to do in this elections? What are the prospects of a new revolutionary upsurge?

The revolutionary forces are aiming to be influential in next June’s election and to use these elections as an opportunity to achieve the demands for which the people revolted.

Our most important goal is providing employment, freedom and ending our country’s dependency on the great imperialist powers.

It is certain that the left led by the Popular Front will be active and influential in this election. According the last opinion poll, the Workers Party had 6% of the vote and is in the fourth place. But it is expected that the Popular Front would get more than 15% of the vote in the coming elections.

Because of the deterioration of the living conditions of the Tunisian people and the government’s inability to deal with these situations, a second revolution in Tunisia is also expected. The Popular Front is ready for this eventuality and prepared to lead such a revolution to achieve its goals.

What is your party’s view of the developments in Libya and Syria? Are the imperialist powers beginning to successfully manipulate the “Arab Spring”?

The imperialist powers are collaboration with reactionary regimes in the Arabic region especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia and they have succeeded in thwarting revolution in Syria by converting it from a popular uprising to a devastating and dirty civil war.

In Libya, the situation looks somewhat different, especially since the Libyans began rebuilding state institutions. But the Libyan revolution needs to make a lot more struggle to achieve Libyan people’s demands.

The imperialist powers are working hard to control the situation in the countries of the so-called “Arab spring” so they are aiming to find help customers in the area especially after the coming to power of Islamist parties in Tunisia and Egypt and their collaboration with the imperialist-Zionist agenda. In the other side, there are the ongoing revolutionary processes and the parties that lead them in both these countries.

Source

Review of “Animal Farm” (1954 & 1999 Films)

Introduction

Hailed by capitalist literary critics, Trotskyites and anarchists as a masterpiece, the mediocre book Animal Farm has served a very important role in distorting the history of socialism in the Soviet Union. Modern editions of the book hail author George Orwell’s selfless journalistic integrity in producing the work, which is said to be a totally accurate portrayal of life under socialism.

But a close examination tells differently. Especially important in understanding the true reason Animal Farm is still crammed down the throats of the public are the two film versions of Animal Farm.

“The CIA obtained the film rights to “Animal Farm” from Orwell’s widow, Sonia, after his death and covertly funded the production as anti-Communist propaganda. Some sources assert that the ending of the story was altered by the CIA (in the book, the pigs and humans join forces) to press home their message[.]” [1].

The CIA agent Howard Hunt, who bought the film rights, also helped set up production of the 1984 movie, which also changed the ending of the original book to be more anti-communist.

“The head of the CIA operation to obtain the film rights was none other than E. Howard Hunt, later famous as Nixon’s Watergate burglar. As part of the deal, Sonia Orwell requested that she get to meet her idol, Clark Gable; this was arranged. A large portion of the budget ($300,000 out of a cost of over $500,000) was supplied by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Policy Coordination, through one of its shell corporations, Touchstone Inc” [2].

Animal Farm has become a classic of capitalist propaganda. First published during World War II, it conveniently packages decades’ worth of lies about socialism in the U.S.S.R., and more specifically the leadership of Joseph Stalin, into an easy-to-understand book small enough to fit in your pocket. Animal Farm is supposed to be a classic satire and critique of socialism; however, George Orwell never went to the U.S.S.R., and received all the information he knew from anti-communists. The book is not journalism at all, and should not be considered the be-all end-all of learning about Soviet socialism.

Plot Summery

The original book and the two films have roughly the same basic plot. Subtitled “a political fable,” Animal Farm tells the tale of the poor and ill-run Manor Farm, managed by the drunken farmer Jones, who abuses the animals. The neglected creatures are called to a meeting by a wise old pig named Old Major, who tells them that if they will rise up together, they can overthrow Jones and create a new world where all animals will be free and equal. Led by a clever pig named Snowball, the beasts run Jones off the farm and take all his property for themselves, proudly renaming the plot Animal Farm.

Conditions improve at first, but the pigs (smartest of the animals) begin to keep certain luxuries, like apples, for themselves. The greedy and mediocre pig Napoleon uses a gang of trained dogs he has brainwashed to run Snowball off the farm and institute a new, terrifying society not at all like the one envisaged by Old Major. Life for the pigs gets better and better, but the other animals are murdered and starved and battered into an oppression worse and more horrifying than existed when Jones ran the farm.

Orwell made no attempt at subtlety – even children can see without much difficulty that Animal Farm is a crude metaphor for the Soviet Union – Napoleon is Stalin, and Snowball is Stalin’s rival Leon Trotsky, who was justly exiled from the U.S.S.R. in the mid 1920s.

Review of Both Films

The first of the two films based on the book, released in 1954 and made possible by funding from the notorious American Central Intelligence Agency, is a dark and gloomy cartoon that, true to the book, paints a disgusting picture of Animal Farm and the struggle between the white pig Snowball and the black and conniving Napoleon.

The second film, released in 1999 and produced by Hallmark, is a live action film boasting a cast of stars including Patrick Stewart, Seinfeld’s Julia-Louis Dreyfus and Fraiser’s Kelsey Grammer. Both of these films have been made easily available to anyone with a computer, with the first film streaming for free on Hulu and the second on services like Netflix and YouTube.

What makes these films important is the way they deviate from Orwell’s book, especially when it comes to the endings. In his original work, Orwell closes the novel with a scene in which the animals realize that they are no longer able to tell their bloated pig leaders from the human farmers who oppressed them. It is a closing of cynical misery, driving home Orwell’s anti-revolutionary idea that any attempt by the workers to create a better world for themselves would only end in the same kind of tyranny they overthrew.

But both of the films go a step further. The 1954 animated ends quite differently than the book. The mistreated animals from many farms join together and, instead of attacking their human owners, march defiantly to Animal Farm and kill Napoleon. We must bear in mind who it was that funded this change – the CIA. The message is simple, and directed at the Soviet peoples – “Not only is your new government atrocious, you can and must overthrow it now!” The CIA, of course, was ever working for this to happen, but failed miserably during the Soviet Union’s time as a socialist country.

The 1999 live action version was made decades after the Stalin era, and does not bother leaving the plot and end open to interpretation. In the ending sequence, in a clumsy attempt to be poetic, a heavy rain “washes away” Napoleon’s government, the animals welcome a loving new human family to the farm to boss them about, command them, consume them and exploit them. The film closes with a shot of the sickeningly stereotypical family driving up to what was once Animal Farm, their smiles suggesting that the problem all along was just that Jones was a bad owner. All the animals really needed was to be owned and exploited by a family more like the Cleavers.

In these films, the biased and deceitful nature of Animal Farm is laid bare. Going a step further than the slanders of Orwell’s book, they openly call for violent counterrevolution in the Soviet Union.

Conclusion

The films themselves – taken as art – are as bad as their message. It is a real chore to sit through the creepy “Dr. Dolittle” talking animals of the 1999 Hallmark film or the poorly animated and clumsily sinister tone of the 1954 release. The dialogue is absolutely painful, and the voice performances, even Patrick Stewart as Napoleon, are phoned-in and uninspired.

The artistic elements are secondary, both for us and for the people who made them. What is important to understand about films like Animal Farm is why they are made – for propaganda. Both films, as well as the original book, have no appeal as art whatsoever other than their obvious metaphor for the Soviet Union. Without that, the films are hollow.

The pseudo-history of the U.S.S.R. presented in Animal Farm is junk, but we are pushed to accept it as fact. Many people do, since Animal Farm is a fictional work, there is no need for citations and it can be difficult for the defenders of socialism to argue against its more specific, ludicrous claims because they are hidden within a fairy tale. Worst yet, many people accept the attitude of Animal Farm, believing like the film’s donkey Benjamin that no matter what they do or how hard they fight, things will only end up worse than before.

The two Animal Farm films are worth seeing only as a way to get to know what you’re up against and as a great glimpse into how the capitalist media uses popular culture to promote its ideological objectives. But as films in their own right, they are contrived and soulless. Anyone looking for a good film to relax with for an hour or so should look elsewhere.

Sources

(1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047834/trivia

(2) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800-02.htm

Source

ICMLPO: On the General Elections (Spain)

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)

Communiqué

In yesterday’s general elections, the strong turn to the right in the institutions that began on May 22 has been consolidated. The PP [Popular Party] achieved a comfortable absolute majority that, together with its control of City Councils and Autonomous Regions, will allow it to govern with an iron hand during the hard times to come.

The PSOE [Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party] with 110 seats has achieved the worse result in its recent history: a well-deserved punishment, inasmuch as its anti-popular and reactionary policy has been the key that has opened the door to the right, just as in his day Felipe Gonzalez and his government team did. On both occasions, right-wing social democracy has imposed a neoliberal and reactionary policy, leading to the harshest attacks against the labor, social and political rights of the workers majority; the latest attack: the reform of the monarchic Constitution, agreed on with the PP.

The United Left, in spite of the euphoria of its leaders, has not added anything close to the votes lost by the PSOE (an important part of these more than four million votes has gone to the UPyD [Union, Progress and Democracy], a dangerous reactionary force, which preaches a populist discourse) and is almost a million lower than its best result.

The abstention, which has grown more than 30% in the last fifteen years until it has now surpassed 9.5 million, has become the second highest electoral choice. Due to the lack of a well-known (and recognizable) reference, the left voters have abstained massively, also on this occasion.

The only exception was Amaiur, the coalition between Bildu and Aralar, which has been reinforced as the first electoral force in the Basque Country, achieving 7 deputies, which allows them to form a parliamentary group. And thus, the Abertzale forces have always maintained their political coherence. The success of Amaiur is the result of not yielding to the continuous pressure and threats of the regime; thus one cannot rule out a scenario like one in which the forces of the Spanish chauvinism of the Jose Antonio type want to deepen their policy of systematic negation of the political rights of such an important part of Basque citizens. We must be alert.

This is nothing new. The institutional map, as we pointed out in our analysis of the elections for the municipalities and autonomous regions, does not allow for soothing stories. The electorate has clearly moved to the right, while the left mainly continues to be divided and obstinate in continuing to respect the rules of game established during the transition.

This sweeping victory of a reactionary force replete with elements nostalgic for the Franco era and corrupt politicians may seem strange, at times like the present, on which the oligarchy is fighting to increase its attack against the popular classes. But the PP has not won due to its own merits. The new treason perpetrated by a “social-democratic” government has led many citizens to seek revenge with a massive punishment vote by looking towards the only force with the possibility of winning a majority. The recourse to the useful vote that the institutional left espouses to win the support of its voters has ended up turning against it.

Of course this is not encouraging news. The masses continue to be disoriented, their rejection of politics and politicians prevails, a visceral attitude that does not augur anything good.

We are now experiencing the consequences of the treason of the docile left, its systematic rejection of the social movements, its imposition of forgetting history and apoliticism, as instruments to guarantee the acceptance of a regime with phony democratic glitter, in which its representatives in the main institutions have acted in their immense majority of allies of consensus, carrying out a pragmatic and short-sighted policy, on the back of the needs and priorities of the people. The consequences of an anti-democratic electoral law, custom made – to guarantee control of the institutions by the most docile forces that accept the political framework of the monarchy.

The oligarchy seems to be afraid to exhaust the popular expectations too quickly, that the depth of the crisis and the brutality of the measures that they are going to apply will end up completely unmasking the regime and open up a period of social conflict that will drift into a more general confrontation; fear that in the class struggle that is sharpening, the popular camp will end up uniting its forces to respond politically in a fight that will finally overcome big capital.

But, in spite of the “conciliator” tone of Rajoy [leader of the PP and Prime Minister elect – translator’s note] in his first public address, nobody should expect a lull in the attacks. The speed will be determined by what fits the markets and its lackeys. But reality is stubborn and in the next months we will see how Rajoy and his team will deepen the policy of privatization and dismantling the social and political rights begun by Zapatero.

No one should have any doubt that, if they need to, the social liberal leaders will offer to reinforce their State policy. There are no essential contradictions in the reactionary camp: just as they united their forces to impose the reform of the Constitution, they will impose the orders they receive from those who really set the political agenda: the imperialist bourgeoisie.

After learning the result, Cayo Lara [leader of the United Left – translator’s note] declared that its parliamentary group will be spokespersons in Parliament for the fights in the street. We hope and trust that it will be so. The United Left cannot try to dominate the left, it cannot continue refusing to seek unity with other forces in a common program, nor can it persist in claiming that the main problem that the left has faced in these elections is an electoral law that punishes them compared to other forces with a smaller vote.

It is true that the perverse existing electoral law harms them in an inadmissible way, but the deep causes of the indifference of the popular classes with the left must be seen beyond that, in the fact that it lacks its own approach, independent and confronting the monarchic regime, which has conditioned (and it continues doing so) its policy in the institutions.

The left must draw a single and evident conclusion: it is more necessary than ever to advance towards unity. Not any kind of unity, but one that is based on a clear and forceful position of rejection of the regime, by an genuinely democratic framework and, thus, a republican one. To continue to fight dispersed, or even worse, serving as allies of liberal social leaders who have proven time and again that, in their commitment to the oligarchy, they are prepared to sacrifice their own political expectations, as Zapatero showed in his public statement on the electoral result, would be suicidal.

To start on the road to consistent unity of the left, the Republicans have been born, a federation that our Party fully supports and that, despite all the obstacles and pitfalls, has presented candidates in eight electoral districts and developed organizational nuclei in many provinces.

Since its first Assembly, held last October 1, the Republicans have insisted that their objective went beyond elections and made clear that their expectations of it were very limited. The result, however, has been hopeful; the electoral battle has allowed it to begin to launch an organization that is prepared to call its next assembly with the participation of the newly arisen nuclei.

Very harsh months are coming. The European Union of capital and war is taking steps to put an end to any remaining sovereignty of the member States. They demand total submission of all the States to the dictates of the central oligarchy: in Italy they have imposed a government of “technocrats” committed to big capital; in Greece a “government of national unity” in which, together with the social liberals and the rightists of New Democracy, the extreme right is taking part. In Spain, where the economic crisis is very far from touching bottom, the victory of the right, the dispersion of the left and disenchantment of the social majority threatens to generate an explosive situation. We are entering a period in which days can seem like years, with constant changes. The political image arisen from the elections of November 10 will not last long.

November 21, 2011

Secretariat of the Central Committee of the PCE (ML)

Source

PCMLE: 2011 – A Year of Youth Mobilization & Struggle

En Marcha, January 5, 2012

The crisis of capitalism and its effects on the world worsened in the 2011, the demonstrations, protests and launched shots of places young people and made them key players in an intense struggle against unpopular regimes and policies demanding democracy, freedom and better living conditions.

The first country to move was Tunisia, which together with the leftist movement led to the overthrow of dictator Ben Ali Zine el Abidinee, for the January 14 fight was the center of Egypt against Mubarak’s government, who left office in spite of the help they received from U.S. imperialism, under pressure from workers, youth and workers in the streets demanding his departure.

As a Sunday May 15 young men called themselves the “outraged” completely filled Puerta del Sol in Spain and 150 seats, meeting under the cry of “real democracy now.” Despite trying to be evicted by the police, the youth confessed to have no more fear, “The voice of the people is not illegal,” shouted the protesters after hearing this news. They realized that failure is not the economy, is not corruption, is the capitalist system that unleashes the infamous dictatorship download the crisis on the shoulders of the people sparking outrage in Spain.

Education was the right on to South America, high school students in Argentina were the first at the Southern Cone ignited massive mobilizations in Buenos Aries expanding to the rest of the country, they ceased not put on alert the government of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The Chile government repression stirred the minds of students and workers who were brutally suppressed, the style Pinochet, the student movement called for a national day of action twice for 18 and 19 October, and demonstrated in different cities, to demand a free, quality education, looking at new measures as “cacerolazo” already reaching 7 months of continuous protest.

By September hundreds of young Americans filled the area of​Trinity Place in New York, meeting under the slogans “Enough of corruption,” “curb cuts” and “do not market our future.” Despite the police evicted the outskirts of the Wall Street Center. There is no force to press the voice of young people and so many fans of all ages acted on behalf of “a new society that gives priority to people over the economic and political interests.”

The youth became in 2011 an example of combat. Threats and other attacks on freedom not undermined the rebellious spirit of youth, much less have failed to intimidate his liberating power. Spain, Greece, Libya, England, Chile and the U.S. were built and continue to ignite the flame of youth protest and the workers and peoples and give added strength to continue fighting for higher wins.

Source

Turkey: Sixth Congress of the Labour Party (EMEP) Resolution

We support people who have rebelled for their rights and freedoms, condemn the imperialist conspiracies against Syria and Iran.

During 2011, the Arab peoples of North Africa and the Middle East have raised a after another. They did not want to be reported to the consequences of the hegemony of monopoly capitalism, nor voted on unemployment and poverty, and have rejected the repression of autocratic dictatorships that preserved this hegemony. The regimes despotic that lasted for 30 or 40 years have been the main reason for disorganization of the oppressed masses and have served as obstacles to the realization. The people who have raised have won some victories, but failed to collect the real fruits of their struggle, such as risucire to conquer their own political power. Therefore, the bourgeois reactionary forces backed by Western imperialism have maintained or are trying to maintain their hegemony, which has been questioned, strengthening their bases with new workers.

The Arab peoples that have been raised, have realized their potential and have tasted some victories, their struggles have not yet been crushed in any part, except Libya. Despite the low level of consciousness and organization, people have brought continue their uprising with an effort that aims to overcome the weaknesses, and continue to against the attacks of the reactionary forces that have reorganized especially through of political support, which has become a force moderate and pro-U.S. based in almost all countries.

We, the communist and workers parties and organizations have signed this document, meeting in VI Congress of the Workers’ Party of Turkey, we express our pride and solidarity with the mass struggles of the peoples, not only of the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East, but also of Europe, from Greece to Spain, Latin America, Venezuela and Ecuador, for the rights and social freedoms and national, as we proclaim our support for the Palestinian people’s just struggle against imperialism and Zionism in Israel.

Nevertheless, we are aware of the fact that our main weakness is the inadequate level of consciousness and organization of the peoples of the world, both during the uprisings in other processes. The imperialists and their accomplices take advantage of this weakness in their efforts to restore the decaying bases of their sovereignty and punish these struggles by ideological penetration and infiltration into the ranks of the people who claim to want to support, exploiting the struggle for their interests and by eliminating popular features.

The Western imperialism, which keeps the global hegemony in his hands and tries to strengthen its position in competition with the imperialist powers on the rise, not only aims to strengthen its hegemony in countries traditionally under its influence of suppressing popular struggles, but also attempts to establish its hegemony influencing people and their struggles, using them as levers to countries like Syria and Iran, which have not yet been subdued.

We do not support schemes and Assad | Ahmadinejad. However, we stress the fact that when the imperialist powers involved with the support of the reactionary forces of region such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in the name dell’apoggio the so-called “opposition” Syria and Iran under the pretext of fighting for “democracy” and “suppression of dictators, “these policies have nothing to do with rights to self-determination and their democratic aspirations and social. We oppose all actions imperialist – both economic and political and military – whatever their reason, they are desired by their accommodating staff or not, and condemn these policies only bring war, bloodshed and suffering.

We appeal to the peoples of the world, especially the peoples of Syria and Iran, to be in guard against the traps and imperialist interventions like those that occurred in Libya, show solidarity with the struggles of the peoples of the region and to support the fight against imperialism and the reactionary forces.

Ankara, December 2011

Communist Party of Albania
Communist Party of Benin
Workers’ Party of Belgium
New Cyprus Party
Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
Spanish Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)
Movement for the Reorganization of the Communist Party of Greece (1918-55)
Communist Party of Workers of Tunisia
Turkish Labour Party

Source

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) (PCE-ML): On the General Elections

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communiqué
On the General Elections

In yesterday’s general elections, the strong turn to the right in the institutions that began on May 22 has been consolidated. The PP [Popular Party] achieved a comfortable absolute majority that, together with its control of City Councils and Autonomous Regions, will allow it to govern with an iron hand during the hard times to come.

The PSOE [Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party] with 110 seats has achieved the worse result in its recent history: a well-deserved punishment, inasmuch as its anti-popular and reactionary policy has been the key that has opened the door to the right, just as in his day Felipe Gonzalez and his government team did. On both occasions, right-wing social democracy has imposed a neoliberal and reactionary policy, leading to the harshest attacks against the labor, social and political rights of the workers majority; the latest attack: the reform of the monarchic Constitution, agreed on with the PP.

The United Left, in spite of the euphoria of its leaders, has not added anything close to the votes lost by the PSOE (an important part of these more than four million votes has gone to the UPyD [Union, Progress and Democracy], a dangerous reactionary force, which preaches a populist discourse) and is almost a million lower than its best result.

The abstention, which has grown more than 30% in the last fifteen years until it has now surpassed 9.5 million, has become the second highest electoral choice. Due to the lack of a well-known (and recognizable) reference, the left voters have abstained massively, also on this occasion.

The only exception was Amaiur, the coalition between Bildu and Aralar, which has been reinforced as the first electoral force in the Basque Country, achieving 7 deputies, which allows them to form a parliamentary group. And thus, the Abertzale forces have always maintained their political coherence. The success of Amaiur is the result of not yielding to the continuous pressure and threats of the regime; thus one cannot rule out a scenario like one in which the forces of the Spanish chauvinism of the Jose Antonio type want to deepen their policy of systematic negation of the political rights of such an important part of Basque citizens. We must be alert.

This is nothing new. The institutional map, as we pointed out in our analysis of the elections for the municipalities and autonomous regions, does not allow for soothing stories. The electorate has clearly moved to the right, while the left mainly continues to be divided and obstinate in continuing to respect the rules of game established during the transition.

This sweeping victory of a reactionary force replete with elements nostalgic for the Franco era and corrupt politicians may seem strange, at times like the present, on which the oligarchy is fighting to increase its attack against the popular classes. But the PP has not won due to its own merits. The new treason perpetrated by a “social-democratic” government has led many citizens to seek revenge with a massive punishment vote by looking towards the only force with the possibility of winning a majority. The recourse to the useful vote that the institutional left espouses to win the support of its voters has ended up turning against it.

Of course this is not encouraging news. The masses continue to be disoriented, their rejection of politics and politicians prevails, a visceral attitude that does not augur anything good.

We are now experiencing the consequences of the treason of the docile left, its systematic rejection of the social movements, its imposition of forgetting history and apoliticism, as instruments to guarantee the acceptance of a regime with phony democratic glitter, in which its representatives in the main institutions have acted in their immense majority of allies of consensus, carrying out a pragmatic and short-sighted policy, on the back of the needs and priorities of the people. The consequences of an anti-democratic electoral law, custom made – to guarantee control of the institutions by the most docile forces that accept the political framework of the monarchy.

The oligarchy seems to be afraid to exhaust the popular expectations too quickly, that the depth of the crisis and the brutality of the measures that they are going to apply will end up completely unmasking the regime and open up a period of social conflict that will drift into a more general confrontation; fear that in the class struggle that is sharpening, the popular camp will end up uniting its forces to respond politically in a fight that will finally overcome big capital.

But, in spite of the “conciliator” tone of Rajoy [leader of the PP and Prime Minister elect – translator’s note] in his first public address, nobody should expect a lull in the attacks. The speed will be determined by what fits the markets and its lackeys. But reality is stubborn and in the next months we will see how Rajoy and his team will deepen the policy of privatization and dismantling the social and political rights begun by Zapatero.

No one should have any doubt that, if they need to, the social liberal leaders will offer to reinforce their State policy. There are no essential contradictions in the reactionary camp: just as they united their forces to impose the reform of the Constitution, they will impose the orders they receive from those who really set the political agenda: the imperialist bourgeoisie.

After learning the result, Cayo Lara [leader of the United Left – translator’s note] declared that its parliamentary group will be spokespersons in Parliament for the fights in the street. We hope and trust that it will be so. The United Left cannot try to dominate the left, it cannot continue refusing to seek unity with other forces in a common program, nor can it persist in claiming that the main problem that the left has faced in these elections is an electoral law that punishes them compared to other forces with a smaller vote.

It is true that the perverse existing electoral law harms them in an inadmissible way, but the deep causes of the indifference of the popular classes with the left must be seen beyond that, in the fact that it lacks its own approach, independent and confronting the monarchic regime, which has conditioned (and it continues doing so) its policy in the institutions.

The left must draw a single and evident conclusion: it is more necessary than ever to advance towards unity. Not any kind of unity, but one that is based on a clear and forceful position of rejection of the regime, by an genuinely democratic framework and, thus, a republican one. To continue to fight dispersed, or even worse, serving as allies of liberal social leaders who have proven time and again that, in their commitment to the oligarchy, they are prepared to sacrifice their own political expectations, as Zapatero showed in his public statement on the electoral result, would be suicidal.

To start on the road to consistent unity of the left, the Republicans have been born, a federation that our Party fully supports and that, despite all the obstacles and pitfalls, has presented candidates in eight electoral districts and developed organizational nuclei in many provinces.

Since its first Assembly, held last October 1, the Republicans have insisted that their objective went beyond elections and made clear that their expectations of it were very limited. The result, however, has been hopeful; the electoral battle has allowed it to begin to launch an organization that is prepared to call its next assembly with the participation of the newly arisen nuclei.

Very harsh months are coming. The European Union of capital and war is taking steps to put an end to any remaining sovereignty of the member States. They demand total submission of all the States to the dictates of the central oligarchy: in Italy they have imposed a government of “technocrats” committed to big capital; in Greece a “government of national unity” in which, together with the social liberals and the rightists of New Democracy, the extreme right is taking part. In Spain, where the economic crisis is very far from touching bottom, the victory of the right, the dispersion of the left and disenchantment of the social majority threatens to generate an explosive situation. We are entering a period in which days can seem like years, with constant changes. The political image arisen from the elections of November 10 will not last long.

November 21, 2011
Secretariat of the Central Committee of the PCE (ML)

Source

PCE (M-L) Hamma Hammami Interview

PCOT headquarters

March 5, 2011. Tunisia

HAMM: About the events in my country we say we are half way to the revolution, that is, the revolution continues. On January 14 the people overthrew the dictator after a month of heroic struggle, we got rid of the dictator, but not the dictatorship that remains in reconstitution in the judicial bodies in the puppet parliament and the Senate, the state apparatus and all police, in short, all the bureaucratic apparatus. The Tunisian people have not been spared the social and economic suffocation exercised by a minority of comprador. That is, after the removal of Ben Ali, the government continued composed of elements of the apparatus and the party of the dictator, the government was extended with some reformist and liberal members of the opposition essentially two games, the former party revisionist had become a reformist party and came to work with Ben Ali and the other a pseudo-liberal party called the Progressive Democratic Party (PDP).

Members of the two parties involved in the self-styled government of “National Union.” That government tried to sabotage the revolution and reduced to a mere liberalization of the regime, by patching of some reforms. Faced with this situation, the town continued with the revolution, the fight continued with slogans like “do not want just to” large ” [2] Ben Ali, but is also awarded the dictatorship, we want to change the political system, build a new democratic regime … “

So the struggle continued against the government of “National Union” led by former Prime Minister Ben Ali, Gannouchi. But the government could not resist the pull of popular struggle and fell about two weeks after the escape of Ben Ali.

The prime minister himself, Gannouchi, formed a new government, which were not part of some members of the old regime, and were replaced by other secondary. It was essentially a reactionary government tried to cover up with some reforms. A level of popular struggles, it made some areas of freedom of expression, assembly and demonstration. It was possible to bring down several officers, both national and local and regional, and across the country are succeeding in establishing people’s power centers, the “Assembly to safeguard the revolution.” These new powers are popular organizing more and more, and managed to impose some demands to the government. But real power remained in the hands of the reaction, responsible for Ben Ali regime. But, as Lenin said, in the revolution the key issue is power. Therefore, while the power is not in the hands of people can not say that this phase of the revolution is over.

And indeed, as you have seen, the continuous struggle against reaction that seeks to preserve the old regime “liberalizing.” In this maneuver, it must be said loud and clear, involving U.S. government, France, the European Union itself, trying to stop the movement, so that, as Sarkozy’s government, this movement does not exceed the bourgeois framework.

Moreover, the revolutionary movement, popular, radical and wants a democratic republic, in this context, the confrontation between popular movements and the provisional Government was accentuated, and launched the slogan “dégage, government, dégage” shouted slogan until the last corner of the country. The objectives of this phase of the struggle, were threefold: To overthrow the interim government, convening a constituent assembly, and move the democratic republic, parliament. These concentrations were multiplied slogans and rallies. The government was forced to make concessions, but managed to stay. It should be stressed that the reaction has tried to exploit weaknesses. If the revolution has not yet completed, has been due to lack of awareness and decision, which left us half way, with a weak government and a popular movement that drags weaknesses. We are in a more or less influenced by power. It’s a situation as you have pointed out, Comrade Marco, reminds us a bit 1917.

There is a political unit within the popular movement, they shout the same slogans, which can be summarized as “freedom and national dignity.” Unit slogans are left Tunisia, unity among our party, the TCO, and other leftist forces. It should be emphasized that the actions undertaken, there has been no sectarian slogans, religious, for example, or of a partisan nature. Always seek unitary political slogans, socio-economic and anti-imperialist.

I must say that the efforts of our Party and other opposition parties, for more than six years, have created a Committee for Freedom and Rights. Is a group in which there are liberals, Islamists, independents, and of course our party. Until late 2005, when the left was proposing something, Islamists boycotted it, and when the proposals came from the Islamists, it was the left that boycotted. That is, there was a clear division. After 2005, we achieved a common work around the axis of freedom for the political forces work together to reflect on the differences with the Islamists, women’s rights, freedom of conscience, on the design of a system democratic, or a regime based on popular sovereignty.

With the Islamists came to a very important result with commonalities that led to a democratic platform on the right of women, freedom of conscience, and created an intellectual and political climate favorable.

Since 2008, with the demonstrations in the mining area of ​​Gafza, ideological tensions subsided within Tunisian political opposition, to make way for agreements on political and socio-economic problems, in the revolt in the mining, all left opposition, all, including Islamists, supported the motion. From then on all issues of the Tunisian political scene, were reached with the Islamists, the liberal reformers, and so on., Which helped create a favorable climate.

A weak point has been the lack of a nationally unique address. It has been much speculation about the spontaneous nature of the revolution, but it was really something spontaneous in the sense of a lack of awareness or a total lack of organization. This revolution took a very broad popular character, and in each region and locality were political activists, trade unionists, human rights fighters … who have led and participated in the fighting, as did our party. There was a degree of awareness, organization, which has enabled the movement to resist repression, which has enabled the movement to find each time the appropriate instructions and forms needed. But again, at the national level that has been on the lack of a firmly established political force, and this applies to us and the other forces, as we are concerned by the severe repression suffered in recent years that we were hit hard.

Despite the efforts that our party has done to bring together the democratic opposition, there was a lack of will to achieve a common work in the country, a gap that has remained almost until the fall of Ben Ali. They were people of liberal and reformist forces, which relied more on measures to reform the Ben Ali regime in the revolutionary movement. The two most representative of the reformist parties continued until the last day without reporting to Ben Ali and continued to refuse to reform the penal code, which led to the democratic opposition forces not to sign the petition.

At the same time the revolution began to overcome their own weaknesses, for example, on the initiative of our party to launch from the first day the slogan of “constitution of a National Assembly,” for all local and regional parts of the system were escaped, the police fled, the National Guard as well. So we have launched the slogan be everywhere Popular Committee, and these assemblies, committees, etc. They took the security in their hands to deal with criminals and bandits, and the forces of counterrevolution.

In another area, the revolutionary movement has forced in practice left to join. With the collapse of Ben Ali, the revolutionary forces of the nationalist left and join in the “Front January 14.” Front brings together the forces that confront the Government, in varying degrees, political parties, nationalists, trade unions, then join us for the creation of the National Council for the Preservation of the Revolution. Since then, despite many problems, concessions had to be done, discussions, etc.., Discouraging the common work, it was possible to combine the forces of revolution and progress was made together and brought down the second provisional government. The government first called itself the “national unity” and it was not, was a government of Ben Ali a, so to speak. The 2 nd government, provisional, was an attempt to preserve, through reforms, essential aspects of former Prime Minister of that government, Mohamed Gannouchi, was against the creation of the Constituent Assembly, to the claim of the Constitution, but just about moments before he resigned, Gannouchi said: “This country needs a constitutional assembly” … He resigned after making a reaction save time to regroup, which they have done in the last month, those active forces of the counterrevolution, consist essentially of old party members Ben Ali, the political police and militia in the pay of the oligarchy, who have committed terrorist acts against civilians, acts of vandalism to terrorize the people and let them know that “or us or anarchy.”

This provisional government showed tolerance towards those counterrevolutionary groups, and when he had the arrests of some of his men, did the police let them go. They wanted to terrorize the population, suggested that there was a danger of military intervention, even from abroad, or beaten by Islamist or leftist forces … all with the purpose of terrorizing the people. That government had the clear support of the United States, whose representatives have come to Tunisia several times, also was supported by the European Union promised a large aid material, and particularly the government of Sarkozy, in addition to the governments of Spain, Zapatero, and Italy with Berlusconi. All of them supported Ben Ali to the last day.

The United States, perhaps more intelligent, they began to express some reluctance when captured that government could not maintain that his time was short. As I said, that government did allow time to reorganize counter-revolutionary forces again, despite this, the popular forces we get rid of the 2 nd interim government.

We are now in a new phase in which the forces of revolution we eliminate all vestiges of the dictatorship. This new phase has just begun with the appointment of another Prime Minister Beji Kaied Sebsi, who has promised to submit to the will of the Tunisian people, to elect a Constituent Assembly elections to be held on 26 July this year.

Ben Ali’s party has been legally dissolved, which is also a victory of the people. The Constitution no longer applies, have been recognized, authenticated, legalized political parties and organizations, and hopefully it is the TCO [3] in the coming days. Many of the former officials will be judged. The government is forced to make concessions, but remain elements of the dictatorship are still there, as the political police, administration, judiciary, which must be radically changed.

The  Sebsi Government is rushing to prepare for the elections to the Constituent Assembly, but not in a democratic setting, away from people without the direct involvement of the forces of revolution. The fight now, then, will deliver in this area. The revolutionary forces must prepare for the elections to the Constituent Assembly in a truly democratic environment, for which there is to dissolve the political police [4] , to repeal the existing laws, and when provisionally, pending a new structure for the country, determined the Constituent Assembly to take concrete action on the administration of justice, also on the media apparatus, to ensure democratize the process to the Constituent Assembly.

As to the disposition of forces, we can say that the revolutionary are mobilized, it is very important. The revolutionary forces are united, but we fear, though still unclear, a split within the National Committee for the Safeguarding of the Revolution, between the revolutionary forces and democratic and reformist forces that seek a compromise with the current government . Anyway, we will continue with our tactics to conserve and advocacy, to strengthen the structures that emerged from the revolution, both nationally and in the face January 14 and in the towns and regions with the revolutionary Assemblies, to strengthen them while popular, and prepare for elections to the Constituent Assembly.

En Marcha on Libya

Gaddafi’s murder puts an end to its contradictory policy

After the siege of Sirte by rebel forces and the continuous support of the NATO bombing, dropped the last bastion of resistance to Gaddafi and with it came his lynching and death.

At the closing chapter of this macabre American imperialist intervention and its European allies, which began in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, the brunt of the savagery of NATO, which fell to Libya UN resolution 1973 gave the green light for murder of thousands of children, youth, women and elderly innocent and the destruction of hospitals, schools and homes of poor people by planes from the U.S., France, England, Italy, Canada, Qatar and Spain 14 000 attacks carried out under the cynical pretext to protect civilians.

War of aggression that took advantage of the discontent of the masses secular and Islamist Libyan mobilized to demand the resignation of Gaddafi for his corrupt and repressive dictatorial policy in 42 years of dictatorship submitted to the people and their political opponents, the miserable conditions of life, prison and exile.

This does not justify the genocidal actions of the U.S. and its followers against the Libyan people, other than by oil, gas and water, for their benefit; impede the flow of oil to China and strategic control of northern Africa and the Near East.

Muammar Gaddafi was characterized by contradictory political and ideological position and winding with democratic reforms undertaken as dictator from 1969 to overthrow the King Idrissi, presented as experiences and examples of the third way (or socialism or capitalism), but history of the transformation of Libyan economy popular capitalism, privatization of public enterprises and foreign oil producers and distributors, such as Italy’s ENI, Austria’s OMV, Repsol of Spain, Total of France, BP of the UK, Petrobras of Brazil, more the U.S. Marathon Oil, Amerada Hess, Conoco-PHLLIPS, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM, EXXON-MOBIL and the China National Petroleum, and the opening up and encouraging foreign investment.

The open door policy to the highest bidder and its weight would encourage authoritarian dictatorial corrupt economic ambition that would lead to rapid personal enrichment and family, with the acquisition of a fortune as gold reserves, foreign exchange and investment exceeding 200 billion dollars (Los Angeles Times), which doubles annual industrial production over Libya before the U.S. intervention.

In this position fro the imperialist governments of England and Italy and of Spain fought to curry favor with Gaddafi for their investments and oil business. He was invited to the treat-as did Berlusconi, or were “official visit” with the list of prayers and investment proposals.

All under the supervision and consent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) neoliberal recipes applied against the economy of poor households and workers, that paid for the first turns of the Libyan people.

Muammar Gaddafi humble home in the Bedouin, formed by the English with an anti-political conception, governed, enriched and betrayed his people and from 1986 he was a partner of Fiat, the Italian companies and Infinvest, Swiss and French and strut NATO in the region.

The story of betrayal does not forget that most computers, weapons and equipment of repression that Gaddafi had at his disposal were supplied by the U.S., Britain, France and Spain, whose members, with his murder, was charged dearly for his politics and ideology contradiction in which he embarked and which he died.

Libya, imposed arbitrary arrests and torture

In Libya, things have not changed at all, at present there are cases of torture to extract confessions or simply as a punitive measure, risking that the practices of the past be repeated in the present, when the arbitrary arrest and torture was marked the whole Gaddafi.

Amnesty International (AI) accused the interim government of Libya, coordinated by the National Transitional Council (CNT), making arbitrary arrests and practices of torture and abuse against soldiers and followers of Muammar Qaddafi.

The organization claims that the majority of detainees are imprisoned without the respective orders of the prosecutor and executed by military authorities or non-competitive.

Sub-Saharan African suspected mercenaries constitute between one third and half of those arrested are also vulnerable Libyan Tawargha region, which was the basis of gadafistas troops. On the other hand a number of children are detained together with adults and women arrested in this process and put under surveillance of men who play the role of guards.

PCMLV: Editorial Revolutionary Steel No. 11, September 2011

Organ of the Central Committee PCMLV

Capitalism in its upper stage (imperialism) remains in the decomposition process, rules and laws are violated without regard for themselves, the superstructure “legal” mounted at the end of World War II no longer serves its purpose. Such is the effect of the crisis, that treaties, agreements and international organizations are becoming a nuisance to the need to implement measures “to end the crisis,” according to its logic operators.

In each country and the world government control, the structures of bourgeois democracy begin to hinder the real government, the monopoly of large corporations. These measures apply to take control directly, but trying to keep the discourse civil rights is nothing other than what happened in Spain with the constitutional amendment, or more bloody in Libya, where large corporations are distributing oil wells, refineries and contracts “reconstruction”, as they did in Eastern Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan and how they’re doing in the rest of the Maghreb and other regions will do so, this is just the beginning of the imperialist offensive to the real threats to their economic and political system of domination is in deep crisis.

These situations, typical of the general crisis of the general crisis of capitalism, they foreshadow the third stage of the same expressions with economic, political and social unconcealed, but also has serious consequences for workers and the people who are losing their rights to an immense bourgeois onslaught.

In the face of popular demonstrations in Europe and North Africa, advancing social and leftist projects in Latin America, the wave of protests by petty-bourgeois sectors and trade unions, the radicalization of youth and the greater activity of truly revolutionary organizations , especially proletarian character, acts imperialist direction before being wrapped by these expressions of discontent and strife, cause and accelerate the decomposition to try to impose their fascist-style authoritarian project, for which the terror, the drug, illicit enterprises, despair, religious sects play a role.

They create a climate of fear about the future, fear about the future, suitable for the implementation of fascist capitalist model, which can control the agitation of the masses by means of subjugation and violence to impose the adjustment measures.

We are on the verge of a more aggressive imperialist stage that will undoubtedly lead to popular mobilization and violence in a direct call to the attempt to impose unilateral bourgeois domination, leaving aside the hypocrisy of his “bourgeois democracy” to enter in a directly to fascism.

For revolutionaries, especially for the Marxist-Leninists, this is not something unknown, our classics and our theoretical and practical experience realize these phenomena during the first and the second stage of the general crisis of capitalism, but also give us indication of how face this period shall be of wars, and revolutions, where the most important is to strengthen the organizations of struggle of the proletariat. Supported by the action of the revolutionary masses in the worker-peasant discontent attract other layers and take urgent need of the conquest of political power to break with the capitalist relations of production.

The situations of violence promoted and encouraged by capitalism tell us that live in complex times, the repression against the revolutionary class act and will be on the agenda, no shortage of excuses for it, from the need to replace unions by other structures ” modern, “flexible” “to the need to” sacrifice for the fatherland “, operators have always devised ways of manipulation to try to deceive the workers, and when they no longer serve them, because workers have no conscience and we fall, then resort to outright violence.

Violence reactionary, fascist organization must be answered and proletarian revolution, only then can we truly overcome the crisis and build a world of happiness for the majority.

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) on Enver Hoxha

Article from October Weekly, the publication of the Communist Party of Spain (M-L)

by Raul Marco, on behalf of the ICMLPO Coordinating Committee

On behalf of the Coordination Committee of the Conference of Parties and Organizations Marxist-Leninist, and that of my party, thank you for this opportunity to participate in events in honor of the dear Comrade Enver Hoxha. Acknowledge feeling excited by this act, not in vain had the honor of Comrade Enver personally know with whom I met on several occasions.

Enver Hoxha, now, as the years pass, gigantic figure. Thus, usually with beings that have marked his time, which in turn demonstrates that humanity progresses, it becomes stagnant. Comes into play the role of individuals in history. Enver is one of them. One of these individuals, a communist, who faced the vicissitudes of the period he lived and fought against. He, like many other Communist leaders, makes sense, because the poems of Bertolt Brecht on the role of individuals every day, lifelong.

Leninist consequential, Enver fought against imperialism, against any kind of imperialism and its attempts to subdue socialist Albania. Today, as the general crisis of capitalism makes maniofiesto, once again, the correctness of the Marxist analysis, and particularly Lenin’s Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, we must remember as Enver in his famous “Imperialism and the Revolution” warned as in their search for out of the crisis, which even then pointed out, the imperialist countries seeking alliances and agreements, to prevent the collapse of their system. Are currently struggling desperately, even more than yesterday in that regard. The result we are reaching the “wise men” economists of the world bourgeoisie, how could it be otherwise, is to privatize profits and socialize losses. That is, once again, that people, the pariahs of the earth, working class and sections of the petty and middle bourgeoisie, loaded with the slab of the crisis. For they seek new alliances and commitments, facing each other, come together and compete, and as noted Hoxha in “Imperialism and the Revolution.”

“Life constantly confirms the brilliant thesis of Lenin on imperialism. Capitalism has entered the stage of putrefaction. [...] The struggle of peoples against imperialism and the bourgeois capitalist cliques grows in different ways, with varying intensity. Inevitably becomes the amount and quality.”

Given this international situation, which is preparing new and brutal attacks on villages, the Communists, the Marxist-Leninists must come together, eliminate our differences, through proper ideological treatment, to deal with this offensive of capital, especially, so that our people know that there is no way out other than the class struggle.

The International Conference of Political Parties and Organizations Marxist-Leninist (ICMLPO), formed 18 years ago, emerged in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism that led to the downfall of many parties to the disappearance of many of them. Revisionism, as Enver Hoxha said, and before that Lenin and Stalin, is a real cancer that eats away and settled to the proletarian vanguard detachments, if not detected and merciless fight. This is a life or death struggle, as experience shows, sad experience in many cases.

We think that, as Enver Hoxha said:

“The current international situation is murky, the crisis in the capitalist and revisionist countries is aggravated, the aggressive policy of the superpowers increasingly engenders new and great risks for freedom and independence of peoples and for peace in general. [...].

Given these conditions, the defense of Marxism-Leninism, the principles of proletarian internationalism and revolutionary consistent attitude towards the big global problems today are [...] to all genuine Marxist-Leninist, a key task. “(Imperialism and the Revolution).

In this struggle we must join together all Communists, all those who think that Marxism-Leninism is at the cutting edge of life-threatening emergency. Proletarian internationalism, which fought so long and so worthily the Albanian communists under the leadership of Enver Hoxha led by CC, is a flag that we must always keep up. Encounter obstacles, sometimes misunderstood, but we must continue to challenge erroneous positions, combat eclecticism, the hypocritical attitude that tries to unite the materialism and idealism, to combine mechanical and unprincipled, trends, heterogeneous ideological trends.

Slowly we left the dispersion caused by anti-major offensive unleashed by imperialism in the sixties, and, in some way favored by anti-Marxist positions, as was the Khrushchev, the Trotskyism, the theory of three worlds, Euro-communism et al.

But we can not be complacent. We are still far from achieving the great unity of the communists, unit, or what is on the principles of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and the great communist leaders who have preceded us, as Enver Hoxha, or it will drive. That’s a challenge, a great challenge before us. For our part, we do not lose heart and determined to move in that direction, which is nothing more than the real proletarian internationalism, in practice, not bullshit or mitinera slogan.

From this rostrum on which we honor the memory of Comrade Enver, we express our solidarity with the Albanian communists fighting under difficult conditions, against the current situation of the country, and the strengthening and implementation of the Party.

Those who knew Albania since 1965, we witness the great progress that year after year, they managed to address bajota PTA. We know because we have seen with our own eyes, with what earnestness, with what heroism, the Communists and the Albanian people, construíais socialism, while you are up against the maneuvers of the Titoists, the Khrushchevites, the Maoists and all attempts, external and internal, to destabilize the country and destroy its accomplishments.

Today as yesterday, we are with you. Old ties bind us, based on common principles based on that proletarian internationalism alive and consistent, that Enver defended throughout his life. We understand that your task is not easy, nothing less than to overthrow the reactionary regime, supported and sponsored by U.S. imperialism has destroyed socialism in Albania and the country retracted dark times. The words of Comrade Enver at the Seventh Congress of PTA, are present in our minds, that of the Communists:

“The world is at a stage where the cause of revolution and national liberation of peoples is not only an aspiration and vision, but also a problem that awaits solution.”

But we are confident that the Albanian communists, together with healthy people, wield the sword symbolic of Skanderbeg, and managed to wobble again the red flag of the proletariat, the revolution in the mountains and valleys of the land of eagles.

Honor and glory to Comrade Enver Hoxha!

Long live the friendship between our parties!

Long live the Communist Party of Albania!

Long live proletarian internationalism!

Tirana, October 15, 2008

Cold War: a Marxist view

The Revolutionary Highway Has No Exits – The History of the Cold War

By Arlen Tracey

The Cold War, a global conflict between the United States and its allies in Western Europe, against the Soviet Union and its allies around the world, was a conflict that evolved and twisted itself over its decades of existence.

It is important to acknowledge that throughout the war, the emphasis and goals of both sides changed numerous times. A historical record must be made of the evolving positions of the Soviet, Chinese, Albanian, Yugoslavian, and United States governments.

Stalin Wanted Peace

The “Cold War” began, according to historians, at the end of World War Two, when the Soviet Union and the United States ended their war-time alliance.

The most ignored aspect of the opening of the cold war was the fact that the Soviet Union had calculated the opposite occurrence. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union predicted, expected, and hoped for period of “peace” among the “Democratic Powers.”

The actions of the Soviet Union even as the war was still in the process of ending, but especially in the few years immediately following it, were devoted to doing its best to prevent any conflict between the US and the USSR.

The Tehran Accords, signed by Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, made clear that these “democratic powers” were to be united after the war. Soviet-American-British cooperation was to be the order of the day following the war, according to the accords.

In order to appease the British and Americans, the Soviets demanded that the French Communist Party agree to withdraw from the French Government, even though it had won a clear majority in the post-war elections. The Italian Partisan Brigades, which had fought the Nazis and were led by Communists, laid down their arms without a shot, and allowed a “democratic government” which excluded to them to take hold.

In the U.S., the Communist Party dissolved itself and became the “Communist Political Association.”

But this was not enough for the imperialists. They never intended to have unity with the “democratic powers” of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s attempts to appease the capitalists in the post war period were of no avail.

Hitler’s staunch allies who led the fascist regimes Spain and Portugal were embraced by the United States and Britain. The forces fighting for democracy against the Pro-Fascist Greek Monarchy found the U.S. and Britain sending guns to their oppressors.

In China, though the Chinese Communist Party had done the bulk of the fighting against the Japanese Imperialists, it was blocked from the government, and again suffering persecution by U.S. backed despot named Chiang Kia-shek.

U.S. military bases were set up in West Germany. U.S. Communists endured the horrific “McCarthy Period” in which they were forced into semi-underground status, and the entire leadership of their organizations were jailed.

In response to this, Stalin’s mild policies of peace and cooperation with the west reversed. The Soviet Union led the World Communist Movement into a “left turn.”

In Response to Aggression, Stalin Turns Left

It was in response to this that the USSR turned away from it post-war “world democratic peace” policies and became a cold warrior. The Chinese Communist Party took up arms and defeated the U.S. backed “nationalist” government and established a socialist regime. The Warsaw Pact created unity among the “People’s Democracies” of Eastern Europe, who rapidly moved to place the Communist Parties in command of the “Democratic Fronts” created during WWII.

In 1949, Chinese Communist Party, due to its popular support was victorious, and removed the U.S. backed dictatorship of the Nationalists.

The Koreans attempted to re-unify their country, and overthrow the U.S. backed dictator, Syngman Rhee, who held power in the South. The U.S. imperialists could not tolerate Korean Re-Unification and the “Korean War” erupted.

In 1948, the U.S. Communist Party, directed by the Soviet Union, abandoned the Democratic Party, which it had supported since 1936. Since 1936, the Communist had always run independent candidates for symbolic purposes, but voted for the Democratic Party in the name of creating a “people’s coalition”, but in 1948, the Communist devoted all their forces to the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace.

Aid to people in Africa and Asia from the Soviet Union increased. The feeling of the Soviet Union was that “peaceful co-existence”, once offered at the end of the war, had been met with betrayal, and that the only hope for survival of the USSR was a stronger, world revolution.

No summing up or self-criticism of the earlier policies with Italy, France, and elsewhere was made publicly, however, it should be noted. However, this can be justified by an understanding that doing so might undermine the credibility of the leaders who made the errors, who still held power.

In 1945, the U.S. Communist Party did expelled Earl Browder, who was the symbol of the classless, pro-imperialist, “democracy” brand of Socialism that marked the war years.

The only internally known vocal opponent of Stalin’s turn toward world revolution within the socialist camp was Tito. Tito headed Yugoslavia, and in 1948, at the same time Stalin was embracing revolution as a response to aggression, announced the opposite position.

Tito proclaimed his opposition to “Stalinist Expansionism” and “Soviet Domination.” He aligned himself with the United States during the Korean Conflict, and in response was given millions of dollars in “aid.” Tito also began to implement “workplace democracy”, which in reality, meant the break up of the state industries created after the war, into small, capitalist corporations.

Tito denounced world revolution as “aggression” and socialist economics as “dogmatism”, throwing Stalin’s name in with both. The words of Stalin for Tito were fiery and critical. Albania’s criticism was equally fiery.

Mao briefly flirted with Tito, before shortly afterward condemning him.

The 20th Party Congress and Revisionism

When Stalin died in 1954 this opened the floodgates for an internal Communist Party fight that had been under the surface for decades, heating up most intensely at that moment.

The “right opposition” of Bukharin, who had opposed a socialist economy for a “market socialism”, and had opposed world revolution but wanted “peaceful co-existence” still existed. They had been suppressed while Stalin was alive, and had no following as Stalin opposed them, and Stalin was so beloved by all who fought against U.S. imperialism and Nazism.

The fight went on for 2 years after Stalin’s death as no longer did the forces defending world revolution and socialist economics have Stalin’s leadership to rally behind.

In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Neo-Bukharinists, gave the “secret speech” at the 20th Party Congress. His speech went into detail attacking Stalin on personal grounds, repeating the very content of Hearst Newspaper and Anti-Communist slander.

The speech was “secret” from the people of the Soviet Union, but was circulated throughout the world in order to make clear that the new Soviet leaders were not “revolutionaries” like Stalin, but believers in “peaceful co-existence” and “cooperation.”

Pro-Stalin leaders were jailed and executed. Pro-Stalin literature was burned. China and Albania were silent about the policies at first, hoping they could be corrected without a huge conflict.

The first acts of Khrushchev was to attempt to restore the relationship with Tito in Yugoslavia. Khrushchev had numerous meetings with Tito, and did all he could, unsuccessfully to win Yugoslavia to being friendly toward the Soviet Union.

In 1956, rightists and fascist rose up in Hungary to overthrow socialism and install a pro-western dictatorship. Khrushchev attempted to have dialogue with openly Pro-Nazi Priests and other Neo-Fascists within the regime. Khrushchev also refused to receive the input from the Hungarian leaders about how to deal with the counter-revolutionary uprising.

Finally, he sent in the Red Army to crush them, and symbolically, the Chinese Communist Party sent some of its own troops as well.

China & Albania Speak Out and are Punished

In response to Khrushchev’s open lack of support revolution around the world, Mao Zedong and Enver Hoxha loudly denounced the ideology of Khrushchev. They praised Stalin for the left turn prior to his death, and preached that it was the duty of Communists to support people in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere who wanted revolution against colonialism.

They denounced the manner in which Khrushchev sought to negotiate and make peace with capitalism, and his various scheming attempts to de-socialize the Soviet economy and move toward “market socialism” as Tito had done.

China and Albania’s calls were not hostile denunciation, but rather soft spoken critiques. But this was too much for Khrushchev.

While Khrushchev always wanted dialogue and negotiation with the U.S. imperialists and with rightists like Tito and the elements in Hungary, he offered no such understanding to China and Albania.

The USSR cut off diplomatic relations with Albania and China, something never even done to the Nazis. In both China and Albania, soviet engineers and technicians burned their blueprints, and left buildings half built.

In China, the economy had depended on foreign aid from the USSR, and the punishing vengeance of Khrushchev forced an economic disaster as the country was forced to re-organize its economy at the drop of hat.

USSR and USA align for “Peace” Against World Revolution

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union announced that Kennedy was their friend. The battle cry of the Soviet leadership became “world peace.” All who opposed world peace, whether they be the Africans who fought against colonial domination, or the people of Indonesia who sought to elect a socialist government, were the enemy.

Mao, Hoxha, and Che Guevara thunderously preached that it was the duty of third world people to fight against imperialism. Khrushchev and the leaders of the USSR were convinced that “world peace” depended on them keeping these “ultra-lefts” in line.

Khrushchev called for Mao and Hoxha’s overthrow as they were “brutal dictators.” Khrushchev denounced China for seeking atomic weapons.

The USSR urged the people of Vietnam to drop their weapons and “negotiate” the continued existence of the U.S. backed dictatorship in South Vietnam.

It seemed that in their desire to suppress world revolution there was a temporary alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union’s leaders.

The Soviet leaders, acting as social democratic sellouts always do, lectured the figures within their own movement to “slow down” and “stop being so extreme.” It is likely that Khrushchev wanted to go even further with this betrayal, which is why he was removed in coup, and replaced by Kosygin and Brezhnev in 1964. But for the moment, the policies continued.

China and Albania were the fire of the left screaming for world revolution. Cuba, Korea, and the German Democratic Republic walked the “middle of the road”, trying to negotiate with both sides.

The USSR continued to say that revolution was immoral, as it would “provoke” the U.S. imperialists to use atomic weapons.

The Shift of 1972

In 1972, there was a rapid shift in the cold war. No longer were the Soviet and U.S. leaders united in their opposition to world revolution. Now, China was actively fighting the cold war on the side of the U.S., Albania was confused and silent, and the Soviet Union became the main target of U.S. hatred.

In 1972, Nixon was welcomed into China and greeted as a hero. The Chinese government proclaimed that the “main danger” was the Soviet Union. China proclaimed that supporting Marxist-Leninist parties in third world countries was “Social Imperialism.”

China instead embraced leaders like the Shah of Iran who represented the “indigenous identity of the people.” It was better to have a pro-U.S. capitalist leader than to have a revolutionary one who was loyal to the USSR.

China was aligned with the U.S., not against world revolution, but against the Soviet Union.

Chinese allied rebel groups in the third world, which had been constructed in order to defy the Soviet policy of “peace”, suddenly were embracing U.S. dictators as “defense” from the “Soviet Social Imperialists.”

The only “revolution” that China would support would be a revolution to overthrow a pro-Soviet government. China’s internal policy no longer spoke of revolution or Communism, but of “third world unity” against “Soviet Social Imperialism.”

This policy began in 1972, but continued after Mao’s death. In 1979 China invaded Vietnam to “liberate” it from “Soviet Social Imperialism.” China funded the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan along with the U.S. China sent weapons and aid to the Shah of Iran, and denounced the Iranian revolution as a “Social Imperialist Plot.”

Albania denounced this, an as resulted in a period of isolation with horrific economic consequences. China, Albania’s only ally, was gone. Albania was a lone, small, isolated nation, which claimed to be the only socialist country in the world amidst “Soviet and Chinese Social Imperialism.”

The USSR’s Response

In response to China openly siding with the United States, the USSR began to no longer distance itself from revolutionary causes around the world. The Soviet Union, which had previously discouraged people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia from fighting back, instead, openly championed such things.

The African National Congress, which the USSR had discouraged from taking up arms against apartheid, now received Soviet money and weapons. The Cubans became the icon of the Soviet Union’s world revolutionary camp, as did the Koreans.

The USSR embraced U.S. revolutionary Angela Davis and highlighted her as a symbol of Black Liberation in the U.S.

The USSR began to “talk left”, while at the same accusing all who criticized them of being “Maoists”, a world that would that became synonymous with “Trotskyite.”

The response of the U.S. was to intensify its brutality toward the USSR. Contra death squads were sent throughout Latin America to commit fascistic crimes against the people.

Reagan waved his arms preaching about a “world crusade against Bolshevism” in ways that would make Adolph Hitler jealous.

The Crack of 1989

The cold war ended officially in 1991 with the collapse of the USSR, but by 1989 the battle was lost. Gorbachev led a section of the Communist Party that was politically to the right of Khrushchev. They denounced the “working class” in favor “universal humanism” and other nonsensical, non-Marxist ideas.

Margaret Thatcher and Reagan found in Gorbachev’s and his followers to be “Communist leaders we can do business with” because they weren’t “war mongering” like their predecessors, i.e. they were open to surrender.

Gorbachev opened the economy, and let the west pour in. His “market socialism” made Yugoslavia’s look dogmatic.

The cold war ended because China and the USSR had both become dominated by leaders who abandoned any will to fight. With Pro-U.S. forces in power in Russia and China, there was no arms race to be had.

Why?

The cold war was ended, not by a flaw in Communism, not by a lack of ability to “negotiate” on the part of the Soviet leaders, but the opposite.

Neither the leaders of the USSR nor of China were purely committed to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. They had both become infected with careerism and revisionism. They both found comfort and peace, and abandoned their will to fight.

It was treason and lack of endurance that caused the horrific events of 1991.

The majority of the Communist Parties were filled elements without principles. The parties were also disconnected from the masses, so even the non-revisionist elements within them could not mobilize a defense of the revolution properly.

The only way the imperialists were able to instill the massive set backs of 1991 was because of the very “revisionism” we see in modern times.

It is always easier to be wrong than to be right. It is always a more comfortable life to accommodate and befriend the oppressors.

The most successful period of the cold war was Stalin’s left turn before his death. Sure, he got caught up in illusions during the war. But Stalin’s response to U.S. imperialist backstabbing was different than Khrushchev or Mao.

Stalin saw that being attacked by the imperialists called not for being more moderate, but for being more radical and hostile.

Did this make his life easier? Did this make them like him more?

No. But it strengthened world revolution like nothing else.

Life in 1930s Germany was much easier for “Good Germans” than for underground resistance fighters. Now “good Germans” live in shame.

Life in the Southern U.S. in the early 1960s was much easier for members of the KKK, than for Civil Rights Movement. But now there is Martin Luther King holiday, while the KKK is the subject of jokes, denial, and ridicule.

Progress comes through struggle and confrontation.

The essence of revisionism is refusal to accept the reality of being a revolutionary.

Revolution is a difficult life. It is an uphill battle. It is a road without short-cuts.

Its final victory is the most glorious of all.

But the journey does not end. As long as oppression exists, revolutionaries must fight oppression.

The revolutionary highway has no exits.

The journey must continue until Communism is reached. Reaction will inevitably begin, when the thrust for progress halts.

Source

Political Resolution of the XIth of the CC of the PCMLV

After evaluating several plenary sessions during the global situation, we reaffirm our view that we move in successive cyclical crises which are expressed as economic reality, which is deepened especially in the imperialist countries, such as determining component of the general crisis of capitalism, which also of economic base of political and social, creating conditions for moving to a new stage, mixed by wars and revolutions, with high conflict and total decomposition of capitalist society. It is clear that the situation remains tense in the world, continues to deepen the crisis of global capitalism. Riots, demonstrations, war characterize the current moment of world reality.

Expression of this situation is the deepening of the imperialist war against Libya are, we see daily attacks against this country are increasing, and increasingly critical support of the international bourgeois institutions becomes more evident. The bombings are constant and assumptions are civilians who after all end up paying with their lives intemperate attacks of the imperialist forces NATO , Orphans, mothers weeping for their children, this is the scenario that world imperialism has built in this North African country. Unabashedly, the imperialists stole the Libyan people’s money was deposited in European banks, in order to put to the disposal of its interest warmongers. Use the money to strengthen a government coalition made up of reactionary pro-Yankees. About 200 billion dollars of Libya’s international reserves were blocked and placed at the service of imperialism, in addition to this stolen oil, the major facilities and fresh water reserves in this country.

This initially appeared as a political agreement between the imperialist powers to attack Libya, example of this was the position of China and Russia who did not realize their power of veto to prevent the invasion, then the situation worsened, the resistance the Libyan people are maintained over time, setting a problem to be solved by the imperialist powers who doubt the military intervention by land to stop these terrible negative balances and a high political and economic costs.

We understand that this aggression, as well as others made covertly, are part of the imperialist struggle for a new division of the world and are the basis on which to structure the new relationship between world powers, which leads to more wars. The deepening U.S. economic downturn will lead to more conflicts and even wars among the imperialist powers to resolve its economic contradictions.

Another country that is suffering the ravages of imperialist interference, it is Syria, where the imperialists operate in a different format, a little more discreet, are acting from intelligence agencies, on behalf of groups opposed to President Bashar Al Assad. The characteristics of the Syrian government suggests a family relationship in the areas of power, as in the case of the brother of the president who controls one of the divisions of the army and his brother who controls the intelligence services. Some try to locate the essence of this situation on tribal or ethnic differences, trying to hide the fact that regardless of their ethnic peoples seek structural changes that allow them a chance to get a better life. But improving the brevity of life is impossible in a system where the interests of capitalism are the ones that take precedence over the interests of the people and workers in general, it is clear that the intelligence services of imperialism have been mixed in with the riots try to work the ground for possible future interventions.

The acts of sabotage that the governments of Israel and the U.S. made in this country to seek also weaken Iran, Syria partner in oil and industry, hence the conflict to pursue the control of oil reserves and energy, not only this country, if not the entire region.

Importantly, the position taken by China and Russia to Libya with a complicit silence was modified with respect to the situation in Syria, as the worsening social conflict in this country, both exercised their weight as members of the Security Council to make it clearly did not support any intervention in Syria. This is due to a very momentous, Syria offered its territory to transport fuel to other countries, including Russia, making clear that Russia is involved when the conflict is economic interests are at stake with an intervention . Just to mention some good data to say that at the beginning of 2000 the trade exchange between Syria and Russia exceeded 100 million dollars, and for 2005 exceeded $ 300 million, and has continued to increase. Although it is noteworthy that these figures, in general trade of these countries, expressing only a small part of Syria’s debt to Russia, bringing the cumulative three billion dollars. This is complemented by a major military exchange. Syria even has a Russian military base on its territory, which of course must also defend the Russian government when assessing their positions and interests. A similar situation occurs with China in turn is carving the way to deepen political relations with Syria, which promises not only an intensification of efforts to control these countries, and another part of the imperialists, if not also possible contradictions between them.

In Europe, continues to advance the tension, we see the conflict in Greece again takes place in the international news, as workers have returned to the streets to develop their protests against economic measures imposed by international agencies. In Italy, the third largest economy in the euro area is expected to increase the impact of the crisis. France, imperialist country that currently is playing important role in the aggression worn in North Africa as some of the so-called Maghreb countries were colonies of France, so this, now try to regain influence and control as before, on these countries to try to secure their resources.

ICMLPO General Resolution

International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations 17th Plenum

Madrid October 2011

The Plenary Session of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO) was successfully held in Madrid with the participation of almost all the member parties and organizations from Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia.

Throughout the sessions, and after reviewing the work of the parties in their respective countries, the Plenary took note of the inability of capital to resolve the general crisis with the various methods that it has used so far.

Unemployment and misery are affecting millions of workers, and particularly young people and women, both in the main imperialist economies as well as in the dependent countries. The neoliberal programs and policies have not resolved the great difficulties of the system much less the situation of the working class and the peoples.

New sectors of the workers and popular masses are joining the struggle for their rights: the youth, public employees, the unemployed, immigrants are defending the gains won through decades of combat and are trying out new forms of struggle and unity; they are learning precious lessons that raise the level of consciousness of the broad masses and are putting forward objectives of greater significance against capitalism; the advanced sectors are looking at the objectives of socialism.

The idea that the weight of the crisis should fall on the class that has caused it and not on its victims is already a widely shared objective, even an outcry. In Europe, the U.S. and Latin America, the workers are confronting the policies of privatization, cutbacks in social services and plundering; in sub-Sahara Africa, the peoples are resisting being made the battlefield of the imperialist looters; in Asia the workers are carrying out great strike movements and are heroically resisting the imperialist military occupation.

American Party of Labor: Reconsider Columbus Day

Happy Genocidal Maniac Day!

Five hundred and eighteen years ago, today 12 October, a momentous event happened. The supposed “discovery” by one Cristóbal Colón—also known as Christopher Columbus, landed on the Bahamian island of San Salvador and subsequently was labeled the “first” European to take notice of the Americas. Let us consider the supposed discovery. Can one be called a discoverer of a land, which was already populated by most anthropological estimates by at least one hundred million persons? It was not a primitive wilderness this man “discovered.” Rather, it was the work of a people who had no idea exactly how large the Earth was. The Americas in 1492 were already populated and had very large and developed civilizations—the Aztecs, Incas and Iroquois to name a few. They already had hundreds of nations spread across the continent. Rather than enriching these natives as one is lead to believe by Euro-centric history, Columbus and those who followed the trail he blazed have visited upon these peoples nothing but misery, from slavery and disease to outright genocide.

Contrary to the lies most Americans are told about this so-called great discoverer:

• Columbus is responsible for the murder of millions of Indigenous people.

• Columbus was a slave trader in Africa before invading America. He began the slave trade in the Americas. One of his first acts was to enslave the Arawak nation, which now extinct. He deserves no holiday, no parades and no statues.

• Columbus Day celebrates the doctrine of “discovery” – the “legal” process that stole Indigenous peoples’ territories and continues today.

• Columbus brought a philosophy of domination to the Americas that persists today in the domination of other peoples, domination of the environment, domination of other belief systems and the domination of women by men. Christopher Columbus is responsible for the Spanish colonization of the Western Hemisphere, which foreshadowed a general European colonization of the “New World.”

Columbus Summed Up

His first act of colonization sprang from his desire to establish a settlement on the island of Hispaniola, funded by Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Leon. Containing the modern-day nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, he founded the settlement of La Navidad (Christmas) on the north east coast of the island in 1492. The following year, Columbus quickly founded a second settlement further east in present day Dominican Republic, La Isabela, which became the first permanent European settlement in the Americas. The island was inhabited by the Taínos, one of the indigenous Arawak peoples. They were tolerant of Columbus and welcomed his crew as guests. They even helped him construct La Navidad.

From Columbus’ own log, he recorded the following:

“They … brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned… . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… . They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” (1).

“As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts” (1).

Colonization of the settlement began the following year, with 1,300 Spaniards arriving under the watch of Christopher Columbus’s younger brother, Bartholomew Columbus. The Spanish began to import African slaves, believing them to be better equipped for manual labor. The Taino population was hastily obliterated from a combination of disease and harsh treatment by their colonial masters. The natives lacked immunity to small pox and entire tribes were wiped out. From an estimated initial population of 250,000 in 1492, the Arawaks had dropped to 14,000 by 1517. From Howard Zinn:

“In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were ‘naked as the day they were born,’ they showed ‘no more embarrassment than animals.’ Columbus later wrote: ‘Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.’

But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus, desperate to pay back dividends to those who had invested, had to make good his promise to fill the ships with gold. In the province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men imagined huge gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death.

Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead” (1).

Conclusion

The day celebrating Columbus was created in 1907. One hundred and three years later, it is time to remove this day celebrating violence, bloodshed and the dispossession and extermination of Indigenous peoples from our calendar. We must actively reject the celebration of Christopher Columbus and his legacy. We must also reject historical misconceptions regarding Columbus and his “discovery” of the Americas.

Works Cited:

1) http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

Vlado Dapčević

1917-2001

In Brussels on the 12th of July, in the 84th year of his life died a Revolutionary, Vladimir – Vlado Dapčević.

Vlado Dapčević was born in 1917 in Montenegro. He was accepted into the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in 1933. Because of distributing propaganda material, joining demonstrations and taking part in clashes with the police, he was arrested several times. Together with a large group of volunteers, he tried to get into Spain to take a part in defending the Spanish Republic, but he was arrested and convicted.

He continued his political work at the University of Belgrade, where he was seriously injured during a clash with fascist youth.

In 1941 Vlado Dapčević took part in the people’s uprising in Montenegro against the fascist occupiers. He took part in all the great battles of the Partisan Army for the liberation of Yugoslavia. During these battles he was wounded several times and was twice expelled from the CPY because of criticism of certain decisions of the Party. By the end of the war he had become a lieutenant colonel.

After the war he worked at the Higher Party School, and then he was appointed Chief of Administration of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) for agitation and propaganda.

In 1948, after the Resolution of the Communist Information Bureau opposing Tito’s revisionism, Vlado Dapčević tried to escape the country, but he was caught and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

From 1948 until 1956 he experienced the worst torture at Goli Otok and other concentration camps of Tito’s Yugoslavia.

In 1958, because of the possibility of a new arrest, he fled the country to Albania, and then to the Soviet Union. Because of opposition to the policy of Khrushchev and the CPSU, it was made impossible for him to work politically. He tried to organize a trip of political emigrants to Cuba, and then to Vietnam, but that was made impossible for him by the authorities. Under threat of arrest, in 1967 he was forced to flee the Soviet Union and to go to Western Europe. In Western Europe, until settling in Belgium, he was arrested a few times.

In Western Europe he was engaged in the work of the Marxist-Leninist parties.

In 1975, Yugoslav police kidnapped Vlado Dapčević.

In Yugoslavia he was sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to 20 years in prison.

In 1989 after release from prison he was expelled from the country.

In 1990 he was permitted to return to Yugoslavia.

From 1992 he was President of Partija Rada.

During that period, Vlado Dapčević directed all his activities to the fight against war, and for peace among the peoples of Yugoslavia, while the struggle against Great-Serb nationalism and Milosevic’s regime was the main aim of his political activity.

He was an example of how one consistent revolutionary can defend the basic principles of proletarian internationalism. In his brave struggle for the rights of the exploited and oppressed, Vlado Dapčević with his life and work wrote some of the best pages of the revolutionary anti-imperialist movement of the world.

Information Department of Partija Rada.

Source

Resolution of the CC of the PCE (M-L)

On 18 and 19 June took place the meeting of the Plenary of the Central Committee of the PCE (ml) which analyzed the international and domestic situation, work on different fronts and identified the main tasks of the party in the coming months.

The CC found that both internationally and domestically with the crisis as a backdrop, it is giving an acceleration of events with increasing contradictions between the imperialist powers, outlining the configuration of two large blocks, and increase peoples’ struggle against imperialism and its allies, local oligarchies, fight spreads throughout the world, including the old continent.

Domestically, the economic crisis and its effects are exacerbated and hit again and again to reach the grassroots and policy level with the breakdown of social-liberalism (PSOE) and the regime itself. Reactionary neo-liberal policies implemented by the Zapatero government, and the absence of a true popular respect and left, have facilitated the electoral success of right caveman PP in the elections of May 22, which will further degradation of the famished democracy.

It is in this context arises the movement on 15-M as an expression of weariness of the popular sectors, especially the youth, so much speculation and corruption, lack of democracy, life expectations, and so on. Although sectors of the oligarchy have tried from the start handle and lead the movement to a dead end, the 19-J has shown that the Movement will be 15-M is slipping away from those who try to drive down the lanes of the indefinite and non-political consensus: the protests are even more massive in every corner of Spain, are some new popular sectors (workers, public employees, retirees, housewives, …) and claims to be biased and have limited become broader, more politically charged and class content: in defense of public education and health, against privatization and welfare cuts, against the pension reform by progressive taxation per unit of the popular classes, for a true democracy …

The Pact of the Euro and the Decree-Law on Collective Bargaining will be a twist against the working majority, which joined the call for general strike launched by the 15-M Movement for next October predict a fall hot. UGT and CCOO trade unions should listen to the groundswell of general strike and join, promote and organize the same, and all those movements that are necessary. In this sense, work the PCE (ml), which strongly advocated the unity of the Movement 15-M, the labor movement and union of the fabric of the neighborhoods and the progressive forces of progress as a basic condition of the workers and popular struggles .

In view of the unit and provide an objective political struggles, the Central Committee has welcomed the agreement of the First Meeting Municipal Republican proposal from the Platform of Citizens for the Republic, to participate in the next General Election; because it will help make visible the Republic as an alternative to outdated system of government, without a future, incapable of satisfying the most elementary needs of the vast majority of the population and harmful, while shown as a space to encourage popular unity, to promote the popular building block that addresses oligarchic block attacks.

The Central Committee of the PCE (ML) calls on the people and forces honest, progressive and left to participate in the General Election as a unit under the banner of the republic.

For the unity, future and democracy, the Third Republic!

Adelante!

Madrid, June 19, 2011.

Committee of the PCE (Marxist-Leninist)

PCE (M-L) Delegation Visits Tunisian Workers’ Communist Party

From the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist):

In Tunisia, with our comrades of the TCO, by Julio Calafat

Our party sent on 3 March, a delegation to Tunisia to meet with comrades and other forces. For eight days, we conducted interviews with the spokesman of the Communist Party of Tunisia (TCO), Hamma Hammami, the entire contents will post soon. Here advance excerpts from that interview.

Information has also been discussions with other forces “Confronting January 14″ (day of the overthrow of dictator Ben Ali), paintings and trade union leaders, youth in Tunis, and in the cities of Sousse and Monastir. In all three cities also have attended meetings PCOT comprehensive tables. At all times, brotherhood, solidarity, have been the predominant fact the sister party, with which we share close ties of friendship since its founding in 1984.

During our stay there was the dissolution of the political police of Ben Ali, a state within the state, responsible for repression and guilty of numerous murders, torture … As an anecdote, when the PCOT presented to the interim government Sebsi Beji Caid , March 6, the request to dissolve the infamous police, the Prime Minister himself called Hamma to say that this was an “anarchist slogan”; twenty-four hours, police were disbanded … This is illustrative of the fact that TCO has been almost always ahead of events has been the only organized force from the beginning set out to fight, the other forces were slow to react, hence the supposed spontaneity of movement. Currently, the courts are raised PCOT request that the leaders and police officials, torturers and murderers are tried publicly. Also on 9 was dissolved and its assets confiscated Ben Ali’s party, the RCD.

The “Front January 14″ was created shortly after the “National Council for the safeguarding of the Revolution”, which in turn is organizing “popular committees”, both by region and by villages and neighborhoods of large cities, for, as I said a veteran communist, “the revolution is on the verge of Tunisia,” or as accurate Hamma Hammami, “the revolution is unfinished, half-way.”

There have been personalities, intellectuals, lawyers, have repeatedly pointed to the TCO as the third force in the country. Hammami, wiser, stressed that “not yet, but we’re at it ….” To date, the interim government has legalized 31 political parties, of which only a few, very few existed previously. The TCO will be legalized one of these days, perhaps before the start of this newspaper.

We highlight a few phrases of our interview with Hamma:

“The Tunisian people’s revolution has denied these positions [the Arab peoples will do nothing by themselves, are lazy, etc.] And has shown that without the” help “from the U.S. or France, has been able to rid of the dictator’s strongest Arab world, which was supported by U.S. imperialism, French and others, including that of Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu said after the January 14, with Ben Ali, “Israel has lost a great friend in the region.”

Our struggle has also shown the way to go to other Arab peoples. The Tunisian people were released on 14 January and the Egyptian revolt began on 27 and is free of Hosni Mubarak. Egypt has taken some lessons from what happened in Tunis, Egyptian revolutionary Internet have made​contact with our comrades, and have even agreed on the same slogans, the same methods …

[...] In Libya, among its many errors, Gaddafi made​to criticize the people of Tunisia for having shot down at Ben Ali. Gaddafi said quote: “If I had been Tunisian would strongly supported Ben Ali.”

[...] Libya has already begun. I think that Gaddafi will resist some time. In Libya there is a danger of intervention by the United States for oil. Our Party denounces all foreign intervention in Libya. We have encouraged the Tunisian people to show solidarity with the Libyan, and we have also called on Libya’s revolutionary to be vigilant and not fall into the trap of siding with the Americans to overthrow Gaddafi. If you turn to the U.S. will be the end for the Americans will not go easily, they will stay for long, because their interests are not the Libyan people, but made​with oil. “

(From the meeting held on 5 March in Tunis).

July Calafat

“Unity & Struggle” No. 22 Released

Issue #22 of “Unity and Struggle” has been released. Unity & Struggle (Unidad y Lucha in Spanish) is the theoretical organ of the ICMLPO, or the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties & Organizations.

The 22nd edition numbers 166 pages in the Spanish version and has been published in Spanish, English, French, Turkish, Portuguese and Arabic.

Download this issue (in Spanish)

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ISSUE 22:

Brazil
Long live 140 years since the Paris Commune!
Revolutionary Communist Party of Brazil (PCR)

Burkina Faso
Questions regarding the situation in South Africa and Côte d’Ivoire
Revolutionary Communist Party of Upper Volta (PCRV)

Chile
The potential for confusion is constantly narrowing
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action) PC (AP)

Denmark
Greetings from Copenhagen, Denmark at the World Conference on Women’s Day in Caracas, Venezuela
Communist Workers’ Party of Denmark (APK)

Ecuador
The responsibility for organizing and carrying out the revolution is the work and the main objective of PCMLE
Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE)

Spain
The popular front: A tool for the current situation
Spanish Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) PCE (ml)

France
The peoples of the Maghreb and the Middle East
Communist Workers’ Party of France (PCOF)

Greece
Unilaterally stop payment of the entire debt outside Greece by Euro-EMU-EU
Movement for the Reorganization of the Communist Party 1918-55

Italy
Today, like yesterday, break with reformism and opportunism to set up a real Communist Party
Communist Platform

Mexico
The Soviets (workers councils), their role and their contribution to the proletarian revolution
Mexican Communist Party (Marxist Leninist)

Norway
The popular uprising for a living, democracy and national self-determination in Arabia is problematic to the imperialists and their stooges
Marxist-Leninist Organization “Revolution”

Dominican Republic
The Left is a minority
Communist Party of Labour of the Dominican Republic (PCT)

Tunisia
Interview with Hamma Hammami, spokesperson and member of the Workers Communist Party of Tunisia
Communist Party of Tunisian Workers (PCOT)

Turkey
Turkish Foreign Policy: Illusions and Reality
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (PCRT)

Venezuela
Amid the crisis, spread our theory, a project of great importance
Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela (PCMLV)

UJC Madrid: May 1, Youth Respond to the Crisis of Capital

We are the first generation that will live worse than the one before. Currently, youth unemployment exceeds 43%. Almost half of young people cannot work when we leave the school and thus, it complicates the possibility of emancipation and subsistence in society.

Want to live in your parents until age 50? You think it’s more important to party, buy an iPhone or a Playstation then to fight for your future?

In addition, higher retirement age further complicates the ability to find work. While young people are unemployed, the elderly have to work longer. How do you intend to work more years if we don’t find work? And besides, we must add our job insecurity (grant contracts, temporary, training, etc …) that has facilitated the dismissal of many of us (and the threat of dismissal to those who still have a job) by employers (los Botín, Florentino Pérez, Entrecanales, Amancio Ortega, González, etc, the biggest culprit in the crisis) to sustain their huge profits and exploitation of labor in this time of crisis, in unsustainable conditions, young people, to compete for control the market and, therefore, to obtain the maximum benefit, have gained a lot of money speculating, when the economy was doing well and still winning it in the crisis.

There are possible solutions to the crisis that will not make our living and working conditions worse as public employees, end with garbage contracts and the Plan Bolonia, etc. But do you favor business? The answer is no. Entrepreneurs do not accept and will not accept progressive measures for improving the working and living conditions of workers because it undermines their private profits and makes them less able to control competition for the market, which props up capitalism itself.

They have demonstrated this over the years with all the labor reforms, including the last, and the recent Pension Reform. Through the various governments and purchased major trade unions they have been removing all social progress and struggles of their workers.

Who are the majority in society? Workers or employers? Why is the crisis more beneficial for the employer and the employee must pay? So in this “wonderful” democratic capitalism have all that we preach, or less?

It is necessary to build a different type of society to ensure economic survival and the decision-making ability of the worker, young or old. All young people, students and workers, we must fight for our future. In a future where working and living conditions of the poor are not precarious like the nineteenth century. A society that is more just, equitable and democratic for workers is outside the foundations of capitalism.

Do not stay at home. Fight for your future wherever you are: in your school, your neighborhood, from a union struggle at work, etc. Do not let your boss and the State squeeze you out of being young and hard-working. Your future is at stake. Defend your work and social rights.

Organize and fight! 

FIGHTING YOUTH COORDINATOR.

JCE-ML, CJC, UJC-Madrid.

PCE-ML: For a First of May of Unity and Struggle

In the last year, Zapatero and his government have adopted the toughest adjustment plans, assuming the positions of the major bourgeoisie. They have cut public spending, frozen pensions, reduced the salaries of public employees and increased the IVA. This does not make a left-wing politics, nor does taking measures to cut rights, labor reform, increased retirement age, etc. The government is fully aware that it acts on behalf of a handful of speculators and unscrupulous businessmen, and causes an untenable situation for millions of working families.

Let no one think that pressure will cease: The European Central Bank, instructed by the German government has just increased interest rates, but this more expensive debt will worsen the budget deficit of the Spanish economy and even more difficult things for working families and pymes. The European Union has ordered the prohibition by law of member states’ indebtedness and obligation to set wages based on productivity of enterprises. Zapatero and Rajoy must have committed to this must have for years, even if it means prolonging the crisis and its social consequences in Spain.

In the last three years have proved that they are unwilling to spend money to create jobs for all groups, improve social services, implement the Dependency Act or guarantee a minimum income to the unemployed, but they are willing to spend thousands of millions of euros to support bankers, merge and privatize the Savings Bank, and engage in military interventions decided by the imperialist powers: the latest aggression against Libya.

Very hard times ahead, further ahead are new blows coming to the rights, living conditions and wages of millions of workers. We cannot cope with these challenges, if we remain scattered and disorganized. The irresponsible fear of most of the direction of CCOO and UGT, their distrust of the strength of the working class that was shown in the General Strike of September 29 has led them to engage in pension reform, and perhaps also in collective bargaining, which remains open, rather than continue the fight.

But the conciliatory and cowardly attitude and Toxo and Mendez cannot be  the argument to further disperse the forces of the proletariat and weaken their organization. The Communists call on the working class to prepare for the fighting that will come by strengthening their organizations, and firstly, unions, developing unity and fighting to disperse the enemy forces and weaken their political objectives.

We need unity, but the trade union unity cannot be an excuse to give up the fight. On the contrary, within the unions we have to do battle against opportunistic leaders who are committed to the reconciliation of classes and social peace, supporting trade unionists in class; in the special manner of the CCOO Critical Sector, which is the only organized reference.

The political forces of the bourgeoisie, led by the PSOE and the PP (and there is no difference between them, neither between the Catalan or Basque nationalists) have made clear their aim is to go as far as we let them in reactionary reforms. They openly acknowledge that unemployment and recession will extend at least until 2015, however, they insist over and over again in new cuts, as announced by the Generalitat of Catalonia.

In these circumstances, to face the future, we need to unite against the common enemy: those 1400 families who take more than 70% of the wealth we create, and those who represent their political interests. So far, we have responded to adjustment plans adopted by different governments and we move on to define our own alternatives. We need to express our goals in a political agenda.

The measures required by the working majority have already been exposed by workers: a deep fiscal reform to ensure more resources to the State, to make the wealthy and privileged pay and end the employer tax fraud, business leaders and financial resources, increased public spending to ensure the protection of the unemployed, the coverage of public services and improved social benefits, measures to ensure loans to pymes and families and stop the antisocial attitude of the financial sector, leading to the nationalization of banks; momentum industrialization, etc.

Without these and other measures to put the state’s role in the general interest and collective rights at the heart of economic policy, it will take a long time to overcome the crisis and what will we do with a brutal loss of employment, a weakened ability to organize and defend our achievements, and having sacrificed the rights of an entire generation, doomed to live in worse conditions than their parents and respond in a massive debt, incurred to further the interests of the handful of parasites that caused the recession.

The problem we face is that this program is diametrically opposed to a political structure, economic and administrative, controlled by unscrupulous elements, educated in the impunity of fascism, a political class is undermined by corruption and judicial system increasingly right-wing.

The monarchy continues a political cycle drowned in scandal and misery, overwhelmed by a continuous spectacle of miserable confrontation between institutions and corrupt politicians, with the levers of power in the hands of bandits who are allowed to give advice to a working class which have been forever fleeces, among the rustle of robes and the false glitter of his old and reactionary imperial dreams.

If we do not sweep away this scum, we cannot dream to change the course of events. They continue sending their markets, they apply their policies and continue to accelerate democratic degradation.

On this first of May, at the gates of separate elections which may make a radical shift to political landscape, with a government thrust into the hands of the big business, an emboldened right and a weak and dispersed left, we must realize that the coming months will not be sufficient to recover the social mobilization. We must move to raise the struggle in political terms, to change the regime and conquer and the Federal Republic, to hold against the reactionary oligarchy and lay the groundwork for further progress in the struggle of the proletariat for its emancipation.

There’s no escape – continue or else they will consent to follow marked public policy, make laws and ignore them at will and destroy the gains that our class has won after more than a century of hard struggle.

VIVA MAY DAY OF UNITY AND STRUGGLE!

LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE WORKING CLASS!

AND LIVE THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC!

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)