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 Death of Comandante Hugo Chavez

On the Death of Comandante Hugo Chavez

The Coordinating Committee of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations expresses our regrets at the death of Comandante HUGO CHAVEZ FRIAS, the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, stating our solidarity with the working class and people, with the government of the Boliviarian Republic, with the revolutionaries and the communists, who are bravely fighting for the social and national liberation of Venezuela.

The revolutionary process taking place in Venezuela, that involves millions of people, workers and youth, is engaged in the task democratizing the society; giving the poor sectors the right and possibility of health, education and social security; breaking the opposition from the reactionaries and the oligarchs; and has mobilized the working masses and the youth to defend this process.

The Venezuelan government with Hugo Chavez at the head has established an important policy of integration on the Latin American level, including the various countries of the region, in particular those that are integrated in ALBA. This process aims at an independent development and confronts the unveiled opposition of north American imperialism, that refuses to loose, what it has traditionally considered as its backyard.

For these reasons Comandante Chavez has won the support of the fighters for social liberation and the revolutionaries, of the workers and peoples of Latin America and other continents. He emerges as a fighter, a resolute patriot, a consistent anti-imperialist. His death seems to be a great loss to the struggle against tyranny and to the unavoidable, but hard and difficult process of liberation of the peoples.

But this painful blow will not put an end to the struggle. On the contrary we are convinced that the Venezuelan working class, people and youth will carry it forward. They will know to distinguish between true friend and both the open and disguised enemies, and resolutely march forward in the struggle for liberation, on the road of revolution, towards socialism. With the revolutionary proletarians in the lead they will bury capitalism and imperialism, as will the other peoples of Latin America and the world.

The Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations of the ICMLPO renew our commitment to the international proletarian revolution, to proletarian internationalism, and express once more our conviction that the members of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela and the genuine revolutionary forces in the country shall continue the struggle for the revolution and socialism, until victory.

The Coordinating Committee of ICMLPO

March 7th 2013

Fidel Castro on the Death of Hugo Chavez: We Lost Our Best Friend

By FIDEL CASTRO / PRENSA LATINA

The leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, has described late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as the best friend the Cuban people have had in their history. Prensa Latina posts the full letter by Fidel Castro.

We have lost our best friend

The best friend the Cuban people have had throughout their history died on the afternoon of March 5. A call via satellite communicated the bitter news. The significance of the phrase used was unmistakable.

Although we were aware of the critical state of his health, the news hit us hard. I recalled the times he joked with me, saying that when both of us had concluded our revolutionary task, he would invite me to walk by the Arauca River in Venezuelan territory, which made him remember the chance to rest that he never had.

The honor befell us to have shared with the Bolivarian leader the same ideas of social justice and support for the exploited. The poor are the poor in any part of the world.

“Let Venezuela give me a way of serving her: she has in me a son,” proclaimed National Hero José Martí, the leader of our independence, a traveler who, without cleansing himself of the dust of the journey, asked for the location of the statue of Bolívar. Martí knew the beast because he lived in its entrails. Is it possible to ignore the profound words he voiced in an inconclusive letter to his friend Manuel Mercado the day before he died in battle?

“…I am in daily danger of giving my life for my country and duty – for I understand that duty and have the intention of carrying it out – the duty of preventing the United States from extending through the Antilles as Cuba gains its independence, and from falling, with that additional strength, upon our lands of America. All that I have done thus far, and will do, is for this purpose. I have had to work silently and somewhat indirectly because, there are certain things which, in order to attain them, have to remain concealed….”

At that time, 66 years had passed since the Liberator Simón Bolívar wrote, “…the United States would seem to be destined by fate to plague the Americas with miseries in the name of freedom.”

On January 23, 1959, 22 days after the revolutionary triumph in Cuba, I visited Venezuela to thank its people and the government which assumed power after the Pérez Jiménez dictatorship, for the dispatch of 150 rifles at the end of 1958. I said at that time:

“…Venezuela is the homeland of the Liberator, where the idea of the union of the peoples of America was conceived. Therefore, Venezuela must be the country to lead the union of the peoples of America; as Cubans, we support our brothers and sisters in Venezuela.

“I have spoken of these ideas not because I am moved by any kind of personal ambition, or even the ambition of glory, because, at the end of the day, ambitions of glory remain a vanity, and as Martí said, ‘All the glory of the world fits into a kernel of corn.’

“And so, upon coming here to talk in this way to the people of Venezuela, I do so thinking honorably and deeply, that if we want to save America, if we want to save the freedom of each one of our societies that, at the end of the day, are part of one great society, which is the society of Latin America; if it is that we want to save the revolution of Cuba, the revolution of Venezuela and the revolution of all the countries on our continent, we have to come closer to each other and we have to solidly support each other, because alone and divided, we will fail.”

That is what I said on that day and today, 54 years later, I endorse it!

I must only include on that list the other nations of the world which, for more than half a century, have been victims of exploitation and plunder. That was the struggle of Hugo Chávez.

Not even he himself suspected how great he was.

¡Until victory forever (Hasta la victoria siempre), unforgettable friend!
Fidel Castro Ruz

March 11, 2013

Source

Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador: Political Declaration on the Death of Comandante Hugo Chavez Frias

March 6, 2013

The Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador is deeply dismayed and deplores the death of Colonel Hugo Chavez Frias, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the undisputed leader of the his people, revolutionary political leader of the anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchic struggle being waged by the workers, peasants, youths, women and the poor in the fraternal Latin American country.

The death of Comandante Chavez is certainly a great loss for the peoples struggling for their emancipation, for the progressive, democratic and leftist forces of Venezuela and the continent, who are confronting imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism. It is an unfortunate event that will, however, forge a greater and unwavering determination of struggle that should serve the oppressed, to advance unstoppably in the achievement of the goals of the revolution and socialism.

Under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, some years ago Venezuela began a patriotic and democratic political process of changes to deal with the privileges, high-handedness and arrogance of the traditional sectors of the oligarchy, achieving a series of social gains and demands, setting that fraternal country on the course of the defense and preservation of independence and national sovereignty.

The Bolivarian Government of Hugo Chavez, the democratic, leftist and progressive sectors, together with large contingents of the working masses, have mobilized to defend their sovereignty and confront the pressure, blackmail and anti-national, anti-popular plots of imperialism and reaction. Overcoming their conspiratorial actions and evil plots, including perpetrating a coup, the people defeated these negative actions and ensured the continuation of the process.

The Bolivarian Government of Hugo Chavez and the mobilization of the people approved, by a referendum, an advanced Constitution that enshrined their rights and freedoms; Comandante Chavez made it a tool to deepen significant changes in favor of the majority. Thus, they developed the so-called “missions,” massive programs of education, health care and social security for the benefit of the poor; labor, economic and social policies that benefited the workers, peasants, women, youths and children. The Chavez government relied on the social movement and its organizations to confront the privileges of the oligarchies and reaction, to curb the voracious pretensions of the foreign monopolies, especially from the U.S.

With the presence of Comandante Hugo Chavez, Bolivarian Venezuela has made many valuable efforts to promote Latin American integration and unity in favor of the countries of the continent, faced with the pressures and interests of imperialism and at that level, they have created different organizations and taken measures to resist the imperialist designs in the region.

The death of Comandante Hugo Chavez is certainly a blow to the desire for emancipation of the Venezuelan people and the workers and peoples of Latin America; moreover the example of his patriotic and democratic dedication, of his promotion of Latin American revolutionary unity, are important factors for the process of popular unity and change to continue, deepen, and further contribute to the consciousness that the social revolution is the necessary road to achieving freedom and independence. This will clear the way for the working class and peoples in the struggle for the seizure of power to create the new society of labor and well-being, a socialist society.

We reiterate our solidarity and deep sympathy with the people of Venezuela, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, with all the democratic and leftist political and social organizations of the fraternal country and we reaffirm our commitment to struggle for Popular Power and Socialism.

Sincerely,

Central Committee

Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador

Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela: Statement of the PCMLV on the death of Commandante Chavez

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela, PCMLV, expresses its grief and solidarity at the physical loss of Commandante President Hugo Chavez Frias to all the workers, peasants, students, women’s organizations, revolutionary, anti-imperialist, socialist and Bolivarian parties and organizations of the masses.

We also express our condolences to all his family, friends and to the national government for the loss of a great humanist, a patriotic, progressive and consistent revolutionary statesman, as President Hugo Chavez proved to be until the last days of his existence.

We call on the working class, which knows how to rise to the challenge in the revolutionary struggle in the most pressing moments of history, to prepare to resist and defeat the reactionaries who will not hesitate to take advantage of this difficult time to thwart through violent means the gains and demands that we have achieved under the leadership of President Chavez. Imperialism will set stronger traps at this sorrowful moment that the national revolutionary movement is going through.

The call is to not renounce the struggle to build socialism, the banner that President Hugo Chavez raised in all circumstances; this banner needs to be taken up rigorously and courageously by all the workers of this nation in this difficult moment in history. We, as Party of the working class in Venezuela, make the call for the struggle and building of socialism and communism from the scientific conception of Marxism-Leninism.

The acts of sabotage, of hired killers, the terrorism, food shortages, the propaganda of disinformation, anxiety and manipulation will intensify. The national and international reactionaries feel victorious at this time, but the national and world working class will go forward with the necessary and strategic battles to continue the path of victory and the accumulation of forces to confront the fascists and imperialists.

The death of the President of the Republic must not mean the decline in popular organization, but rather it must serve as an impetus for future struggles against the class enemy. We must not believe in the phony condolences local right wing, which on dozens of occasions tried to assassinate the commandante. These sectors are moved by a single impulse: profit at any cost whatever.

The right wing is evaluating what actions to take in the coming days. It is no coincidence that the Venezuelan government expelled two U.S. military attaches for conspiratorial work.

We strongly call on all the revolutionary elements to close ranks against the capitalist and imperialist enemy. The working class must be prepared for a possible difficult situation; it must not trust the bourgeois enemy that has historically proven to be traitorous. If the pro-imperialist bourgeoisie tries to take advantage of  this hard time of grief of the humble and exploited masses, the masses should respond forcefully and applying revolutionary violence.

Socialism can only be built with the worker-peasant alliance in Power and the people in arms!

PCMLV

Caracas, March 5, 2013

Source

The MPD accuses the government of persecuting Mery Zamora

Luis Villacis, national director of the Popular Democratic Movement (MPD), said the political activist Mery Zamora is a victim of persecution by the government.

Through a press release, Villacis argued that Zamora is haunted by “the crime of thinking differently,” adding that “political harassment” also comes from the president, Rafael Correa.

On the other hand, reported that Judge Villacis fifth time criminal Guarantees of Guayas, Jose Tamayo, has been issued for trial for sabotage against Mery Zamora as part of the investigations by the September 30, 2010.

“This process is full of legal services, and in the preliminary investigation, ruled and dismiss this case and again starts with political persecution without respecting due process and the right to defend the leader emepedista” said the director.

The leader added that part of MPD exhausted all legal bodies in the country to “expose the processes of criminalization against the militants,” he concluded.

Source

PCMLE: Government beneficiary of USAID

Unofficially it is known that the Government would study the culmination of the Framework Convention that Ecuador has with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which would mean leaving our territory. Also, a few days ago it was announced that no more militaries or polices will be sent to the Institute for Security Cooperation in the USA, better known as School School of the Americas.

One or others institutions are instruments of U.S. imperialism to penetrate various strata of society and establish some political, social and military control mechanisms. In the former School of the Americas have trained soldiers from throughout the hemisphere, except Cuba, and many of them have played nefarious roles in their respective countries, whether in the condition of dictators or leaders of research equipment and torture. USAID’s presence is, so to speak, more discreet, then, its work covers through social development projects, public participation and strengthening of democracy.

The expulsion of USAID and the ban on military participation in these courses should have been taken long ago. Although the government tries to build a speech to show an alleged anti-imperialist attitude, there is no doubt that such measures are evidence of double government conduct.

Since the beginning the government of Rafael Correa to June 2011, USAID has invested $ 93.5 million in government projects and the so-called “civil society”. The bulk has to do with conventions adopted from Carondelet, four years ago, the Ministry of Coordination of Production requested the support of imperialist agency to establish sectoral priorities and, from the 20 areas proposed by the USAID, Correa chose 10 strategic sectors such as priority

Currently has agreements with the Ministries of Environment, Tourism, Justice, Agriculture, in Inda, Senplades, with the Council of the Judiciary, the Office, the Electoral Council, among others, over a number of government officials have worked for NGOs, in turn, received funding from USAID.

As for the other subject, we must remember that this measure was taken only after complaint of the SOA Watch organization in the sense that Ecuadorian military and police continued to form in a school run by imperialism.

Source

PCMLE: The government wears and the people progress

To the extent that the Correa government experienced the shift to the right and, progressively, reaffirming its authoritarian, arrogant, undemocratic and repressive forces also began to lose popular support. Correa is not now the person with more than 80% of acceptance, Correa is who now with the name of “forgiveness” disguised a defeat, is one that the persecution and imprisonment intended to silence the voices of protest that grow and multiply, who despite having his hands tucked in justice and supervisory organisms to enjoy impunity, can not prevent official corruption splashes and remove the letterhead to be the government of clean hands. The massive participation of people in the March days proves it..

The first skirmishes became apparent confrontation with the population of Dayuma, with social and labor sectors present in Montecristi, requiring consistency in the drafting of the new Constitution, then escalate with teachers in strike, with peasants and indigenous communities that, in defense of water and life, opposed and oppose the extractive policies of the regime, with high school students for the duration of the card and college student by the technocratic and elitist system of admission, the residents of neighborhoods against taxes. A crucial point in this confrontation and measurement of forces, no doubt, was the popular consultation and we know that to win the Pyrrhic victory he held had to resort to fraud and shameful maneuvers. .

All this makes clear that the social struggle against correÃsmo grows in direct proportion to the intensification of its policy right, repressive and prodictatorial. This is a government eroded without implying that it is cornered, but certainly is a time when the people begin to lose their fear, which Correa is down and the people to rise .

PCMLE

PCMLE: On his knees before the boss

On his knees before the boss

The National Electoral Council is fulfilling faithfully the commitment they have with the president, Rafael Correa, that is, organize presidential and legislative elections so that the results benefit to the correaismo. In other words, working to assemble a blatant election fraud.

On 24th February, the agency defined the 2013 election calendar so that on February 17th will be held the first round and the second on April 7th . This enabled the reforms take effect to the Code of Democracy that run from February 4th and entered by the “ministry of law.” According to the schedule defined by the previous CNE the elections should take place on January 20 for this reason the recent electoral reforms would have no effect because the constitution does not permit to do reforms to the previous year to them. The reforms imposed by the correaismo are made with the purpose that, Alianza PAIS, with less voting, reaches mayor quotation in the National Assembly.

The CNE resolution is illegal and unconstitutional and not supported by technical and financial grounds. If there is already a definite date for the elections of 2013 (January 20) is an immorality vary the election timetable for the reforms are effective and thus benefit the government candidates. The electoral organism has complied with the order of President Correa, made pubic weeks ago, to reformulate the electoral calendar which shows his subservience. It is an act that violates the principles of autonomy, independence and transparency that are supposed rule to that function of the state.

This is just a chapter that show the subjection of the both the legislative and electoral institutions to the president’s authoritarian and undemocratic will.

Legislative work and the response that Jaime Nebot gives from moment to moment from the mayor of Guayaquil. His behavior is due to agree that the bourgeoisie has with government policy. This, the initial shock has passed to the satisfaction to see that in the “citizens’ revolution” their privileges and wealth are respected. So they also chant that this “revolution” is for everyone.

PCMLE

Letter of Marcelo Rivera

“They chase us because we fear, and fear us because we are not afraid”

“I know that prison can not stop the advance of history, the development process up to victory. People young and proud to see the prison can not break our revolutionary spirit. ”

Julius Fucik

Just days after joining – unintentionally – the Center for Social Rehabilitation Sucumbíos, now known as “Guantanamo of Ecuador”, received a visit from a fellow who had not seen for many years.

I met him when he visited these lands in a manner almost always due to the responsibility of the national presidency in Java. It is common that when two people who spoke for a few minutes, but share the ideological principles, revolutionary goals to establish a relationship almost immediately, as if they knew themselves for years.

When I discovered my surprise transfer to prison in the province received their solidarity visit, the years passed, but follow the principles and conviction intact. Among the things fit to bring me gave me something very valuable: some books. Among them a very special for reasons of apparent “lack of time” when he was at liberty had not been able to read with the attention he needed. This is the book Julius Fucik, “Report to the foot of the gallows.” I never imagined I would read this magnificent work in prison.

Julius Fucik was born on January 23, 1903 in Prague. He studied philosophy in the city of Pilsen, in 1921 joined the Communist Party. In the same period he began his work as literary critic and theatrical. He was editor of various communist publications. In February 1941 he became a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party underground. In April 1942 he was arrested by the Gestapo, imprisoned for a year and five months in prison Pankrac cell 267. He was executed in Berlin on September 8, 1943.

His “Report to the foot of the gallows”, taken from prison leaf by leaf, was published in 1945. Going through your paragraphs carefully in my mind comes the difficult moments of unjust imprisonment, the violent occupation of the university police at December 8, 2009, Correa’s threats to imprison me, transfers from one prison to another, extreme vigilance of police officers, the constant harassment, etc.. etc..

Despite all this straight, without ever hesitate convinced each day and hour of triumph of the revolution. How Fucik “He loved life and its beauty marched to the battlefield” … “I lived for the joy and the joy hill. Abuse and injustice would be to put on my grave an angel of sadness ”

I am very optimistic because my buddies always tell me the progress of the revolutionary struggle in the country, the successes achieved and the selflessness with which to fight the rightwing government of Correa. Fucik said “… and now, precisely at this hour millions of men fighting in the final battle for human freedom and thousands fall for this fight. I am one of them. And being one of them, be one of those fighters in the final battle is a beautiful thing. “Then you ask, I wonder: How many millions of cells began to humanity as a way forward? And how many have to go?

I turn to the words of Fucik in prison and I know that the prison can not stop the advance of history, the development of bottom-up process to win. Instead, we lose the fear, we surround ourselves more libertarian heat of combat, the threats of those who bear the authoritarianism does not affect us. People young and proud to see the prison can not break our spirit Revolutionary.

Persecute us because we fear, and fear us because we have no fear.

I conclude this letter recommending to all colleagues, friends and activists reading this book.

I turn to the Fucik other words: “We do not want to be alone, we are not alone. We’re together for now, in freedom and fighting as we sing … “” Comrades in cold cell arrests, are with us, though not with us form our ranks … ”

Prison Sucumbíos

Cell AM-PB

Challenges in the journal of the Left, July 2011 – Ecuador.

Source

Correa: the Class Enemy

Correa and his administration unmasked by themselves with their actions. In this case, the arrest of indigenous representative Marco Guatemal is the latest evidence that Correa is only defending their own, the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie.

A few months ago, Marco Guatemal and his comrades began a journey, a mobilization of peasants and indigenous peoples to defend their right to water freely. This is a sample of semi-feudal struggle against the working classes all have to face a “socialism of the XXI century” like Correa.

Well, Correa has also arrested and charged with terrorism. The Correa government’s mask falls off and displayed for what it is, enemies of the people.

LIBERTAD MARCO GUATEMAL!

CORREA, HIS PARTY AND ADMINISTRATION, CLASS ENEMIES!

Source

Hugo Chavez says he is a Social-Democrat

-What is the difference between you and Fidel? “

Chavez said:

- Fidel is a communist, I’m not. I’m a Social Democrat. Fidel’s Marxist-Leninist. I’m not. Fidel is an atheist. I’m not. One day we discussed God and Christ. I said to Castro: “I am a Christian. I believe in the Social Gospels of Christ.” He did not. Simply didn’t believe. More than once Castro said that Venezuela is not Cuba, that we are not in the sixties.

In original Spanish:

–¿Cuál es la diferencia entre usted y Fidel?”

Chávez dice:

–Fidel es comunista, yo no. Yo soy socialdemócrata. Fidel es marxista-leninista. Yo no. Fidel es ateo. Yo no. Un día discutimos sobre Dios y Cristo. Le dije a Castro: “Yo soy cristiano. Creo en los Evangelios Sociales de Cristo”. Él no. Simplemente no cree. Más de una vez Castro me ha dicho que Venezuela no es Cuba, que no estamos en los años sesenta.

Source

Chavez brings first shipment of gold to Venezuela from foreign vaults as global economy slides

Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

In August Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez announced that he would be repatriating the foreign-held gold reservesin American and European banks and they received the first shipment of gold from European countries on Friday.

The Venezuelan central bank reports that about $300 million in gold was brought in to Caracas by plane and they plan to bring 160 tons held abroad back to Venezuela. The president of the central bank, Nelson Merentes said that the first shipment came from “various European countries” by way of France and called the arrival of the gold bullion a “historic” moment for his country, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Hugo Chavez said, “Now [the gold] will go to a place from which it should have never left: the central bank vaults [in Caracas]; not those in London or in Europe, but our own land.” This is likely quite a good move as Western banks are becoming increasingly exposed to massive amounts of derivatives and sovereign debt crises that are wracking several economies.

These crises very well might be engineered by central banks and their “too big to fail” cronies just as the crash in 2008 was, and Chavez might preempting a possible gold run by demanding physical delivery of his gold now before there is no gold to deliver.

While Merentes would not give the specific number of tons of gold brought shipped to Venezuela on Friday, he said that the shipment was worth roughly $300 million.

This comes as U.S. stocks see the worst Thanksgiving drop since 1932 and all indicators show the European sovereign debt crisis continuing to worsen.

Chavez’s repatriation of gold reserves is part of his initiative to nationalize the Venezuelan gold sector, something which the Wall Street Journal says “puzzled economists.”

The Wall Street Journal published speculation that it could have to do with internal arbitration cases involving nationalizations and Venezuela seeking to prevent having their assets seized abroad.

They claim that it reduces transparency and would “raise more questions over the central bank’s declining reserves.”

How exactly they know the status of the reserves is not said, and Venezuelan figures posit a much more logical explanation for the move.eking to minimize exposure to the overly indebted Western economies of the United States and Europe, while leveraging the high price of gold that only seems to be rising.

They also said that they were seeking to invest in developing allies like Russia and China which have also been investing in the Venezuelan economy and continue to grow at rates not seen in the West.

There has also been a steady attack on Chavez coming from the United States and the West in general so his choice to demand his gold now prevents Western nations from seizing his assets held abroad as they did to Gaddafi.

The Wall Street Journal does seem to be able to pin down a number of how much gold Venezuela actually has.

First they say that before Friday, Venezuela held nearly $11 billion worth of gold, or 211 tons, out of 365 tons of reserves stored in banks in the United States, Canada and Europe.

According to the World Gold Council, Venezuela holds the 15th largest gold reserves and Chavez said, “It’s the economic reserve for our kids. It’s growing, and it’s going to keep growing, both gold and economic reserves.”

Unfortunately you’ll never hear Bernanke or one of the countless criminal Western banksters saying such things, all they care about is robbing us blind and making sure we are enslaved by debt for generations to come.

That is not to say that Chavez is a saint, but the fact that a leader would even talk about working for the well-being of his people is something wholly foreign to someone like myself in the United States.

“Venezuela is going to become an economic power, not for the bourgeois or capitalism, but for the Venezuelan people,” Chavez added.

Later, they say that the Central Bank of Venezuela holds 154 tons of gold bullion domestically, a number considerably different from the 211 tons cited earlier in the article.

Regardless, the Venezuelans seem to see the writing on the wall, with American stocks seeing the worst loss during the Thanksgiving week since 1932, Belgium getting its credit rating slashed and reports saying Greece is telling bondholders they will have to accept larger losses.

This fueled the pervasive concern that the European debt crisis is worsening and treasuries fell in response.

The S&P 500 continued to slump for the seventh straight day in a row, marking a weekly drop of 4.7% and a daily loss of 0.3%.

The euro declined as well, losing 0.9% along with the S&P GSCI commodity index dropping 0.3% with Bloomberg reporting, “The Markit iTraxx SovX Western Europe Index of credit- default swaps on 15 governments lingered near a record, up 6 basis points at 386.”

The signs are not looking good and Chavez demanding physical delivery of his gold just reflects the global awareness that something is seriously wrong with the world economy and it is not getting better any time soon.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

PCMLV: Che – Marxist-Leninist

A year ago we published the article with the name “News of Che and the struggle against opportunism” in our newspaper Revolutionary Steel. Today, we celebrate 4 years of the existence of our glorious party under the motto Marxist-Leninist Che! We feel the need to rewrite, adding some elements that because of time we were forced to ignore or at least playing in lines then general without going into them.

Now, it is necessary to delve into what we consider three cardinal aspects of the attitude of M-L Ernesto Guevara. Their struggle for Marxist-Leninist party building at that time entitled “The anarchists” struggle against revisionism that we called “the Trotskyists” and now added a new chapter called “The Marxist-Leninist philosophy of Che” these being special interest since the various currents neo-rrevolucionarias, neo-Marxist and all sorts of postmodern trash (and old revisions with new hair) lack of historical subject and trying to claim a scientific tool and patented the figure of the Argentine revolutionary.

Che Guevara, is a world figure who was traded by the bourgeoisie to turn it into a harmless icon. Thus, all the streams mentioned in the article, trying to castrate the content of discourse and Che’s Marxist-Leninist revolutionary practice. In this sense, not missing those who distort and decontextualized some phrases, speeches and writings of Che for their benefits revisionists. The literature and practical revolutionary legacy of Che, when we approach from the scientific perspective with a serious study leaves no doubt of his position consistent with the principles of proletarian ideology, which is none other than the Marismo Leninism.

44 years ago, died on guerrilla Ernesto Guevara de la Serna known as “El Che.” Since imperialism through their lackeys in Bolivia, cowardly murdered this great fighter, many misrepresentations have been made about its revolutionary quality. From the anarchists, petty bourgeois, even the Trotskyists have tried to capture the image of Che for opportunistic benefits, so much so that ideologists of Trotskyism integers have written essays on a thick volume called “current of thought and vision of Trotsky Che and Latin America “, in turn alienate the anarchist communism che and try to say it was a fighter for the abolition of any discipline and the spontaneous struggle of the masses.

This October, while commemorating the anniversary of Che’s death, we denounce all revisionist groups, and claim the real Argentine revolutionary ideology of Marxism-Leninism as a genuine. Just read the work of Che to observe its high fidelity to Leninism and Marxism, communist oriented itself exposes all the revisionist nonsense they preach.

Other types of cutting equipment or Armando Néstor Kohan Haart, trying to seize, in patented for himself to this great revolutionary, so does the “arch-Trotskyite” Alan Woods, who (not having anything else to do) is dedicated to write long texts on Che (In line with Trotsky of course), the style of Thomas Aquinas with Aristotle, with its 5-way to nothing included or what is the same as their “permanent revolution.”

To address the design of Che party, we must study about key works, such as speech called “party building”, where he played key issues jettisoned any attempt, not only of the anarchists, but all kinds of revisionists who deny the Marxist-Leninist character must be a revolutionary party if you really want to build socialism. For this reason, in this section called “The anarchists’, we decided to replace the name” The conception of Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Che, “that we do because we believe that” The anarchists “limits the depth of the subject study and gives a unilateral, that although at that time was necessary for reasons of space, now we have to address, giving a more general, making clear the positions of the Che Marxist Leninist unquestionable.

The same it is necessary to this article is a section devoted to the philosophy of Ernesto Che Guevara. Today fashion has entered the bourgeois philosophical theories of existentialism. Certain currents of socialism in the XXI century are demanding reactionary thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger and his so-called “philosophy of life.” The reasons for this mutation was found in the fear of death that pervaded the Venezuelan leader Chavez after an illness.

The philosophy of existentialism is made to attack the man of the bourgeois era with this pessimism and fear of the unknown.

It is here where the reactionaries who run the party and the Venezuelan government have encouraged their “ideologues” or rather, all his sycophants to a gross mismatch between the new man and Che Marxist-Leninist, with the “superman”, individualistic , bourgeois and timid of Nietzsche.

The conception of the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Che

Now, when large shaking movements throughout Latin America and the world at large, we see how the masses rise up against the neoliberal measures that are trying to carry on the workers the consequences of the crisis of capitalism.

In that scenario, tens of conceptions abound all struggling against capitalism, without horizon clear, historical subject and no scientific theory. Many of them are stuck in struggles merely vindictive, leaving aside the political struggle of the proletariat and the seizure of power, the only solution to eliminate the ravages of capitalism in the villages.

One of those many “new” ideas is called “socialism of the XXI century” which has its highest expression in our country. This so-called Bolivarian revolution is just a bourgeois democratic model center has chosen to various social programs that benefit the masses, has been charged with forming a scaffolding wrapped around a socialist but that denies the most fundamental elements of it.

We will not expose all the features of this model, we confine ourselves to what concerns us, which is the conception of the party. We stop a little in Venezuela and its very nice revolution, because it is awarded as his figure of Che, but in practice is diametrically the opposite.

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), between the figures of Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara Rodriguez lies, ignorance or manipulation ¿? This game is first multiclass scaffolding where there is no clear revolutionary subject and program progress to socialism is even fuzzier. Although there is a departure from the word bourgeois writer Heinz Dieterich, its politics, especially the economic one remains the same as the “intellectual” plasma in his book dedicated to socialism sigloventiunero.

The party of Che Guevara, in his conception is deeply communist and Marxist-Leninist. We will not focus solely on the program or the principles of the PSUV, because we all know and it is not the only party of petty nature in Latin America will try to give an outline broadly opposing party’s conception of Che to the reformist ideas of these parties and organizations (although it sounds paradoxical) anarchists.

Marxist Leninist conduct Guevara, faithfully expresses his theories on how it should be the true party of the revolution. In his speech “party building” tells us: “In the general scheme of design of the Party, puts it firmly at the head of the proletarian state, and guide their actions, by example, with its sacrifices, with the depth of his thought and the boldness of his deeds, each moment of our revolution. “later says:” The militant party of revolution is a Marxist Marxism must know and must consistently apply in its analysis dialectical materialism to interpret the world fully, “” We (told later), we hope that all our people go to a single rate, with a single step, that their vanguard have to fight and walk very fast with many difficulties to overcome our shortcomings. That is our task. ”

These passages cited from Che, pulverize any attempt to find a basis of unsubstantiated theories of spontaneity and discipline does not comply with the anarchists seek to manipulate the figure of Che.

As for the petty-bourgeois parties, would only take a look at Che’s speech quoted above about the match. Che says, “And in this new era we live in the stage of building socialism, where all forms of discrimination and sweep is just as unique and determining the dictatorship, the dictatorship of the working class as a class organized on the other classes which have been defeated, and the preparation of a long road that will be filled with many struggles, many troubles still perfect society is a classless society, a society where all differences disappear, not at this time can support another kind of dictatorship than the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class ”

We know that obviously the bourgeois parties that abound in the processes that are developing in Latin America openly renounce the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is one of the fundamental contradictions of them to the theory of Argentine revolutionary party. This is not only based on those games, but of the “communist” parties traditional most of our countries who still cling to Jhrushevismo and opinions of the XX Congress of the U.S. PC, reject the idea of ​​Marxist-Leninist dictatorship the proletariat and she opposed a “popular state”, a “state of all the people” that is just crazy because, while antagonistic social classes exist, the state repressive apparatus will respond to the interests of one . In a society divided between exploiter and exploited, there is no third alternative, or dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat, the exploiters oppress the exploited or vice versa, those who try to go off on tangents, only justify the current dictatorship, ie of the bourgeoisie.

A game where you mix the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat together is not a revolutionary party that we’re clear, a revolutionary party in the first place, it must be a cadre party, a vanguard where are the best elements of the working class revolutionary party is a fundamental requirement that its members do not live other people’s work and have no great interest to operators.

Open the doors of the party to “anyone who wants to register” is a demonstration of the bourgeois character of the same. From management to the foundation of it will have serious and irresolvable contradictions that can only be overcome with the seizure of power by the working class. For example, if converging operators and their representatives in the party, socialism is not viable, because they hinder one of the fundamental rules to move towards this, which is making the basic means of production, the elimination of private ownership the same, the nationalization of banks, the socialization of the land, industrialization and modernization of the country, eliminating the differences between city and countryside, and so on. What do you get with this?, The test have latent in Venezuela and collided with it every moment: the capitalists and landlords are exploiting, killing and crushing the workers and peasants, protected, supported and applauded by the glorious party here exists.

In it, Che was quite clear and precise. The Cuban revolution at first nationalized the major means of production, something very different has happened in other processes petty bourgeois of our continent.

In the Trotskyist

Another revisionist groups that try to deface the image of Che as a revolutionary, are Trotskyists. In this regard, emphasize discourse and compare the attitude of Ernesto Guevara with Leon Trotsky and even a supposed defense and identification of Che with the revisionist Russia. Nothing could be farther from reality, we must answer this with Guevara’s own words against revisionism, Trotskyism and Leninism claim. In 1966, in a speech said: “I have come to Communism by Stalin Dad, I’ve been reading Marxist Stalin, and nobody can tell me not to read his work. I read it even though it was considered very bad read. And since I am a person not too bright and headstrong also continue reading. “In other words:” My duty as a Marxist-Leninist Communist is to expose the reaction behind revisionism, opportunism and Trotskyist comrades and teaching (both in act as in power) should not accept as valid judgments against Stalin formulated by bourgeois, social or other lackeys of the reaction pseudocommunity whose real purpose is to blow up the labor movement from within. ”

In 1953, Ernesto Guevara wrote: “In crossing over the vast dominions of the United Fruit. Again I could convince me that these miserable capitalists are criminals. On a portrait of old and dear Comrade Stalin, I swore not to give me any rest while the miserable capitalists have been destroyed. In Guatemala I will perfect myself to achieve to be a real revolutionary”

These words of Che enough to descend from the clouds to the revisionists and reflect the character and quality of Ernesto as a true Marxist-Leninist who must serve as an example in our efforts to emancipate the working class from the yoke of capitalism in its imperialist phase . Today Che is more relevant than ever because it is the expression of the classic works of Marxism-Leninism.

For Trotsky, we need to analyze who was this character, his attitude to the Russian revolution, against Lenin’s Bolshevik party and the work of the workers in power to develop the technical and industrial base in the country of the Soviets. To accomplish this analysis meet Che incompatibility with this pro-fascist traitor and called for Russian destruction of the Soviet intelligence services with German and Japanese in the prewar period.

From the moment Hitler took power in Germany, the international counter became an integral part of the Nazi plan of world conquest. In every country, Hitler mobilized the counterrevolutionary forces during the last fifteen years had been organizing in the world. These forces then became “fifth columns” of Nazi Germany, organizations of treason, espionage and terror. These “fifth columns” were the secret vanguard of the German Wehrmacht.

One of the most powerful and important of these “fifth columns” acted within Soviet Russia, headed by a man who was perhaps the most notable political renegade in the history of mankind. His name was Leon Trotsky.

When was the Third Reich, and Leon Trotsky was the head of anti-Soviet international conspiracy which had powerful forces within the Soviet Union. Trotsky in exile plotting to overthrow the Soviet government to return to Russia and assume the supreme power, which had once been almost within reach of his hand. Are documented all meetings of the German command Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, former tsarist general.

This anti-communist name Lev Bronstein, was known within the Bolshevik party as the “Red Napoleon”, the explanations are superfluous. It is known that this character was a bitter enemy of Lenin for over 14 years, the most concrete evidence of this was written called “Our task,” where Trotsky poured a lot of accusations and slander against Lenin, similar to the later use against Stalin. When Trotsky warned that the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks is imminent, in August 1917, joins them in the most opportunistic as only he knew how.

Lenin Trotsky never had confidence, and in more than one occasion expressed views about the opportunist. Here are some comments made periodically by Lenin and Trotsky on their activities in the Russian revolutionary movement:

1911: “People like Trotsky, with his words … they are now swollen condition of the time … everyone who supported Trotsky group supports the policy of lies and deceit … workers Trotsky special mission is to throw dust in the eyes of workers, it is not possible to discuss essential things Trotsky because he has no opinions, we just report it as an argument menial.”

1911: “In 1903, Trotsky was a Menshevik, left the Mensheviks in 1904 and returned to them in 1905, boasting all over with phrases ultrarevolucionarias during that time, and again turned away from the Mensheviks in 1906 Trotsky plagiarism today … the ideas of a fraction, and tomorrow another, and so is considered superior to both … I have to declare that Trotsky represents only his own faction. ”

1912: “This group consists of lack of principles, hypocrisy and empty phrases … all under Trotsky ebcubre revolutionary phraseology that does not cost anything or commit you to anything.”

1914: “the old members of the Marxist movement in Russia are very familiar with Trotsky’s personality and not worth talking about it. But the new generation of workers do not know, and we need to let them know … these guys are characteristic fragments of the historical formations of yesterday, when the mass workers’ movement in Russia was still dormant. ”

1914: “Comrade Trotsky has not yet possessed definite opinion on a single issue serious Marxist, always has slipped through the gap opened by this or that discrepancy and has swung from side to side.”

1916: “Trotsky … as always, completely disagrees with the socialchauvinistas in principle, but brand around with them in practice.”

These are some of the opinions that Trotsky was Lenin in all the time Trotsky, Trotskyists is for today, what Jesus is for Christians in their teens.

We can say the killings are the leaders of the party by the clique that operated within the USSR was led by Trotsky. Dr. Leo Levin, a senior associate of Trotsky, infiltrated the Kremlin, was one of the major medical Bolshevik leaders, this man carried out under the guidance of Trotsky’s assassination and Menzhinsky important personages like Maxim Gorky, just to name two of the most emblematic. After the assassination of Menzhinsky was responsible for the GPU, its successor was Yagoda confessed Trotskyist who led the subsequent assassinations of important leaders, the most emblematic was the murder of writer Maxim Gorky, author of the landmark book “The Mother” with his son Peshkov.

Stanislav Rataichak, Trotsky service agent and head of the central administration of the chemical industry, confessed that when Germany was preparing his army hard mid-30, “three slides were prepared, a deviant act in Gorlovka workshops and two more landslides, one in the Nevsky workshops and other chemicals in the workshops combined Voskressensk ”

Yakov Borbnis, Trotsky group and workshop assistant chief Kamerovo said: “The plant was put district in such a condition that if in accordance with the demolition project was deemed necessary to do so, and gave the order, the mine could be flooded . In addition, we provided a coal from the technical point of view it was inappropriate for fuel, circumstances giving rise to numerous explosions. This was done deliberately … many workers are seriously injured ”

These small examples belong to a long chain of attacks, conspiracies and sabotage by anti-Soviet Trotsky and his group, to subvert the country’s industry and leave workers vulnerable to German attack was being prepared since Hitler and the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933 and was fully aware that Trotsky.

All the anti-Soviet Trotsky plot detailed in a study published in the near future, we are making the necessary investigations for publication. Meanwhile, there is more than shown and in the eyes of anyone who figures Trotsky and Che Guevara are not only incompatible but totally contrary, the first anti-traitor, the second a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary. Asked Thinking of Trotsky and Che? Where?

Marxist-Leninist Philosophy of Che

The philosophical content of Che Guevara was none other than Marist-Leninist philosophy, it does not doubt any serious person who is dedicated to the study of South American revolutionary figure. However, from Venezuela, there has been a wave of charlatans making comparisons of Nietzsche and his “superman” with the new man of Che Guevara. Something that seems ridiculous, but it is extremely worrying, more so because these charlatans control state political spheres of power.

It is trying to manipulate the revolutionary masses to keep them out of Marxism-Leninism and abstracting the bourgeois pessimism expressed in the “philosophy of life” in the existentialism of Sartre, Nietzsche and Heidegger, which by the way, the last two are the parents the ideas of fascism in Germany. Let us study what is the “philosophy of life” or existentialism to draw the respective conclusions.

Existentialism or “philosophy of life” is one of the hottest trends today, irrationalist doctrine maybe more characteristic of the period of general crisis of capitalism, which more accurately expresses the spirit of pessimism and decadence that permeates bourgeois ideology of our day.

The most prominent representatives of this philosophy are, in Germany Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, in France, Gabriel Marcel, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, in Italy, Nicola Abbagnano; in the United States, William Barret. Existentialism is the direct successor of the philosophy of Bergson and Nietzsche: His method has taken considerable part of the phenomenology of Husserl. Its basic ideas of the works of Søren Kierkegaard Danish mystic.

In Germany, the philosophy of life began to take shape after the First World War. The exasperation and despair engendered by the defeat of militarism kaiseriano, the fear of the proletarian revolution in Russia and the revolutionary movement in Germany, the dim hopes for a rematch and the hysterical frenzy of fascism gained strength, formed the political and spiritual he grew up “philosophy of existence”.

Existentialism in a nutshell is the fear of the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals to the rise of the labor movement and popular, all this fear was formed in existentialism reasons largely explain their receptivity in bourgeois circles.

After the Second World War, existentialism morphed into the familiar “philosophy of life” and spread throughout the capitalist world. It spread easily because in an individualistic society like the bourgeoisie, this philosophy is focused (and still focuses) on issues concerning the meaning of life, man’s destiny, choice and personal responsibility, the fear of death , all flows in the name of “philosophy of life.”

To those people, infected by all the prejudices of bourgeois society, who have failed to even make your choice and oscillate between the contending forces (bourgeoisie and proletariat), or try to put over them and feel overcome with bright ideas and at the same time, are aware of the sinking of their supports them just goes “philosophy of life.”

We can not imagine a Che Guevara preaching all the absurdities of bourgeois theory and pessimistic, which is nothing but the widow of capitalism, the justification of bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat and, above all, blame the blame for all ills system to the bad practices of individuals, selfishness, etc.., and not capitalism, only guilty of atrocities and the crisis which we live.

In the period of disintegration of bourgeois society and the spiritual crisis that the slab, the mood emphasize individualistic and become breeding grounds for the reaction against the collectivist ideas of the proletariat and Marxist-Leninist philosophy. This is precisely what we see in these times of turmoil, where social movements come to life as capitalism sinks into a gigantic bankruptcy is no coincidence that this philosophy emerges as the answer to Marxism-Leninism which undoubtedly is gaining momentum for its force and as the only tool capable of eliminating the causes of the crisis, ie the bourgeois mode of production. The Superman figure is without doubt the opposite of this “superman” existentialist just described.

We invite all comrades to study and deepen the figure of Che Guevara. We know your image, like that of Stalin has been corrupted and manipulated at the whim of the imperialists and those who make the game, it is our duty to vindicate Marxist Leninist all the characters have really fought for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Ecuador Deepens Its Dependence on China

En Marcha #1540

July 15 to 21, 2011

Ecuador Deepens Its Dependence on China

Ecuador cannot present itself as a country that adequately manages its debt strategy when more than half of its debt is in the hands of China

Because of the peculiar manner of contracting loans with China, the exact amount of debt with that country has always been unclear; these days the debt has increased by $571 million through an additional loan for the building of the Sopladora hydroelectric dam.

As with the other loans, the interest is high, reaching 6.35%. Altogether the debt with China has reached $7,300 million dollars, according to international analysts interviewed by the Reuters news agency.

In these circumstances China has become Ecuador’s main creditor, which is very convenient for that country but compromises Ecuadorian sovereignty and interests. This has already been seen and the anticipated petroleum sale exemplifies this.

As part of the terms of payment Ecuador received in advance a billion dollars for the sale at market price of 130 million barrels of crude oil and 18 million of fuel oil to Petrochina in six years. This action would be one of Ecuador’s “certificates of good behavior” to later obtain a loan of two billion dollars, but it commits Ecuador to deliver 60 thousand barrels of oil a day for six years, an important amount that “coincidently” is the same as what the Andes petroleum company extracts from Ecuador’s Amazon basin with Chinese capital.

The situation cannot be analyzed without taking into account China’s strategy and its geopolitical position. That country, although it still calls itself socialist, has not been so for decades; the reforms to the Communist Party constitution that allow industrialists to be members is the latest example of this.

Its gigantic productive apparatus serves to increase the profits of the great monopolies of the planet as it hires out the labor of its workers for super-exploitation. But this, among other things, has led it to accumulate enormous economic resources that it has placed mainly in the United States itself, a country which, like Venezuela and now Ecuador, among others, is its main creditor.

The agreements which it generally arrives at envisage the solution of its main problem, which is energy; therefore it is no surprise that it has obtained the anticipated sale of petroleum, because that is its policy; but this is reprehensible for the Ecuadorian negotiators, since it is clear that they became easy prey to the Chinese attempts to obtain high interests for their loans and guarantee of the sale of petroleum.

As the most populous country on the planet, it is always the objective of the transnational companies to gain access to this market; this made it possible to take important steps to join the world capitalist economic order, even being able to place conditions and to now become a defining player in the world economy, being the second largest power on a world level. It is another imperialism.

China has an enormous trade surplus, according to experts, equivalent to the U.S. deficit, which is enormous. It has the money to be the financer of the United States and now of Europe, which are demanding that it increase the value of its currency, the Yuan. This could affect the position of the Ecuadorian debt, which is tied to the value of that currency.

In terms of geopolitics what has happened to Ecuador is simply that it has changed its master. Correa at one time questioned U.S. policy, that of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and earned their distrust, although now it is trying to regain that trust. In that process, Correa has ceased to be consistent with his original proposal and now has led the country into new dependencies, without any advantage for his country. On the contrary, the results of the negotiations of China with several debtor African countries leave serious doubts about the outcome of this new Ecuadorian dependency towards another imperialist country.

PCMLV: The government of Venezuela

Will the other counter-insurgency military base?

The world left, revolutionary and social organizations of Latin America had overcome the disappointment, when he again suffered a blow, which forces us as combatants and Marxist Leninist Communist Party back on the subject.

While President Chavez has reaffirmed his supposed “honest” to proceed and said that the murderer will continue working with the Colombian people, the “lord” Manuel Santos, we will continue to fight the revolutionaries fascism treason and bourgeois and imperialist system. As we are sure, the thousands of Colombians continue demonstrating, organizing and fighting in their homeland, with arms in hand to rotten and retrograde structures of a criminal oligarchy that has always had ability to get new and better friends, now in Bolivarian ground.

The delivery of Comrade Joaquín Pérez, and more recently still, the capture of the guerrilla fighter and revolutionary singer Julián Conrado is serious, very serious, we’re all looking, disappointment not to abandon the march, but rather move through over the Social Democrats, that this confirms the thesis of our party on the bourgeois character of this government. We say this for the obvious joy that without the slightest remorse expressed by national authorities, boasting of their efficiency in capturing revolutionaries, guerrilla fighters, communists. Mr. President, let all see that it was a hot potato as Joaquín Pérez, a Venezuelan state policy, and as you can understand why we should worry and sharpens our caution about his reconciliation with fascism. “We’re not under or subject to blackmail from anyone, or the extreme left or the extreme right.” This said, his ministers and yourself, speaking to groups who questioned his performance in the case Becerra however, the government of Santos Is not one of the far-right governments in the world, one of the criminals and murderers in Latin America?

From the Rio Grande to Patagonia, from the innermost village or indigenous community, even the most distant of our continents, rising voices of protest, that you intend to silence, perhaps because this particular “new form” revolutionary action, not is nothing revolutionary nor new.

This approach favors imperialism, which have no qualms at the time of attack in any way to our country. See the example of Libya, despite the reformist and conciliatory attitude of the world imperialism Gaddafi, Libya is undergoing the most ruthless bombing by the imperialist forces of NATO.

The crisis of capitalism in the world is becoming more complex, constantly growing aggressiveness of imperialism, and reform succumb to their threats, I expressed the seventh resolution of our Party in 2010, “the grassroots and criticism the direction of those games, despite the triumphant speech, know this only demonstrates the vacillating character of its leadership and weak to make big decisions in favor of the revolution … bipartisanship, business, parliamentary theater, buying votes and the agreement under the table will be the norm to impose .. “

PCMLE: Police State

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

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

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

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

PCMLE

For the FARC Hugo Chavez is unpredictable

“Quite unpredictable and dangerous is Chavez’s policy, while imperialist and promises denies socialism is Uribe’s hand while homologous to the FARC and paramilitary criminals presence on the border,” said Raul Reyes, number two Marxist-Leninist guerrillas in Colombia, in a letter to the secretariat issued on June 25, 2007.

In previous communications, the guerrilla leader now deceased, described what for him were inconsistencies in the doctrine expressed by the Venezuelan president.

“Chávez is unpredictable, no pictures, makes decisions on their own and there anything can happen in terms of the gringos loosen or radicalized against them,” Reyes said in another communication on June 25, 2006.

The relationship between Chavez and the FARC back to 1992, according to an email from March 16, 2000 when Raul Reyes Chavez expressed his satisfaction with the invitation to members of this organization visit Venezuela and recalled: “Our political relationship with you and much of the current government of Venezuela, already has 8 years of life and become increasingly more apparent coincidences. “

The first sign of inconsistency came on May 19, 2004 when Raul Reyes told the foreign minister of the FARC, Rodrigo Granda, the permanence of Chavez to power was in doubt. “It’s unpredictable what can happen in the amount of interest moving within the government itself, pressure from political opponents and the lack of early decisions Hugo’s own. “

Almost two months later on July 15, 2004, when Chavez and his Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe met in Zulia Granda was unhappy with the language of the Venezuelan president.

“Chavez’s public reference against the Colombian insurgency did not like. Can be understood but in my view were unnecessary. Retrace the theme of` great battle “given to a small unit block 41 and the delivery of guerrillas Colombian authorities. Uribe and Chavez made good business.

It was all hugs, smiles and mutual praise, “wrote Granda Raul Reyes.

Government followers reject deportation of alleged FARC member Joaquín Pérez Becerra

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

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

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

Santos asks Chávez to arrest alleged Colombian guerrilla Joaquín Pérez Becerra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 25

Venezuelan Communist Party rejects detention of alleged FARC leader

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

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

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

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

April 26

Alleged FARC member is handed to Colombian authorities

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

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

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

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

Colombia thanks Chávez for Pérez Becerra’s extradition

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

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

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

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

April 28

Government followers reject deportation of alleged FARC member

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

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

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

April 29

Venezuela wants Sweden to explain Pérez Becerra’s sneaking away

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

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

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

Source

Emek Gençliği: Marcelo Rivera Must Be Released Immediately!

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

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

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

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

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

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

We

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

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

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

On Joaquín Pérez Becerra

Joaquín Pérez Becerra is being deported from Venezuela to Colombia, where the Colombian government is accusing Becerra of “terrorism” because his news site, The New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL), allegedly “supports” the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP). Venezuelan authorities arrested Becerra on 23 April at Maiquetia International Airport, outside of Caracas, after a phone call from Colombian President Juan Santos requesting Becerra’s detention and deportation.

“It’s not my responsibility – the main blame goes to this gentleman who came here knowing that he was being looked for by Interpol, with a code red. Each person assumes their own responsibility,” Chavez said.

“[Becerra] got off the plane and we captured him, and just like we handed over the [accused terrorist] Chavez Abarca to the Cuban government, we handed [Becerra] over to the Colombian government,” Chavez continued.

In what is now being widely referred to as the “Becerra Case” by leftist social movements and political parties in Venezuela and abroad, the detention and deportation of Joaquín Pérez Becerra – director of ANNCOL and a source of re-published communiqués of the FARC-EP – has caused unrest among many of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s most staunch supporters.

While some protests against Becerra’s deportation have been held in downtown Caracas this week, a demonstration on Thursday outside of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry involved over 300 people from a diverse array of leftist movements and political parties.

Thursday’s protest brought together representatives from numerous pro-Chavez social movements, including the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar (CSB), the Simón Bolívar National Communal Front (FNCSB), the “Clara Zetkin” Women’s Movement, the Front for the Detained and Disappeared of the Continent, and the Revolutionary Tupamaros Movement. Also in attendance were former Venezuelan Trade Minister Eduardo Samán, current Venezuelan lawmaker Oscar Figueras Yul Yalbur, and investigative journalist Eva Golinger.

Protestors chanted slogans critical of the government’s decision to deport Becerra, including “a true revolution doesn’t turn in revolutionaries” and “the middle-of-the-road comes right before treason.”

— Espresso Stalinist

Revolutionary intellectuals protest deportation of alleged FARC-EP member Julian Conrado

The imprisonment in Venezuela, with the collaboration of Colombian military intelligence, of FARC-EP Commander Julian Conrado, and the Hugo Chavez Frias government’s decision to give this outstanding revolutionary to the neo-fascist government of Juan Manuel Santos was received with surprise and indignation worldwide.

The arguments cited by the Venezuelan government to justify the action (the request of Interpol, agreements with Colombia, etc.) are unacceptable and even ridiculous.

It’s shocking to invoke the “fight against terrorism” in the context of collaboration with Santos, a drug dealer who practices state terrorism as a strategy of power. With this additional problem: for years, President Hugo Chavez appealed for recognition of the FARC-EP as a belligerent revolutionary force.

Our concern and outrage is all the more given much the government in Bogota, according to news agencies, is already considering attending a possible extradition request for Commander Julian Conrado from the United States.

We are aware that the attitude of Venezuela is inserted into the continuity of a spurious cooperation with the Colombian police that recently resulted in the delivery to Juan Manuel Santos of Swedish journalist Joaquín Pérez Becerra, director of the news agency ANNCOL, and other prominent fighters the FARC-EP.

In the hope that the Venezuelan authorities immediately and unconditionally release Commander Julian Conrado, we the undersigned, in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, stress that the ideals espoused by the progressive democratic government of Hugo Chávez are incompatible with the gesture that motivates our vehement protest.

Istvan Meszaros, philosopher and university professor, United Kingdom, Hungary

James Petras, a sociologist, university professor, U.S.

Angeles teachers, doctors, partisan leader, Spain

Annie Lacroix Riz, historian, France

Carlos Aznarez, journalist, Argentina

Daniel Antonini, party leader, France

Domenico Losurdo, philosopher, university professor, Italy

Edmilson Costa, Professor University, Brazil

Filipe Diniz, architect, Portugal

Francisco Melo, Editor, Portugal

George Gastaud, philosopher, and political leader, France

George Hage, a former lawmaker, France

Henri Alleg, writer, France

Ivan Pinheiro, lawyer and political leader, Brazil

Jean Salem, historian, university professor, France

John Catalinotto, writer and editor, Workers World Party leader, U.S.

Fidelino Jorge Figueiredo, economist, editor of resistir.info, Portugal

Jose Paulo Gascao, editor of odiario.info , Portugal

Jose Paulo Netto, a university professor, Brazil

Leyla Ghanem, anthropologist and political leader, Lebanon

Luciano Alzaga, journalist, Sweden

Marina Minicuci, journalist, Italy

Mauro Iasi, university professor, party leader, Brazil

Miguel Urbano Rodrigues, writer, Portugal

Pavel Blanco Cabrera, political leader, Mexico

PRANCHÈRE Pierre, a former congressman, co da Resistencia, France

Virginia Fontes, historian, university professor, Brazil

Néstor Kohan, Investigator, Argentina

President Santos after gaining support from Correa and Chavez to attack the FARC-EP

Protests by pro-Chavez workers against the deportation of the FARC leader from Venezuela

The leader of the communist guerrillas of the FARC in Colombia, Alfonso Cano, was “to fall” on Thursday in a military operation against him in the south, revealed on Sunday the president Juan Manuel Santos.

According to Santos, the troops reached the camp early Thursday in which it was Cano, but he had fled earlier. “Last night, Wednesday night, slept there,” the president said in a statement to reporters after visiting the camp abandoned by the leader of the FARC.

“It’s the third time we’ve been about to grab it,” said Santos, who promised again that “sooner or later will fall.”

According to the president, the troops reached the camp, located in a secluded area on the border between the departments (provinces) of Huila and Cauca (southwest), “thanks to his own people are betraying.”

Joaquin Perez Becerra, alleged FARC member sent to Colombian government by Chavez

“We found that he had slept in the camp,” he said Santos in his remarks to reporters at the Catam military airport, after arriving in Bogota area of the​military operation, on which declined to reveal details.

Santos also said that with the ongoing operations being conducted by police against the top leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), it has had to leave their “traditional area of ​​operations,” which did not specify.

“Our forces are on the offensive. What happened was just another operation against Alfonso Cano (….), but the police will continue chasing because sooner or later will fall, like going to fall all the leaders of FARC and have been falling, “he said.

Cano, whose real name is Guillermo Leon Sanchez Vargas, and that the next meet July 22 63, assumed leadership of the FARC after the death of the historical leader Manuel Marulanda (“Sureshot”), the March 26, 2008 by heart attack, according to the guerrilla group.

The FARC, with 47 years of armed struggle against the Colombian state, is the nation’s oldest guerrilla and currently has about 8,000 fighters according to the Ministry of Defense, after the past decade grew to between 11,000 and 17,000 members.

Right-wing former president Alvaro Uribe (2002-2010) launched a major military offensive against the FARC led by Santos when he was defense minister.

Santos vowed Sunday to continue the offensive.

Venezuelan Marxist-Leninists (PCMLV) on the Chavez Referandum

Political Resolution of the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela

The National Situation

In the present national situation, the amendment to the constitution of the republic, which allows any government official to run for re-election continually, represents a political element of greatest importance. This proposal is opposed to the concept of alternation in office, a concept of bourgeois democracy, which reduces democracy to a change of personalities of the system, but is designed to maintain and deepen capitalist relations of production with an appearance of “change,” so that nothing changes and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is perpetuated.

For us the struggle is to remove the bourgeoisie, to seize power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of government appropriate to socialism. We consider this amendment as positive since it contributes to sharpening the contradictions where they are expressed: the interests of imperialism, represented by the tendency that is opposed to the amendment as a way to close the road to the permanence of Chavez. These, with the full support of imperialism, are trying to confuse the people and, by means of terrorist measures, of manipulation of the news and psychological warfare, are trying to impose the NO option. Their plan is to call immediately for a referendum to revoke Chavez. This would imply, if the amendment is not approved, a strong internal struggle to find a substitute for Chavez, strengthening the division and backward motion of the Bolivarian process. The landowners and sectors of the “native” bourgeoisie are also pushing forward their policy in alliance with imperialism but they are playing a game of pawns and are following a policy of sabotage but without their own plan, their area of influence is among sectors of the parasitic and bureaucratic petty bourgeoisie.

On the other hand, the convergence of the revolutionary, patriotic, popular and proletarian sectors are joined in a left-wing tendency that supports the Bolivarian process and that is based on the proletariat and the peasant masses, with the presence of certain revolutionary intellectuals and a few elements of the “national” bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. They support the amendment as a form of giving continuity to the Bolivarian government without risking the possibility of splits in an electoral scenario without Chavez given his influence.

For these reasons we consider the proposal for the amendment to the constitution to be positive and we are taking up the task of winning the support of the majority. This is an activity that must be taken up by our mass organizations to mobilize them, making use of these events for the political organization and education. It is necessary to overcome the weaknesses shown in previous electoral processes, given the influence of opportunism and the petty bourgeois tendencies that have taken advantage of their preeminence in Chavez’s government and party.

At the present time, with the level of development of the struggles in Latin America, the presence of leaders of the left-wing tendency, which has anti-U.S. positions and great national and international influence, make it possible for the revolutionary forces to continue advancing and consolidating spaces to build bases for the revolution and socialism. In this we Marxist-Leninist parties have a role to play, strengthening the party and building spaces of direct ties with the masses to find the road to the genuine revolution and socialism. We understand that these processes only represent a bourgeois democratic expression, which has points of contradiction with imperialism, in particular U.S, imperialism, and neo-liberalism, but supported by social-democratic, Keynesian and reformist thought that are of a populist and anti-communist nature.

It is important to note that this process of the constitutional amendment is developing in an atmosphere marked by the sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism, which has struck the world economy hard. The Venezuelan economy will not be able to escape the totality of its effects since there will be many confrontations despite the governmental talk that “we are armor plated.” The class struggle will become serious and in our specific case the amendment will sharpen the contradictions; if the YES wins, reaction will continue to develop its policy of confrontation supported by the governors and mayors that it controls today, trying to surround Caracas, with support from Miranda, Carabobo and the border with Colombia in a long-range policy. If the NO wins, the advance of the right wing can accelerate its offensive, resorting to fascist violence supported by the favorable results, the accumulated force to revoke the government immediately, taking advantage of the internal struggle that would take place among those who support the government (mainly within the PSUV [United Socialist Party of Venezuela, Chavez’s party – translator’s note]) to succeed Chavez in the next presidential elections. This would lead to open betrayals, dissents and leaps into the enemy camp. Either way, the result of the amendment will be decisive for the future; in the regions controlled by the right wing the clashes will be more acute, especially around Caracas.

All this provides us with a panorama of greater political instability, where the need for the class vanguard is essential and our young Party will need to take up a determining role for which it must prepare all the forces at its disposal.

Central Committee of the PCMLV

Ecuador: The Criminalization of Social Struggle

Ecuadorian indigenous people protesting against the privitization of water on Sept. 30th, the so-called "police coup" or "coup in Ecuador" by Brezhnevites

One of the characteristics of the government of Rafael Correa is the criminalization of social protest, whose content comes from rules created during the military dictatorship in the 60′s and which are reinforced by a very close to the definition of terrorism expressed by the FBI, organism for which a person commits this crime or any organization interested in influencing state policies through any action that breaks the ordinary process of endless paperwork with which the State is able to stop any possibility of change. From that vision, the State appears as the alleged victim of an active social expression, even though the state supposedly represents the whole of that company or, as we say in the language of government, “the homeland and is for everyone.”

“Do not believe the romantic environmentalists, anyone who opposes the development of the country is a terrorist.” That sentence was pronounced Rafael Correa in a national strike in protest at Dayuma on December 1, 2007, at the beginning of his administration. The “development” is set as the indisputable objective, but: What development? Who decides? What for whom or what social class? This goes in the debate and break any sense of democracy, the government has put all key decisions in one person: the president. So, who does not think like the President, is someone who opposes the “development” of the country and therefore can be treated as a terrorist.

The legal basis to which the government has used is the Revised Penal Code by the military dictatorship in 1965. The reform of the dictatorship included a chapter “Crimes of sabotage and terrorism.” These crimes include the cessation of health services (imprisonment of one to five years), destruction, damage, cancellation, interruption or stoppage of public services (eight to twelve years), the affect the collection, production, transportation, storage or distribution of raw materials (imprisonment of one to three years), the terrorist attack against public officials or their property (three to six years) and the terrorist threat (imprisonment from three months to one year). This text was included in the 1971 codification made by the last dictatorship of Velasco Ibarra and remains until today, under the shadow of the National Security Doctrine imposed by imperialism in Latin American countries as a mechanism to suppress social dissent.

Moreover, the President sent to the National Assembly a draft penal code reform (trade DPR-O-10-81, July 9, 2010) posed to increase the penalty for traffic disruption to a minimum of two years (it was one) and a maximum of three years. Thus, social mobilization in the streets intended to be prevented and unknown as a means of expression and participation of broad sections of people who do not find ways of expression in the battered and reduced mechanisms contained in the Constitution and boycotting in practice, especially when the simple difference leads to attacks using even the national chains. With the government’s proposal, the same punishment he would close a road in a protest that a torturer, but Correa calls for expanding the penalties for torturers.

Such sanctions break a street demonstration to disrupt traffic, is more effective to have tens of years a state of emergency, such as those against the people fighting today in some Arab countries.

It is easy to see that all these measures were and are used against the popular sectors. Facto power groups have other mechanisms of expression and participation, which are “neither terrorism or sabotage, but are crucial to the life of a country like ours.

The government of Rafael Correa, also used Article 230 of the Penal Code and hardly had used other constitutional governments, even the most liberal. The offending article Merchandisers with threats, feigned or insulting the President of the Republic, an obsession that is expressed to the extent that the proper expulsion of U.S. Ambassador after the unveiling of the cables by Wikileaks, it argues more for the dignity of President and less for national dignity, which is what really matters from a perspective of sovereignty.

The government position is clearly visible in the very fact of having, according to various estimates, with about 286 accused of terrorist crimes (Vanguard magazine and sabotage, approximately 189 of them belonging to indigenous peoples, says the CONAIE. So far this year, the news has highlighted other facts in which mentioned only a few:

– Seven villagers of Cochapata Region Nabón have been convicted of terrorism and sabotage to 8 years in prison for opposing the open-pit mining in the county. This despite having received amnesty in the Constituent Assembly in 2008, it has not taken effect.

– The president of the FEUE, Marcelo Rivera, a political prisoner of the current regime, was illegally transferred to the prison in Lago Agrio in retaliation for the hunger strike the prisoners carried out, as a measure of opposition to the dismissal of the Director of Prison No. 2, Criminal Ex García Moreno. (March 11) and seeks to extend his sentence

– No files, despite ending time for the tax inquiry, the trial against the leader Lina Solano Ortiz, by the Corriente Resources mining company.

– The arrest on charges of sabotage and terrorism Acaro Pepe, Pedro Mashiant and Fidel Kaniras, leaders of the Shuar, who raised the indigenous movement in the country. Were released lego a judge declared that his detention was illegal.

– January 18, repression Mejía college students to protest against the announcement of unpopular economic measures and the police entered the school.

– Detention by the police to young people and Santiago Jairo Erazo Faris, NTU students who today Wednesday, March 30, were arrested for expressing their rejection of the use of university facilities for the President to proselytizing Si in the query.

– In Machala, Mark Sovenis Quinto, 31, claims to have been violently assaulted by the Presidential Escort because he said “fascist” at the head of state.

– Judgement authors of “Big Brother” started in March.

– Closure of Radio Canela Morona, in April.

All this expresses several contradictions in the discourse and practice of government: first, to the Constitution in Article 98 recognizes the right of resistance on the other, with Amnesty that the Constituent Assembly decided in March 2008 for about 600 fighters holding “that people have been prosecuted in the need to exercise the right to claim in defense of natural resources and to achieve a dignified life in an ecologically sound and free of pollution (…) and that mobilization actions and claims of communities are essentially political and social demands. ”

In this situation of terror and intimidation that comes from the executive, joins the bill to amend the rule on Public Security and State, and allows the armed forces to intervene in “internal security and maintaining control of order”, under the President’s command. Again, the aim is a permanent state of emergency but hidden under other laws.

A government that bases its legitimacy on state violence, the use of legal mechanisms to suppress and the Armed Forces in the streets, little can talk about democracy, let alone socialism. It is, however, a government seeking social discipline in terms of submission and obedience to the orders and official views.

If I could the government take over the judicial system (beyond the control now visible) through consultation, it is obvious to think that the situation for the popular sectors is difficult. And we must insist that it is for the popular sectors, because not one “hairy” is on trial for terrorism and sabotage.

Fortunately, history shows that Ecuador and measures do not stop the organized people who has victoriously faced dictatorships overthrown government and full implementation of the “state of emergency.” On the contrary, such measures raise the outrage and already we are seeing now that Rafael Correa rejections received in various parts of the country, despite the controls and security that comes with it.

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist)

Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela: the delivery of revolutionaries to the Colombian repressive apparatus is, without doubt, an ill-advised policy

Editorial in Revolutionary Steel No. 9, May 2011

Organ of the central committee PCMLV

World events move inexorably towards higher and higher stages of class struggle, although not completely visible due to the lack of a more quantitative and qualitative development that directs these actions of the proletariat in different countries. It is clear that the working class is taking firm steps to assume its leading role in the struggles.

In Egypt, before the uprisings of Cairo, generated major strikes that were harshly suppressed, but left combativeness and the spirit of struggle seeded. In Tunisia, there were demonstrations and protests, especially by the unemployed, who arrived after the immolation. In Bolivia, the Bolivian Workers Central, deep-rooted, has forced President Evo Morales to sit at the table to agree to levels of pay increase. Similarly, in Europe the major workers’ mobilizations are required reference.

Despite the bourgeois orientation of the reformist leadership that still controls the trade union movement worldwide, the working class struggles to break through, ousting the leadership and replace them with real leaders of the working class, ie, genuinely revolutionary.

Venezuela is no exception to this situation, nor is it abstract from the effects of the general crisis of capitalism. For this reason, the discontent among the working class has begun to become evident and some disorientation at the politics directed towards workers that in no way meets the aspirations and requirements of the Venezuelan working class. We live in a capitalist economy, where the individual profit of the bourgeois is the essence. This profit is based on the forced extraction of surplus value from the working class and also becomes a tool to exploit more workers.

The proletariat needs a clear policy on labor which does not discuss revolution in a speech while preserving the structure of capitalist oppression and related economic sectors are strengthened or complacent with the government; since the working class support the Chavez government, but also demand a policy that will definitely defend the workers, producing real social wealth; one that will end complacency with the exploiters, financial capital and transnational corporations in the oil and banking sectors that have been enriched to form a giant expense of the exploitation of the working class.

Moreover, we note with great concern, as every day, with great efficiency with social media communication, the Minister of Interior and Justice is proud to deliver revolutionaries to the reactionary government of Juan Manuel Santos.

Revolutionary politics has to have correlation between saying and doing. A speech against imperialism must be consistent with the confrontation with the reactionary policies. To comply with its demands, to be complacent with the right, leads to nothing good.

The delivery of revolutionaries to the repressive Colombian apparatus is, without doubt, a misguided policy that only leads to frustration and disenchantment of the masses, political confusion and mistrust around the revolutionary movement which sees the actions of this kind as a sign of weakness to fascism, a path that is not conducive to deepening revolutionary struggle but to stagnation, reformism and perhaps a betrayal of revolutionary ideals, listening in “high policy” consensus and the fear of an imperialist attack, sooner or later, with or without appeasement will be present in our land, the hands of imperialism to take over our wealth.

Only the revolutionary deepening will set us free, long live the proletarian internationalist struggles!

No to appeasement.

Colombia says Chavez helpful against FARC

Hugo Chavez and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe

Colombian soldier gloats over the bodies of dead FARC members

BOGOTA, April 19, 2011 (AFP) – Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos said left-wing FARC guerrillas are probably operating in neighboring Venezuela but that leftist President Hugo Chavez was helping to battle them.

“It is likely that the guerrillas are also present in Venezuela, but I am confident that they are not under the protection of the Venezuelan government,” he told Radio Caracol on Monday.

“President Chavez has said: ‘If you find a FARC camp in Venezuela, give me the coordinates and we will respond immediately.’ When we have given him the information, he has responded,” he said.

FARC fighters killed in a Colombian counter-insurgency operation

The presence of FARC militants in Venezuela had been a recurrent source of discord between the two countries under Santos’s predecessor, Alvaro Uribe.
In July 2010 Chavez broke off relations with Colombia after Uribe accused Caracas of harboring some 1,500 fighters and filed a complaint with the Organization of American States (OAS).

Santos swiftly moved to reverse the policy, restoring diplomatic relations with Venezuela three days after his inauguration in August of that year.
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is the country’s oldest and largest guerrilla force, believed to have some 8,000 members. The group has been at war with the government since its founding in 1964.

Source