Archive | Albania RSS feed for this section

The Rise and Fall of Third Worldism – Part 1

1 Jan

third_world_countries_map_world_2

PART ONE: “Two, Three, many Vietnams”: National Liberation and the Rise of the Third World (1945 – 1991)

Asia, Africa and Latin America in the Early Years of the Century

With the exception of Latin America, and several noteworthy cases in Africa and Asia, the pre-1945 history of what came to be known as the “Third World” is overwhelmed by the fact of imperialism. Native voices were silenced and native cultures nearly eradicated.

In Asia, Japan was the only country to industrialize, and thus the only country to emerge as a major player in world affairs. Although at first resistant to Western influences; by the middle of the 19th century Japan had embarked on a major modernization program. Building upon traditional values, Japan built an army and navy powerful enough to challenge Russia over Korea at the turn of the last century; and strong enough to join the British, French, Germans, and Americans in carving out a sphere of influence in China. A hybrid of feudal/warrior institutions and modern technology would characterize Japan throughout most of the 20th century. Some argue that this mixture would enable Japanese economic success.

China, the most populous nation on earth, with a culture going back some 5,000 years, was weak and felt herself victimized by the Great Powers. Unlike Japan, China had not modernized. Chinese institutions had frozen. The Manchu dynasty which had ruled China for some 300 years seemed more interested in maintaining itself in power than in bettering the lot of its people; the majority of whom lived in conditions of appalling poverty. Although there was a strong feeling against foreign domination, which periodically erupted into mass uprisings such as the Boxer Rebellion; China had been effectively divided up amongst the Great Powers, who controlled large areas known as ‘concessions’ where they enjoyed trade monopolies. The corrupt and infirm Manchu dynasty fell underneath its own weight in 1911. The collapse of Manchu rule created a power vacuum which was filled by ambitions local strongmen, the ‘warlords,’ who became a law unto themselves in China’s vast outlying regions and frustrated any attempt at national unification.

Only two nations in Africa escaped colonial rule: Liberia and Ethiopia. Liberia, created by American abolitionists in 1825 as place to which future freed slaves could be “repatriated,” existed as a small anomaly to the general imperialist trend. Ethiopia, the ancient kingdom of Abyssinia, continued as a feudal monarchy surrounded by European protectorates and outright colonies.

Latin America was the great exception. By 1821, most of the old Spanish and Portuguese colonies had become independent states. Most of the 19th Century, in Latin America was consumed by a fierce struggle between traditional elites who favored a continuation of the old colonial plantation system and modernizers who wished to institute capitalist economics and bring in contemporary technologies and ideas. This conflict was further complicated by the beginning of the 20th Century by the active involvement of the United States in the region. Going back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1825, the United States had seen Latin America as its “back yard”; and American investments and interests in Latin America grew exponentially.

In Central America and the Caribbean, the battle between Conservatives (traditionalists) and Liberals (modernizers) lasted, in some case up to the 1930s. The ever increasing US presence stunted indigenous development and encouraged the rise of military dictatorships which maintained a precarious balance between repressing domestic dissent and ensuring continued US support. In Cuba and Puerto Rico, Spanish colonial rule was replaced, in the first instance by an apparent independence masking the reality of outside control, and in the second case, by direct US annexation.

Different scenarios were played out north and south of Central America. To the north, Mexico, which had, shortly after independence, lost much of its territory to the United States in the Mexican-American War of 1842, developed a strong, albeit contradictory state. In 1911, the Mexican Revolution overthrew the 40-year military dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz and inaugurated a period of titanic political/economic/social struggle. Populist radical leaders such as Francisco Villa and Emiliano Zapata vied with conservatives such as Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregon as ad hoc revolutionary armies fought against whom ever happened to constitute the government at the time and each other. Eventually, the radicals were either marginalized or destroyed, and power settled into the hands of a conservative, modernizing elite composed of political strongmen and their followers. This elite held power through the mechanism of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The PRI oversaw the secularization and modernization of Mexican society. By 1945, Mexico was a contradictory mixture of large cities with modern industries, and a poor, backward countryside; a strong national sense of self, and control by a coterie of politicians and businessmen; an independent foreign policy, and a sharp awareness of the presence of the United States. In one way or another, this pattern would come to characterize not only Mexico, but much of Latin America.

In the south, Brazil and Argentina were becoming industrial power houses – albeit conflicted ones. Brazil seemed to follow the pre-established Mexican pattern: large, sprawling urban areas surrounded by impoverished rural zones. Brazil’s industries were concentrated in the north and along the coast; the wealth of the interior was only sporadically exploited. Argentina, with its large immigrant population (mainly Italian and Eastern European) provided something of a contrast. Heavy industry had appeared at the dawn of the century; the immense volume of European immigrant coming to work in those industries. The immigrants brought with them European ideas and social relations; both of which conflicted with traditional values. By 1945 the dictatorship of Juan Peron which combined a fascist core with modernizing elements initiated a period of military rule which would, by and large, characterize Argentina until the 1980s.

Imperialism and Colonialism Revisited

The decisions of the Versailles Conference of 1919 dismantled the Turkish, German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, but kept the British and French Empires intact. Not only that, but the Portuguese continued to rule Angola and Mozambique in Africa; the Belgians continued to rule the Congo; and the Dutch continued to govern Indonesia. The Middle East was divided between British French spheres of influence and protectorates. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did become independent commonwealths – and Ireland did fight her way to a disunited independence – but, by and large, imperialism remained intact after World War I.

It wouldn’t be until after World War II that powerful drives towards independence and de-colonization would shatter the old European empires and create the modern states of Asia and Africa. The Second World War, with its anti-fascist and democratic aspirations, would impel the peoples of the colonial world to demand the same.

National Independence Struggles

In some cases, indigenous forces had played a major role in the defeat of the Axis powers. In Vietnam and Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh and Sukarno (respectively) emerged from the war as venerated national leaders. After the war, the French attempted to restore their rule in South East Asia. This misguided attempt came to an end in 1954 when, at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Vietnamese forces under the Communist leader Ho Chi Minh which had previously defeated the Japanese; now prevented the French from returning. When the Americans tried to supplant the French, they too came to grief. A similar situation unfolded in Indonesia when the Dutch tried to restore the pre-war order. A similar outcome resulted: Sukarno, who had led resistance to the Japanese, now oversaw the independence of Indonesia.

The British came out of World War II in no condition to hold their empire together. In India, the Congress Party, under the leadership of Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah had been the focus of the independence movement there for decades. Their moment arrived in 1948 when the British pulled out and Indian independence was declared. But independence brought crisis. Perhaps with British encouragement, Jinnah led a faction which demanded that a separate Muslim state be created. In multi-religious, polyglot India, this demand led to massive disruption, forced resettlement of huge amounts of people, and a great amount of ethnic and sectarian bloodshed. In the end, India (Hindu) and Pakistan (Muslim) were created as two separate – and mutually hostile – states.

In Africa, decolonization quite often led to extended periods of instability. Independence leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya), Julius Nyere (Tanzania), and Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) strove to modernize their countries by following a socialist model of development. In the Congo, Patrice Lumumba failed to establish a fully independent state, at the cost of his life. In many parts of Africa, the pull out of the colonial powers created confusion, chaos, and ethnic strife. Often this was caused by old imperial states themselves, as they continued to try to exert influence in their former possessions by sponsoring ethnic and political rivalries. Portugal refused to divest itself of its colonies, with the result that it took nationalist guerrilla movements until the 1970s to establish the independent nations of Mozambique and Angola. In the former British colonies of Rhodesia and South Africa, the white settler population refused to yield to demands for civil equality for the native Africans. Fighting lasted until 1975 when Rhodesia became the majority-African governed Zimbabwe (under Robert Mugabe); and until 1989 when the racist apartheid system was destroyed in South Africa (under Nelson Mandela).

In the Middle East, the Algerian Revolution of 1956 forced the French out of that country. In Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser came to power with a promise to encourage “Arab unity” and “Arab Socialism.” Nasser’s ideas spread to Syria and Iraq, where a movement claiming to champion Arab Socialism, but in fact more reminiscent of Italian Fascism took hold, Baathism. In many cases, interference by Western powers led to the displacement of radical, modernizing regimes with repressive conservative governments. The neutralization of the Left and the bankruptcy of the Right led many to see radical Islam as a viable political alternative.

The creation, by UN mandate, of the state of Israel in 1948 exacerbated the crises endemic to the area. The flow of immigrants to the new Jewish state led to the displacement of much of the native Palestinian population. The new Israel developed into a thoroughly militarized state, eventually going to war with the surrounding Arab states in 1967 and 1973.

The movement for de-colonization was strongly affected by the Cold War. Many independence movements had adopted one or another variety of socialism as its ideology, and many post-independence regimes sought Soviet aid. Other, more conservative post-independence governments became allies of the United States. Some changed sides. Thus, movements such as the National Liberation Front of Vietnam, Frelimo in Mozambique, and the MPLA in Angola saw themselves as Marxist; Israel, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia were in the US camp; while governments in Algeria, Egypt, and the Congo (Zaire) switched from Soviet to American sponsorship. The proxy conflict between the US and USSR was played out in the post-colonial world. Soon, two other forces, China and Cuba, would enter the fray.

The Chinese Revolution

China has seen a century of revolution – and some would say that it’s far from over. Revolution overthrew the decrepit Manchu dynasty in 1911. The newly created Chinese Republic, under the leadership of Dr. Sun Yat-sen and his Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), wanted to create a united, modern, and democratic China. The first step in achieving this would be the cancellation of foreign concessions and the bringing to heel of the regional warlords. It was ‘simple’ enough to ask the British, French, etc. to leave; the second part of that equation was more difficult to achieve. The warlords were ensconced in remote areas, unseating them would require a trained, professional army. In order to raise an officer class capable of leading such an army, the Whampoa military academy was established in 1920. The Whampoa academy attracted many young, patriotic Chinese of all political persuasions. Many of China’s future leaders would come out of the Whampoa Academy. At the head of the academy, as director, was Sun yat-Sen’s protégé, Chiang Kai-Shek. By the end of the 1920s, the “Northern Expedition,” as the anti-warlord campaign was termed, was largely successful. By that time, however, a new conflict had developed.

The new China was alone in the world. The former imperial powers, who had just been asked to leave, weren’t about to render any aid. Desperate for support, China turned to another nation just then going through a revolution of their own, the Soviet Union. The Soviets agreed to provide political and military aid to China, but at a price: that the Kuomintang bring into the government, as partners, the newly-created Communist Party of China. Sun Yat-Sen agreed, and the Communists were essential to victory in the Northern Expedition. However, Sun Yat-Sen’s lieutenant Chiang Kai-shek vehemently disagreed with any cooperation with the Communists. After Sun’s death in 1925, he was succeeded by Chiang who jettisoned any pretense of democracy, making himself military dictator. Chiang also wanted to get rid of the Communists at the first available opportunity.

In November of 1927, Chiang struck. Nationalist troops unexpectedly turned on their Communist fellows. In all of China’s major cities, Communists and their sympathizers were massacred in the streets. Overnight, the Chinese Communist Party was almost exterminated. In a state of confusion and disarray, the surviving Communists, made their way to the southern province of Jianxi where, a local Communist leader, an ex-librarian named Mao Tse-tung, had managed to hold the party together.

Organizing Communist guerrilla forces into a Red Army, Mao managed to hold off the Nationalists long enough to force an escape out of Jianxi. Known as the “Long March,” the Communists embarked on a 6,000 mile trek over rivers, mountains, and deserts, fighting Nationalists troops all the way. Finally, the Communists found sanctuary in the area of Yenan in China’s northern mountains. This, then, became their base. The Long March solidified Mao as the unquestioned leader of the Communist Party. From Yenan, Mao’s Communists engaged Chiang’s Nationalists in guerrilla warfare, and extended the Communist-controlled zone.

The full-scale Japanese invasion of China brought a temporary truce between the Communists and Nationalists, as they agreed to join forces against the foreign occupiers. Overall, as American advisers during World War II pointed out, the Communists were the more effective fighters against the Japanese. Chiang seemed to be more afraid of the Chinese Communists than he was of the invading Japanese; and American aid sent to Chiang often ended up in the pockets of Nationalist politicians. The end of the war and the defeat of Japan signaled a resumption of hostilities between the Nationalists and Communists. After an intense four-year civil war, Communist forces gained the upper hand. Chiang’s Nationalists were forced to flee the mainland; establishing themselves, as the republic of China, on the island of Taiwan – where they have remained to this very day. On October 10, 1949, from Beijing, Mao proclaimed the creation of the new, communist, Peoples Republic of China.

Communist China became a new and powerful ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In fact, Chinese troops entered the Korean War against the United States. Domestically, the Communists embarked on numerous developmental and modernization campaigns. Campaigns to eliminate infectious disease and illiteracy, as well as campaigns to ensure the equality of women were, in great part, successful. Attempts to industrialize China’s economy were less so. The best known of these, the “Great Leap Forward” (1959), which tried to jump start China’s development through mass participation in the form of things such as encouraging the building of backyard blast furnaces to produce steel, was a failure.

Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union and his policy of Peaceful Coexistence with the West met with disapproval in Beijing. Mao felt that the new Soviet leaders were abandoning revolutionary principles and bowing to the US. Tensions within the Communist camp came to the breaking point in 1961 when, at a meeting of Communist parties in Moscow, the Chinese and Albanian delegations denounced the Soviets and their supporters and walked out. The Sino-Soviet split divided the world Communist movement and led to the creation of new, more militant Communist groups dedicated to the Chinese position. China felt itself to be the new center of the world revolutionary movement and, as such, supported and encouraged revolutionary parties and guerrilla groups in the Third World. The Cold War was developing into a three-cornered fight.

Within the Communist Party of China itself, Mao feared that elements similar to those represented by Khrushchev in the USSR would derail his revolutionary vision. Starting in 1964, Mao moved to isolate “conservative” and “pragmatic” elements in the Party. His attempt at a mass mobilization to reinvigorate revolutionary enthusiasm resulted in the upheaval known as the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” The Cultural Revolution consumed China in chaos as radical and moderate forces, through the medium of youth organizations known as “Red Guards,” jostled each other for power and influence. Reaching a crescendo in 1966 – 1967, the Cultural Revolution involved pitched armed battles between rival Red Guard units. Mao called a halt to the anarchy in 1969, castigating some of the excesses of the more extreme radicals. However, tension and conflict between the more radical and the more pragmatic members of Mao’s inner circle remained.

The same year, 1969, that Mao rolled back the Cultural Revolution saw an intensification of the Sino-Soviet crisis as the Chinese and Soviets came to blows over a border dispute. This event seems to have convinced Mao that the Soviet Union was a greater threat to China than the United States. China offered the United States an opportunity to begin a normalization of relations; an opportunity the American President Richard Nixon took advantage of. In 1972, Nixon traveled to China, met with Mao and Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, and the thaw in the Chinese- American Cold War began.

Chou En-lai’s, a protector of the moderates in Mao’s circle, death in 1976, followed by Mao’s own passing later that year renewed the conflict between radicals and moderates within ruling Party circles. After a brief and intense power struggle, the radicals were defeated. Deng Xiaoping, who had been exiled as a “capitalist roader” during the Cultural Revolution emerged as China’s new leader. Deng’s policies not only reversed the Cultural Revolution, but effectively dismantle communism itself. Throughout the 1980s, China more and more embraced a pro-market orientation, encouraging foreign investment and development of key industries. By the 1990s, China had emerged as a major economic force, exporting goods across the globe. Although the People’s Republic of China is still ruled by the Communist Party, it has, in fact, become a modern capitalist power.

The Cuban Revolution

Although conducted on a much smaller scale than the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution of 1959 would send even stronger shock waves throughout the Third World. On New Year’s Eve of 1959, guerrilla forces led by Fidel Castro overthrew the long-standing government of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Batista had been supported by the United States since 1933; and, under his leadership, the island had become a haven for US interests which virtually managed the Cuban economy.

Castro’s victory signaled major reform, including land redistribution, literacy and public health campaigns, and the nationalization of major utilities and industries. These latter reforms incurred the ire of American corporations which lost their investments in Cuba. The United States’ severing of diplomatic relations followed by the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and an economic embargo against Cuba caused the Castro government to fully enter the Soviet orbit. However, the relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union was far from smooth. Having come to power in through a guerrilla movement in a peasant society, Cuba had much in common with China. Both China and the USSR courted Cuba to support them in their struggle with each other. Cuba was, for a time, caught between the feuding Communist powers. Instead, Cuba developed a unique image and presented itself as a model for Third World nations to follow. This pleased neither China nor the Soviet Union. Adding to the conflict with the Soviets was Cuba’s support for armed guerrilla movements, especially in Latin America, which threatened Soviet attempts at a rapprochement with the US.

In the wake of the Cuban Revolution guerrilla and national liberation movements emerged, aiming at spreading the Cuban example in Latin America. Castro’s right-hand-man, the Argentine born Ernesto “Che” Guevara, was central to this endeavor. Guevara personally led Cuban-trained guerrillas in Africa; and, in an attempt to foment revolution in South America, died while organizing a guerrilla force in Bolivia, becoming a revolutionary icon in the process. Although most of the guerrilla organizations spawned in the 1960s failed, they had the unexpected consequence of producing a severe reaction in the form of repressive military regimes devoted to their destruction. Thus, in Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Argentina, extremely violent military dictatorships characterized those nations in the 1970s. In Chile, the election and subsequent overthrow of a Socialist president, Salvador Allende, produced a similar phenomenon. Cuban advisers trained guerrillas in other parts of the world, as well, namely Angola and South Africa.

Cuban attempts at developing an independent, diversified, modern economy met with failure. By the 1970s, Cuba had abandoned overtly encouraging armed struggle and integrated itself into the Soviet system. This would continue until the collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991.

In the 1950s, Indian Prime Minister Nehru stated that the modern world was divided into “Three Worlds.” The “First World” consisted of the United States and the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe; the “Second World” was the Soviet Union and its Communist Bloc allies; the “Third World” was the poor, underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Fought over by both the First and Second Worlds, Nehru urged the Third World to develop an independent stance, find its own voice, and put forward its own demands and aspirations. Thus, the “Non-Aligned Movement” came into being.

Led by India’s Nehru, Yugoslavia’s Tito, and Egypt’s Nasser, Non-Alignment did not mean neutrality. India leaned to the West, Cuba (who later joined the Non-Aligned Movement), leaned towards the Soviets; instead, Non-Alignment meant that the Third World countries recognized that they shared a commonality of interests. Indeed, many of the Non-Aligned nations were bitter rivals; India and Pakistan readily come to mind. However, despite sometimes serious differences, the Non-Aligned nations managed to bring questions of development and industrialization, debt and poverty, national independence and self-determination to the world’s attention.

Although the Non-Aligned movement seems to have greatly dissipated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the appearance of a unipolar world dominated by the United States, non-alignment did shift world politics from the East vs. West emphasis of the Cold War to the North vs. South conflict that persists to this very day.

FORTHCOMING:

PART TWO: “The coming of the new international:” Third Worldist Theory in the 1950s – 1970s.

Juan Perón and Social-Fascism in Argentina

5 Mar

President Perón at his 1946 inaugural parade.

History of the Terms “Social-Democracy” and “Social-Fascism”

The term “social-democracy” has been used by the left since the time of Marx and Engels. The term is a pejorative one today, since it has become almost synonymous with liberal reformism. About a century ago, “social-democrat” was a word to describe other appendages of the socialist movement. Everyone who was an adherent to either the First or Second Internationals before 1914-1919 would be called a “social-democrat,” regardless if they were supporters of the revolutionary Marxism of V.I. Lenin in Russia or the reformist Socialist Party of America.

The Second International under Karl Kautsky failed to rally the working class when it encouraged supporting “one’s own” governments during the inter-imperialist First World War. It encouraged this viewpoint among the international socialist movement, many of whom began supporting the war. This amounted to betrayal of the working class and conciliation towards the capitalist system. This caused a split in the social-democratic movement, eventually leading to the formation of the Third International, also called the Communist International or Comintern, in 1919. The Third International was primarily led by the revolutionary wing of Russian social-democracy, the Bolsheviks under V.I. Lenin, who had seized power and led the first successful socialist revolution in the world in October of 1917. They opposed the World War as an imperialist war between capitalist powers and called for “turning imperialist war into civil war,” meaning into revolution.

After the foundation of the Third International, revolutionary social-democrats the world over abandoned the term “social-democrat” and called themselves “communists.” The term “social-democracy” became the viewpoint of surviving adherents of the Second International, including many socialist parties who had adopted reformist lines. “Social-democracy,” then, changed from being a term meaning the ideology of the entire socialist movement to mean bourgeois reformism that was in opposition to the working class and the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism.

The term “social-fascism” came from a theory supported by the Comintern of the 1930′s that social-democracy was the “left-wing of fascism.” This perception became commonplace after the German Revolution of 1918–1919 and the crushing of the Spartacist Uprising, which resulted in the murder of the German socialists Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht among many other revolutionaries by a social-democratic German government, assisted by right-wing paramilitaries called the Freikorps. While some historic applications of this theory were incorrect, there is a trend in modern social-democracy that gave support to fascism and tends toward fascism even while using left-wing or populist rhetoric.

While modern social-democrats have appealed to centrists and center-leftists, there are a few that make full-on attempts to sway the revolutionary left by appealing to social programs, economism and trade unionism as a way of disorganizing the left’s revolutionary determination. While raising wages and improving the populace’s immediate standing of living, the class nature of the state remains the same: in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Labor is still treated as a commodity and surplus value is still extracted from the workers for the sake of “incentive” and private profit. It’s common practice for bourgeois politicians to appeal to those who demand change and progress, only to surrender to the status quo and multinational corporations upon seizing power. Modern capitalist politicians are very skilled at making public appeals to the progressive sections of the populations, only to turn their backs on the same people who voted them into office.

Argentina’s government under Juan Perón is frequently portrayed by the bourgeois media by many misguided “leftists” as a socialist government where the working class had power. Others have described it as a social-democracy, as some alternative form of fascism less offensive than the Hitlerite variety, or even as some kind of “compromise between capitalism and communism.” Argentina’s Perónist period is perhaps the most fitting example of social-fascism in practice.

Juan Perón’s Early Life and Rise to Power

Born in Buenos Aires on October 8, 1895, Juan Domingo Perón had a staunch Catholic upbringing. In 1911, at the age of 16, he was sent to the Argentine National Military College. In 1938, he was sent overseas as a military advisor to the Axis powers and their allies, collaborators and colonies including Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Albania and Yugoslavia. It was there that he first came into contact with the fascist government of Benito Mussolini, whom Perón vigorously endorsed.

According to Robert J. Alexander in his book Juan Domingo Perón: A History, Perón’s advisory role to Italy “gave him a chance to study in some detail and at first hand the way in which the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini had reorganized, or tried to reorganize, Italian society” [1].

Even more damning are Perón’s own words:

“Italian Fascism led popular organizations to an effective participation in national life, which had always been denied to the people. Before Mussolini’s rise to power, the nation was on one hand and the worker on the other, and the latter had no involvement in the former. [...] In Germany happened exactly the same phenomenon, meaning, an organized state for a perfectly ordered community, for a perfectly ordered population as well: a community where the state was the tool of the nation, whose representation was, under my view, effective. I thought that this should be the future political form, meaning, the true people’s democracy, the true social democracy.”[3]

Perón returned to Argentina in 1941 and became a colonel of Ramon Castillo’s Military. It was then that the “Group of United Officers” or “GUO” was formed in order to prevent the succession of Castillo’s rampantly corrupt regime. The GUO staged a coup prior to the year’s presidential election. This brought an end to Castillo’s conservative traditionalist regime and brought about the military government of Argentina.

Upon first coming to notoriety in 1943, Perón’s policies were embraced by a variety of tendencies all across the political spectrum, although the corporatist character of Perónism drew attacks from socialists who accused his administration of preserving capitalist exploitation and class division. This viewpoint shared by the leftists turned out to be prophetic, as capitalist production relations remained intact despite the raising of wages and the generally elevated status of the Department of Labor, including the department obtaining secretariat status under Perón’s leadership.

The main opposition to Perón came from the Socialist International-affiliated Radical Civic Union, the Socialist Party of Argentina and the Comintern-affiliated Communist Party of Argentina, although the conservative National Autonomist Party also showed opposition to Perón by relying on support of the financial sector of the economy, as well as the Argentine Chamber of Commerce.

Populist Tactics of Juan Perón: With the Workers and the Capitalists

The colonel served under three different military government administrations: those of Arturo Rawson, Pedro Pablo Ramirez, and Edelmiro Farrell. All throughout his political career, Perón maintained the reputation of a pro-labor military man, constantly bolstering up the labor unions, engaging in pushing through social programs such as greater unemployment and health care benefits, and urging the “leading role” that labor played in the economy of Argentina.

Upon ascending to the status of President of Argentina on June 4, 1946, his outspoken goals were comprised of very leftist and pro-labor sentiments, including the need for a five-year plan, increase in salaries, giving priority to pensions, economic independence and diversification and investment in public transportation.[2]

Perón even encouraged striking amongst laborers who employers did not grant labor benefits. With the abundant amount of vocal support from the General Conference of Labor, or “CGT,” they followed his word. Strike activity led to a loss of 500,000 work days in 1945, which leapt to 2 million days in 1946 following his election, and to over 3 million lost days in 1947. This stress put on the advancement of Labor’s status in the Argentine economy consequently led to a boom in the amount of members among the CGT. The ranks grew to 2 million active dues-paying members by 1950 [3]. It seemed at this point that Perón was truly a man of his word. However, we shall delve further into his career to show that he was not, by any means, a friend of international socialism or the working people.

Juan Perón as a Friend of Fascism

While urging “neutrality” in the face of the Second World War, Perón’s foreign and domestic policies were much closer to the fascist and military governments of Europe than anything resembling full-hearted socialism. Perón not only traveled to, but admired Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. He seems to have no objections to their invasion and colonization of countries such as Austria, Hungary, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and Albania.

If this was not alarming enough, it was and still is common knowledge that escaped Nazi war criminals sought refuge and lived fairly comfortable lives in Argentina, turning the country into a sort of haven for Nazis perpetrators and collaborators. Among those whom Perón openly welcomed:

  • Emile Dewointine (who manufactured Luftwaffe aircraft, later seeking refuge under Franco before arriving in Argentina) [4]
  • Josef Mengele (the infamous Nazi doctor who performed notoriously sick-minded medical experiments on concentration camp inmates)
  • Adolph Eichmann (one of the chief bureaucrats of the Holocaust)
  • Franz Stangl (Austrian representative of Spitzy in Spain)
  • Charles Lescat (editor of Je Suis Partout in Vichy France)
  • SS functionary Ludwig Lienhart
  • German industrialist Ludwig Freude

Aside from Nazi war criminals, members of the genocidal Croatian Ustaša, a pro-Nazi puppet government responsible for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma in Croatia and Bosnia, took refuge in Argentina, including their notorious leader, Ante Pavelić, and Milan Stojadinović. The latter was allowed to spend the rest of his life as presidential advisor on economic and and financial affairs to governments in Argentina, and was the founder of the financial newspaper, El Economista [5].

In “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Latin America,” authors Leandro Narloch and Duda Teixeira wrote:

“It is still suspected that among her [Eva Perón's] possessions, there were pieces of Nazi treasure that came from rich Jewish families killed in concentration camps”.

They add that,

“Perón himself even spoke of goods of ‘German and Japanese origin’ that the Argentine government had appropriated”.

In 1947, the first lady of Argentina, Eva Perón, traveled across Europe in an attempt to boost her husband’s regime abroad. It was here that she is believed to have opened a Swiss bank account to deposit funds and other valuables she received from Nazi war criminals in exchange for Argentine passports to the aforementioned [6].

Juan Peron Makes Overtures to the Left

On June 15, 1955, Pope Pius XII excommunicated Perón after the fifty-nine year old military President described himself as “not superstitious”. The following day, Perón called for a rally of support on the Plaza de Mayo, a time-honored custom among Argentine presidents during a challenge. However, as he spoke before a crowd of thousands, Navy fighter jets flew overhead and dropped bombs into the crowded square below before seeking refuge in Uruguay. This effectively ended Juan Perón’s second term in office. First seeking refuge in Venezuela, and later Panama, he eventually settled in Francoist Spain. Desperate to reclaim his position in government, Perón began making appeals to the revolutionary left.

In his book, “La Hora de los Pueblos,” he made his appeal to internationalists:

“Mao is at the head of Asia, Nasser of Africa, De Gaulle of the old Europe and Castro of Latin America [7].”

Throughout the late 60s and early 70s, Perón started aligning himself with more militant unions and maintained close links with Montoneros, a “leftist” Perónist Catholic grouping who later kidnapped and assassinated anti-Perónist President Pedro Aramburu in retaliation for the June 1956 mass execution of a Perónist uprising against the ruling military junta.

However, while attempting to play both sides of the coin, Perón hailed the far-right as well. He supported the conservative leader of the UCR, as well as members of the Tacuara Nationalist Movement. Political tendencies did not play a role in the man’s mind when it came to power grabs and smooth talk.

Following Perón’s example, the Movimiento Nacionalista Tacuara, or the Tacuara Nationalist Movement, was a right-wing extremist guerilla group in Argentina formed in the 1960s. Although initially opposed to Perónism, it later adopted Juan Perón’s idea of “Special Formations (gathering right-wing radicals in the TNM as well as the Argentine Iron Guard),” and the movement was directly inspired by the anti-Semitic Catholic Julio Meinvielle’s writings (Meinvielle not only blamed Martin Luther, but also both the French and October revolutions for the decline of Catholicism).

As such, the TNM defended nationalist, Catholic, anti-communist, anti-democratic and anti-Semitic ideologues, such as Primo de Rivera (the founder of the fascist Falange in Spain). The guerilla group’s routes can be traced back to the “Nationalist Students Union Side” (UNESCO) as well as the “Alliance of Nationalist Youth,” both centrally based in the capital of Buenos Aires [8].

The group opposed the secularization of schools that occurred under Perón and admired both Hitler and Mussolini [9]. Entrenched in anti-Semitic hatred, the group gained notoriety for kidnapping and injuring a number of Jewish students including 15 year old Edgardo Trilnik, and 19 year old Graciela Sirota, who was subject to torture and was eventually scarred with Swastika insignias [10].

In 1963, a TNM commando group robbed the Polyclinic Bank, killing two employees, wounding fourteen and taking for themselves fourteen million pesos, the equivalent of one-hundred thousand U.S. dollars. The TNM’s objectives were to afford a boat to travel to the Falkland Islands so that they may establish a guerrilla base in Formosa. All were arrested after seven months after one of the perpetrators spend a portion of the spoils at a brothel in France. While the group was formally outlawed in 1963, most of those imprisoned for the robbery were released in May 1973 when the Perónists returned to power and President Hector Campora decreed a broad amnesty for political prisoners [11]. Most of the former group’s leaders dead, imprisoned, disillusioned with the right-wing, or seeking other professions (one of the TNM’s strongest supporters of anti-Semitism, Alberto Ezcurra Uriburu, became a Catholic priest in 1964 and later joined the “Argentine Anticommunist Alliance” death squad).

The Class Nature of Perónism

Perónism is an opportunist and Third-Positionist ideology geared at dismembering and demobilizing the revolutionary workers through attempts of reformism, economism and pacifism. A military government, no matter how “worker friendly” it may initially appear to be, only opens the way for further exploitation of the working class, more coup attempts and power grabs. While championing himself to be an ally of the working masses of Argentina, Juan Perón simultaneously aided in the protection of some of the most notorious war criminals of World War II.

While Juan Perón’s government did not completely match up with those of Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco, what they all have in common is militarism, nationalism, appeals to emotionalism and class collaborationism. A state based on these principles simply cannot offer working people anything other than defeat. The experience in Argentina is a shining example “social-fascism,” of the fusion between social-democracy and fascism, of failed reformism and corporatism.

Though the Argentine President boasted about giving the leading role in government to the working class of Argentina, put a strong emphasis on “social justice” and even nationalized key industries, this does not earn Perón’s government the title of socialist. The protection of the far-right, along with the numerous left groups that exposed Perón’s fascist leanings (including both the Argentine Socialist and the Communist parties) offers material and historical evidence as to why social-democracy and/or Third-Positionism can and most likely will lead to a fascist state.

Perón’s coming to power did not consist of a revolution, let alone the organization of the proletariat as the leading class in society to whom the means of production are to belong. Rather, a military coup was what brought this fascist-sympathizing military colonel to political standing. The “peaceful path” of social-democracy was not only a political slogan, but also a method of demobilization that is directed at the workers movement. Its aim is to deny the inevitability of armed struggle when the class struggle reaches a higher stage and the question of power comes to the forefront. It has historically been used as an anesthetic; a vice that claims to solve the contradictions of the rule of capital.

However, history is on the side of the revolutionary workers in this day and age. Millions of people all across the world have witnessed these instances of class collaboration over struggle, economism over theory, and idle reformism over revolutionary change. The next tide of revolution will not succumb to these illnesses.

Sources

[1]
http://biography.jrank.org/pages/3418/Per-n-Juan-1895-1974-Former-Argentine-President-Began-Military-Training.html

[2] Rock, David. Argentina, 1516–1982. University of California Press, 1987

[3] Los mitos de la historia argentina 4. Buenos Aires: Editorial Planeta. Pg. 28

[4] American Jewish Yearbook, 2006. Pg. 266

[5] Mark Falcoff, Perón’s Nazi Ties, Time, November 9, 1998, vol 152

[6]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033084/First-lady-Eva-Peron-allowed-Nazis-hide-Argentina-exchange-treasures-looted-rich-Jewish-families.html

[7]
http://nuevomundo.revues.org/35983

[8]
http://www.fabio.com.ar/verpost.php?id_noticia=1548

[9] Daniel Gutman, Tacuara. Historia de la primera guerrilla urbana argentina (Ediciones B Argentina, 2003, p.58)

[10]
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-51068-2005-05-15.html

[11]
http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2004/04/12/g-04001.htm

Myths About Socialism: Redistribution of Wealth?

30 Oct

Probably one of the most common right-wing arguments against social welfare spending is that it constitutes “redistribution of wealth” or “sharing the wealth,” and is thus a road to socialism. Indeed, “socialism” is often defined by these reactionaries as the redistribution of wealth, which is seen as the ultimate evil because it leads to socialism, which is evil, and it’s evil because it entails the redistribution of wealth – you get the idea.

There are a few notable problems with this. First, socialism is far more than simply the “redistribution of wealth.” Second, redistribution of wealth happens all the time under capitalism, yet strangely the right-wing only complains when some hypothetical redistribution favors the working class as opposed to the capitalists. To understand why socialism does not equate to redistribution of the wealth, we must first ask what distribution means.

Distribution in economics refers to the manner in which total output or wealth is distributed among individual people or various factors of production. For the purposes of this article, distribution among individuals is the most relevant.

Human beings in a given society produce wealth, in various forms, and this wealth is distributed among the members of society via various institutions, laws and mechanisms. However, to speak about how and to whom wealth is distributed inevitably leads to asking questions as to who produced that wealth in the first place. Speaking about distribution without mentioning production is simply useless. Thus we must go deeper.

In the capitalist mode of production, commodities are produced socially by workers. Even commodities which are still produced by skilled individuals, such as works of art, require inputs which are produced socially. A single artist may create a painting, but who manufactured the paint, the canvas or the brushes? One of the peculiarities of capitalism is that the socialization of production, meaning commodities are produced socially by many people, leads to a world in which the commodities we buy appear disconnected from the people who produced them. We look on a shelf and see an MP3 player from “Sony,” a large corporation. We understand that Sony made this product,’ but who is Sony anyway? If we buy the MP3 player, it appears as though we have engaged in a monetary transaction with the retailer and the seemingly faceless Sony Corporation. There has been an exchange; money for an MP3 player which you now own. What is not so apparent is the relationship between you and the people that actually produced the MP3 player. In fact this would include not only workers in Sony’s manufacturing plants, but also those workers who build the individual components, who mine or extract the resources necessary for their production, and of course those who transport all these commodities, to name a few. This is in stark contrast to past modes of production, where the few material commodities which existed were often supplied by skilled workers whom everyone in the community knew. When you bought something from a blacksmith, for example, you knew that blacksmith and understood that you were buying the products of his labor. This is not the case under capitalism.

So here we have one MP3 player out of tens of millions manufactured and sold worldwide. And of course Sony and its competitors make not only MP3 players but all kinds of products, the sales of which lead to the creation of wealth in money form. So how is that wealth distributed? If we go back to our pre-capitalist society where skilled craftsmen produced certain commodities, the answer is simple. The master craftsman, owning his own tools and having performed the labor necessary to produce the commodity, appropriates whatever value he can exchange for it. He appropriates that value not simply because he did the work or he owns the tools, but because he also owns any commodity he produces. Now think about all those workers, in several different countries, who produce MP3 players, and think about the amount of money the sales of these products earn. To whom will the large portion of that money, including profit, go?

Under capitalism, private ownership of the means of production such as factories, machines and raw materials is what determines the ownership of not only the commodities produced via those means of production, but also the proceeds of the sales of the commodities. In other words, shareholders and proprietors appropriate commodities they did not produce, and pocket the profit from their sales.

What about the workers’ compensation? How is that determined? Another peculiarity of capitalism is that one’s wages are generally not linked with productivity. Most Americans are aware that many of their products are produced by workers in foreign countries for extremely low wages. In other words, these people work hard, and are extremely productive, yet are compensated with what amounts to crumbs from the table.

Once we factor production into the equation, we can now examine distribution. Under capitalism, the majority of the means of production are owned privately by a minority of people. The majority of people are deprived of their own means of production, meaning they do not have the means to support themselves either directly via the land or by the production of commodities which they can sell for money. They possess only one commodity – their capacity to do labor. The capitalist has a huge pool of labor to choose from; as workers are ultimately compelled by the threat of homelessness and starvation, there will always be someone desperate enough to accept a lower wage. If they don’t find such people in their own country, they can move their production operations elsewhere. Since they own capital, and means of production, the deck is stacked in their favor. The workers produce wealth, but it is distributed primarily to the capitalists. This is true whether we look at the world as a whole, or the wealth of one particular country.

In the case of the United States, productivity rose sharply along with the introduction of computer and other digital technology in the 1970s, creating a massive amount of wealth. Prior to this point in history, Americans’ real wages rose steadily alongside productivity. Afterwards, distribution changed; real wages stagnated or even fell, Americans started working harder and longer for less pay, while at the same time CEOs and owners started appropriating a vastly larger share of the wealth. That is to say, the wealth they did not produce in the first place. Thanks to this process, the United States has an income inequality ranking on par with several developing nations.

So what does this all mean? Simply, it means that redistribution of wealth, from the producers to those who do not work, occurs under capitalism.

Of course, when forced to admit to this, the right-wing will raise various objections in an attempt to distract from the obvious exploitation that is occurring here. Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing noise machine has recently started referring to America’s capitalists as “job creators,” the implication being that these multi-millionaires and billionaires deserve their massive wealth simply because they “create jobs,” even if they personally did not produce anything.

This argument fails right out of the gate. For one thing, “jobs” are “created” out of necessity. If any of us found ourselves dropped onto an island somewhere, we would go about laboring to produce the means for our survival without the intervention of another party to “create jobs.” Next, we could apply this term “job creator” to all kinds of individuals throughout history, including slave-owners, feudal lords, pimps and Nazi concentration camp commanders. If one chooses to limit the discussion to modern industrial nations, one might find it difficult indeed to explain how socialist nations such as the U.S.S.R. or Albania managed to have full employment without the existence of “entrepreneurs” to create jobs. If lower taxes and higher profits inspire “entrepreneurs” to create jobs, one has to wonder why the official unemployment rate is over 9% at the time of this writing. As an attempt to justify the massive distribution of wealth to those who don’t produce it, the “job creators” argument falls flat on its face.

Other justifications abound. For example, entrepreneurs “take risks,” and thus deserve their massive compensation. This fails for a number of reasons, but the most obvious being that human labor, not risk, is what creates wealth. Risk is not a commodity, it does not have a price, and we do not buy and sell risk. Corporations and investors actually prefer to avoid risk as much as possible, often spending a great deal of money to minimize their risks. Does a company which goes to great lengths to avoid risks necessarily end up poorer than those that don’t? Usually this is not the case; wise investments pay off. If one wants to get rich with risk, go to Vegas.

Lastly, another justification is that investors, bankers, top managers, etc., earn their massive compensation with their own “hard work,” not only in business but in university when they were younger. This argument fails just as hard as the others. For one thing, we know that “hard work” and productivity do not determine wages. If they did, we would have no explanation for the past thirty years of stagnant real wages in the U.S., for one. Second, we have no way of knowing exactly how hard these people “worked” through college, and this is irrelevant because these companies are selling commodities, not their “hard work” in college. Lastly, while all these individuals may perform daily tasks, which may indeed be stressful or require great intelligence or talent, it does not mean that this work is actually productive, that is to say that it produces wealth. Lastly, investors and bankers are entitled to profits merely by their ownership of stocks, bonds, loans, etc; they will derive wealth from these assets regardless of what they do or do not do.

So if “redistribution of wealth” inevitably goes on under capitalism, and socialism isn’t necessarily the redistribution of wealth, what then, is socialism?

Socialism, in its most basic form, entails not the redistribution of wealth, but the expropriation, that is seizure, of the means of production by the working class. If capitalism is a system where production is socialized, meaning commodities are produced socially by many people, while the products and the value from their sales are privatized, socialism merely balances out the equation. That is to say that production is still socialized, but the appropriation of the value that is produced, including surplus value, is also socialized. Thus society benefits as a whole.

Why this system is better than capitalism is a matter for another article, but what the reader can conclude from this is the following: “redistribution of wealth” occurs under capitalism, and when it results in massive inequality, standards of living and society suffer. Socialism is something far more comprehensive than a simple redistribution of wealth.

On the 1997 Albanian Rebellion

23 Jan

In light of the recent unrest in Albania, we release this analysis of the events in Albania in 1997 and the forces leading up to that revolution for the reader’s benefit.

For the recent events, click here for an article from Al-Jazeera English. Video below.

After the death of Enver Hoxha and the rise of Ramiz Alia, and later Sali Berisha, the Albanian Party of Labor and the socialist society that once existed within the borders of Albania began to break down. However, this did not bring positive change, as some elements of Albanian society had hoped. Consequently, the Albanian economy had come to a standstill, two-thirds of Albanian workers had lost their retirement, and eighty percent of schools in the rural areas of the tiny Balkan country were closed. The blood feud, which had been institutionalized through the Code of Leke, forced as many as 1,600 families to retreat into hiding. With today’s rampant anti-communism as portrayed in the mainstream world media, we will examine exactly what happened in Albania and why, and who was behind said measures. 1992 marked the official end of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. The economy was liberalized, based on a series of “get rich quick” Ponzi schemes and fraudulent pyramid investment. The total loss of funds amounted to 1.2 billion dollars, leaving working people and their families with their entire life savings wiped out completely, overnight.

“The pyramid scheme phenomenon in Albania is important because its scale relative to the size of the economy was unprecedented, and because the political and social consequences of the collapse of the pyramid schemes were profound. At their peak, the nominal value of the pyramid schemes’ liabilities amounted to almost half of the country’s GDP. Many Albanians—about two-thirds of the population—invested in them. When the schemes collapsed, there was uncontained rioting, the government fell, and the country descended into anarchy and a near civil war in which some 2,000 people were killed” (1).

The new capitalist bourgeoisie class in Albania that had found its way into the government was able to take such predatory advantage of the Albanian people with ease, since “the vast majority of [formerly socialist Albania’s] population was unfamiliar with market institutions and practices” (1).

By March 13, all major population centers were engulfed in demonstrations, and foreign countries began to evacuate their citizens from Albania. May 26, 1996 was a major spark in the upsurge of popular discontent, following rigged elections, involving both the Democratic Party, and the reformed “Socialist” party. As a result, police and government buildings were fire bombed. “In the three months of protests, the Albanian economy suffered a heavy blow as unemployment and inflation sharply rose, while the gross domestic product and the value of the currency fell” (2). On January 24, 1997, thousands of Albanians took to the streets in the southern city of Lushnje. Protestors stole over 500,000 rifles and other arms from government depots. Foreign Minister Shehu was attacked by protesters.

On January 26, thousands of protesters gathered in Tirana and once again clashed with the riot police. By this time, protests and riots have spread throughout the entire country, with government buildings and police departments continuously being attacked and set on fire. On March 1st, Prime Minster Aleksander Meksi resigned. President and candidate of the capitalist Democratic Party, Sali Berisha replied to the violence by declaring a state of emergency and placing the whole country under the control of the army, the police and the secret service (SHIK). However, he did not get the guns back that were now in the hands of working people. It is estimated that 10,000 Albanians had fled their country, taking refuge in Italy. While widespread protests and demonstrations take place in the North of Albania, the South becomes a central place of organizing for the Communist Party of Albania (PKSH). According to an article appearing in the Turkish publication, Emek, on April 1st, 1997:

“Within the Rebellion Committee in Vlora the influence of the people and that of the Communist Party of Albania is very great. In meetings that take place twice daily, thousand of people discuss further ways of proceeding. On one thing they appear to be adamant: ‘We will not lay down our weapons.’”

Revolutionary Democracy reports that, “In Vlora, control remained firmly in the hands of the Rebellion Committee. There was neither chaos nor looting nor arbitrary shooting” (3).

Rebellion Committees were established all over the south of Albania, organized and built from the ground up. Officials who partook in the administration of these Committees were chosen directly by the people and anyone who wished to take part in the administration could offer to do so. The people reserved the right of recall to anyone who did not fulfill their obligations.

According the previously-mentioned edition of Emek, a member of the Central Committee of the PKSH said that, “The resistance of the Albanian people against fascism in 1944 was declared to have been a civil war in which allegedly much blood was spilled between brothers.” To the outrage of the PKSH and the Albanian people, the liberation of the Albanian people from German and Italian fascism, which cost the lives of 28,000 partisans, was no longer a national commemoration. The newly-installed capitalist government had taken extraordinary measures to convince the world that Albania’s population would be more than happy to erase all acknowledgment of socialism and Enver Hoxha from its history.

On April 10, 1997, The Communist Party of Germany’s publication, Roter Morgen, issued a statement warning that detailed talks between Albania’s Prime Minister and his Italian colleagues could lead up to a foreign military intervention in the name of restoring order throughout the country. As a response, the Communist Party of Albania issued the statement “Hands off Albania!” which was then immediately endorsed by many communist parties. A NATO joint operation and military intervention in Albania, dubbed “Operation Alba,” was authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1101 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This was done at the request of the besieged President Sali Berisha. The troop count was as follows: Italy 2,500, France 1,000, Greece 700, Turkey 500, Spain 500, and Romania 400.

“According to an article in the New Worker dated the July 4, 1997, upon the replacement of Sali Berisha by Fatos Nano he, ‘reassured the European Union that he will continue to support the market economy and the restoration of capitalism in Albania.’ In the same issue of New Worker, the writers added, ‘The Albanian Communist Party which led the revolt, remains loyal to Albania’s revolutionary traditions.’ And as a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Albania puts it: “This uprising will bring our people numerous experiences and self-assurance. A people that lived for decades under socialism and places great importance on independence will not put up with everything” (3).

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha

Members of the Communist Party of Albania were spreading the word internationally of what was going on and how events escalated into the collapse of the people’s power in Albania. In an interview with Laver Stroka, conducted on September 8, 2001, he describes to the interviewer the role of Ramiz Alia in the earlier counter-revolution:

“In 1985, after the death of Enver Hoxha, Ramiz Alia was chosen as the First Secretary of the Party of Labour with just a one vote majority. With great difficulty, after this time, to sweeten the alternatives to the communists and to the people he began a process which in time was to have bad consequences. At first he began to speak every day of Enver Hoxha — not to promote the life and work of Enver Hoxha (because the people knew what Enver Hoxha stood for) — but to firmly associate himself with Enver in order to create support for his future actions. During this time, he erected many statues of Enver Hoxha, in Korca, Tirana, and other cities and also named various organisations, places and enterprises after him. After this, he began to undertake certain actions. Every weekend there was a requirement to do ‘voluntary’ work and yet during the week there was little work to do because of the liberalising of the organisation of work. Despite this, voluntary work still had to be done all day on Sunday. So, Ramiz Alia became unpopular and had little authority. In 1990, he wrote a book and began to give interviews to People’s Voice where he said, ‘I have begun this process and taken it step by step in order not to create contradictions and clashes between the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces’. I tell this story to illustrate clearly that Ramiz Alia has been an enemy of the Party of Labour, and was not a follower of Enver Hoxha, but rather the enemy of both the Party and of Enver Hoxha.” “Ramiz Alia is viewed by the people as a revisionist. During the gatherings where the people rose up against the vandalism of the counter-revolutionary forces in Tirana — when the statue of Enver Hoxha was pulled down — thousands and thousands of people thought that Ramiz Alia had betrayed them. This was the perspective of the people as far as Ramiz Alia was concerned.” (4).

It becomes clear that the counter-revolution in Albania was not exactly taken lightly by a good amount of the population. As has been shown above, many workers decided to take action and arm themselves in order to fight for the re-establishment of socialism in Albania. Even today, the communists in Albania work to defend the legacy of Enver Hoxha, as well as the progress and social gains that had been accomplished during his time as General Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labor.

References, Further Reading:

1)
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.htm

2)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/albania.htm

3)
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/albania.htm

4)
http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE48InterviewsCPA(UNITED).html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who Was Richard Holbrooke?

15 Dec

 

“He is simply one of the giants of American foreign policy,” President Obama said of him on Monday. Upon the news of the sudden death of Richard Holbrooke on December 13th, 2010, an elaborate state funeral was quickly arranged, carried out and reported. Attending Holbrooke’s funeral were such figures as Madeline Albright, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and General James Jones, who made sure to swiftly give their respects in public statements.

Holbrooke had been rushed to the hospital after collapsing during a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton. He underwent emergency surgery that lasted almost 24 hours to repair the torn aorta in his heart. This was ultimately unsuccessful, and soon the news broke that Holbrooke had died at the age of 69. Immediately after his death his praises were sung by the country’s most powerful, and the entire deal seems signed, sealed and quietly buried.

There is one issue nagging at the heart and minds of the American people however: exactly who was Richard Holbrooke?

This is a question that faces us all at the moment. Western media praises him. Everyone in power from Bill Clinton to Afghan President Hamid Karzai has spoken of this man like he hung the moon. Underneath all the high-falutin’ praises there certainly must be more to see and learn about this mysterious figure.

The reality is that “Richard C. Holbrooke, the long-time US diplomat […] was a bully and a liar for the most rapacious and militaristic power in the world, a man steeped in the commission and cover-up of bloody crimes. He devoted his life to defending the worldwide interests of American corporations and banks, and became personally wealthy as a consequence” (1).

“On December 13, New York Times writer Robert McFadden headlined, ‘Strong American Voice in Diplomacy and Crisis,’ saying: ‘Mr. Holbrooke was hospitalized on (December 10) after becoming ill. (After two major surgeries), he remained in very critical condition until his death….A brilliant, sometimes abrasive infighter, he used a formidable arsenal of facts, bluffs, whispers, implied threats and, when necessary, pyrotechnic fits of anger to press his positions.’ For good reason, he was nicknamed ’The Bulldozer’” (2).

This is the same Richard Holbrooke who was Obama’s special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan up until his death. The press says Holbrooke’s main claim to fame is brokering the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, which allegedly ended the Bosnian War in the former Yugoslavia. As we shall see, the facts are that this “peace” was brokered at gun point, and it is sheer nonsense for a man who did so much for imperialism to be called an agent of peace. Indeed, looking back at the life of Richard Holbrooke, it becomes clear it was the life of a gangster and a criminal, a career and an existence that could be mapped by merely connecting the dots between case after case of U.S.-sponsored terrorism and war.

Vietnam

“A junior foreign service officer in the early stages of the Vietnam War, Holbrooke rose rapidly to leading positions, and served in every Democratic administration since John F. Kennedy’s. He had close connections with the Republican foreign policy establishment as well, including Henry Kissinger and Holbrooke’s colleague from Vietnam, John Negroponte, US ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush. Holbrooke was stationed in the Mekong Delta as a 22-year-old civil affairs officer in charge of an entire province with 600,000 people. He was one of the cabal of young, energetic and ruthless operatives, dubbed ‘The Best and the Brightest’ by author David Halberstam, who spearheaded the American effort in Vietnam. His initial position was as a field officer for the US Agency for International Development, which placed US officials as overlords in Vietnamese villages and towns, supervising the operations of the stooge government of South Vietnam. The US had established this puppet regime in an effort to thwart the Vietnamese nationalist movement that defeated the French colonialists in the first Vietnam War, between 1946 and 1954.

Holbrooke was an operative in the protracted effort to break the connection between the insurgents and the peasantry, which included, in a long series of failures, locating US officials in villages (the Pacification Program), removing the population from their villages to larger aggregations (‘strategic hamlets’), and the systematic assassination of suspected NLF cadres (the Phoenix Program). More than 20,000 Vietnamese were tortured and executed in the last-named campaign, one of the great unpunished war crimes of the twentieth century. Those educated in this school for mass murder included a who’s who of later top US diplomats, most of them in Democratic administrations. These included Holbrooke, Negroponte, future Clinton National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, future Clinton Defense Secretary Les Aspin, Frank Wisner, a future top State Department official in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, and Peter Tarnoff, Clinton’s deputy secretary of state.

Holbrooke moved up quickly from field officer to become a staff assistant at the US Embassy in Saigon, and then in 1966 joined the White House staff of President Lyndon Johnson, working for Robert Komer, known as ‘Blowtorch Bob’ for his role as chief of the Phoenix Program. Later he moved to the State Department, working as part of the team that drafted the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of US-Vietnam relations leaked to the press by Daniel Ellsberg” (1).

Source:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/holb-d15.shtml

A Life Lived For Wall Street

Richard C. Holbrooke was a man who spent his life shuffling back and forth between the State Department and Wall Street. He was a loyal soldier of the Washington clique, a diplomat who was a living embodiment of the mindset of liberal capitalism and fittingly propped up by huge sums of money. Despite being a Democrat on paper, he fawned over fellow warhawk Paul Wolfowitz:

“In an unguarded moment just before the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke opened a foreign policy speech with a fawning tribute to his host, Paul Wolfowitz, who was then the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington” (3).

He even went so far as to say, “recent activities illustrate something that’s very important about American foreign policy in an election year, and that is the degree to which there are still common themes between the parties” (3).

Holbrooke worked as a campaign advisor for Jimmy Carter and worked for the Carter Administration from 1977–1981. On March 31, 1977, Holbrooke became Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. He was the youngest person to ever hold that position. Under Carter, Holbrooke became the best friend of the American imperialists and the Chinese bourgeoisie. When the capitalist Deng Xiaoping became head of the Communist Party of China, Holbrooke was instrumental in continuing the Nixon/Kissinger policy of close relations with the People’s Republic of China. As a result of the efforts of Holbrooke and others, the United States normalized relations with the Chinese government in December 1978 and supported its aggressive invasion of Vietnam in 1979. Indonesia, Suharto & East Timor

Perhaps the most scandalous event of Holbrooke’s career occurred in August 1977, when he traveled to Indonesia to meet with Suharto. Suharto was a five-star general who had gained power through a violent coup in 1966 and whose forces were at the time conducting a genocide campaign in East Timor, which had been going on for two years when Holbrooke visited. During the coup, Suharto had also overseen the slaughter of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), which with three million members was the largest in the world outside China.

After Suharto assumed control over Indonesia, hundreds of thousands of PKI members and alleged civilian affiliates were immediately arrested and executed. State terror soon followed for decades. Overall, well over a million people would be killed under Suharto’s autocratic rule of Indonesia. In the East Timor genocide alone, 200,000 out of a population of 700,000 would be killed. Despite this, the United States under Carter and Clinton supported him as an anti-communist leader in the Cold War.

Richard Holbrooke got his hands dirty soon enough after the meeting:

“It was Carter’s appointee to the Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, who authorized additional arms shipments to Indonesia during this supposed blockade. Many scholars have noted that this was the period when the Indonesian suppression of the Timorese reached genocidal levels” (3).

Indonesian protesters demand justice in the wake of Suharto's atrocities

Professor Benedict Anderson, in a testimony before Congress, said in February 1978:

“If we are curious as to why the Indonesians never felt the force of the U.S. government’s ‘anguish,’ the answer is quite simple. In flat contradiction to express statements by General Fish, Mr. Oakley and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Holbrooke, at least four separate offers of military equipment were made to the Indonesian government during the January-June 1976 ‘administrative suspension.’ This equipment consisted mainly of supplies and parts for OV-10 Broncos, Vietnam War era planes designed for counterinsurgency operations against adversaries without effective anti-aircraft weapons, and wholly useless for defending Indonesia from a foreign enemy. The policy of supplying the Indonesian regime with Broncos, as well as other counterinsurgency-related equipment has continued without substantial change from the Ford through the present Carter administrations” (3).

Hoolbrooke went along with the U.S. government in having a positive image of Suharto. Referring to Wolofwitz, Holbrooke once remarked that “Paul and I have been in frequent touch to make sure that we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests.”

Holbrooke also said “The situation in East Timor is one of the number of very important concerns of the United States in Indonesia. Indonesia, with a population of 150 million people, is the fifth largest nation in the world, is a moderate member of the Non-Aligned Movement, is an important oil producer — which plays a moderate role within OPEC — and occupies a strategic position astride the sea lanes between the Pacific and Indian Oceans … We highly value our cooperative relationship with Indonesia” (4).

Holbrooke left politics for a few years, although apparently not to recover from supporting genocide in Indonesia, but rather to serve Wall Street in between diplomatic careers, acting as a vice chairman in the firm Credit Suisse First Boston and as managing director for Lehman Brothers. …By the Company He Keeps

It is perhaps a most fittingly ironic sign of Holbrooke’s true legacy that on the day when the headline “Kosovar leader says people lost ‘a friend’ in Holbrooke” [Click here] appeared, so did one saying “Kosovo PM is head of human organ and arms ring, Council of Europe reports” [Click here]. This is followed by the gruesome caption “Two-year inquiry accuses Albanian ‘mafia-like’ crime network of killing Serb prisoners for their kidneys.”

Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim “the Snake” Thaçi, a former KLA (UÇK) guerrilla, was among the first to admire Holbrooke publically. In the years since the Yugoslav Wars, Thaçi, a beloved friend of NATO and Israel, has made his drug smuggling and Balkan mafia ties well-known, not that they were exactly a mystery before, during or after the war. He was supposedly not only involved with organized crime but was apparently a “boss” figure, perhaps even a leader, of the powerful criminal network that holds sway over the Kosovo government. It is quite odd that this accusation of war crimes and is “breaking news,” since this story about the Thaçi’s involvement in organ trafficking broke over two years ago. The FBI, the European Union and the Council of Europe are now repeating these same charges.

Richard Holbrooke, it turns out, was one of the masterminds behind the Yugoslav Wars. The existence of “independent” Kosovo comes as the result of U.S. imperialism allowing the UN to occupy the territory and local former guerrilla leaders to establish a privatized mafia state for smuggling weapons and drugs in the Balkans.

Masterminding Yugoslavia: the Bosnian War

From 1993 to 1994, Holbrooke served as U.S. Ambassador to Germany. After 1989, a united Germany tried to re-colonize Yugoslavia (Slovenia and Croatia were both colonized by Germany under the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Nazis) and establish itself as a strong economy and a formidable imperialist power within Europe. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which Holbrooke also had a hand in, as we shall see) had as their predecessor the NATO interventions in Yugoslavia, another “liberation” mission.

Before the Yugoslav Wars broke out in earnest, Germany pushed to offer recognition, weapons and diplomatic relations to nationalist and separatist forces within Yugoslavia. The German intelligence service, the BND, was active in training reactionary and neo-Ustaše former Croatian Nazis. Other secret intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, also played their role in training various other movements, as did larger external powers such as the U.S., Britain, Russia, Turkey and Italy. Middle Eastern and European countries, and NATO as well, all backed differing warring nationalist factions in the conflict. The highlight of Holbrooke’s diplomatic career would come in the 1990’s during this violent breakup of the country.

During his service in Germany, Holbrooke was a heavy promoter of a more powerful NATO and military intervention in Bosnia. Holbrooke served as a Chairman on The American Academy in Berlin along with Henry Kissinger and Richard von Weizsäcker. Bloody conflicts were triggered with imperialist aid throughout the whole of Yugoslavia, starting with Slovenia, Croatia and by 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Soon enough, in 1995, Richard Holbrooke would become a semi-household name for being the chief architect of the Dayton Peace Accords, which the West has claimed ended the Bosnian War. Since then, he has been celebrated in the mainstream media as helping to end the bloody civil war. In fact, the Yugoslav Wars took place amid the rise of nationalism and the imperialist economic and social pressure on the dominating Yugoslav bourgeoisie, in which Holbrooke himself had no small role.

In the context of a violent ethnic conflict, Richard Holbrooke oversaw the illegal smuggling of enormous shipments of weapons to Bosnia using mammoth C-130 American military planes, despite a supposed international arms embargo. These shipments included small arms, anti-tank weapons, ammunition and explosives. During the Clinton administration this was compared with Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal. Soon the newly-independent states in Yugoslavia became a haven for foreign capital.

Holbrooke also encouraged Croatian President Franjo Tudjman to embark on the bloody “Operation Storm” in August 1995, which cost thousands of lives, drove hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs from the region and was carried out with intelligence, training and planning from “retired” US military advisors.

In his 1998 memoir of the Yugoslav Wars, To End a War, he claimed that the United States and NATO were late in responding to alleged atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs. Yet, ironically, according to recently-indicted former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić, Holbrooke personally offered him immunity from persecution for war crimes if he disappeared. A recent study by Purdue University shows he may be right as others have come forward and backed his claims.

Karadžić claimed “a senior American official pledged that he would never be standing there. […] The official, Richard C. Holbrooke, now [2009] a special envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Obama administration, has repeatedly denied promising Mr. Karadzic immunity from prosecution in exchange for abandoning power after the Bosnian war.

But the rumor persists, and different versions have recently emerged that line up with Mr. Karadzic’s assertion, including a new historical study of the Yugoslav wars published by Purdue University in Indiana.

Charles W. Ingrao, the study’s co-editor, said that three senior State Department officials, one of them retired, and several other people with knowledge of Mr. Holbrooke’s activities told him that Mr. Holbrooke assured Mr. Karadzic in July 1996 that he would not be pursued by the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague if he left politics” (6). In fact, the report even mentions a written agreement between the two.

In 1996, Holbrooke was awarded the Manfred Wörner Medal by the German Ministry of Defense for his work towards “peace and freedom.” Kosovo

This brings us back to the case of occupied Kosova (called “Kosovo” these days, especially since the 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia) and the infamous Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi. What exactly connects Mr. Thaçi to Richard Holbrooke, aside from the few snapshots and the remark to the press we mentioned earlier? Well, it just so happens that back in 1998-1999, Richard Holbrooke served as a special presidential envoy for Clinton in Kosovo during the Kosovo War, giving special support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA  or UÇK in Albanian), an illegal radical Albanian nationalist organization the U.S. classed as a terrorist group. Holbrooke was called “the KLA’s Godfather” and recruited many mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia to fight with the KLA. Mr. Thaçi was one of the leaders of the KLA and was wanted for bomb attacks by Interpol. In 1999 a war broke out between the KLA and Yugoslav Federal Army. NATO air forces launched a war of aggression and bombed Yugoslavia, ostensibly to deter Serb ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. In reality, it was the Yugoslav government’s hesitancy to embrace economic reform.

“The trigger for the US-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was, according to the standard western version of history, the failure of the Serbian delegation to sign up to the Rambouillet peace agreement. But that holds little more water than the tale that has Iraq responsible for last year’s invasion by not cooperating with weapons inspectors” (5).

In March 1999, Richard Holbrooke himself delivered the ultimatum to Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević about the imminent NATO bombing campaign. The 78-day bombardment of Yugoslavia consisted of 79,000 tons of bombs and over 10,000 cruise missiles and cluster bombs as well as depleted uranium. Infrastructure was targeted, and many civilian structures as well. The bombings displaced one million people, killed 2,000 and injured over 4,000 more. Only 15 tanks were destroyed, but 372 industrial centers were hit, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. In all of this, not one privately-owned business or building was bombed. Afterwards, Kosovo declared independence and was immediately recognized by the United States. Regarding Holbrooke’s “Peace treaty” which would have allegedly prevented the Kosovo War, it was not actually a plan for peace but rather a legalized occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia:

“[T]he Rambouillet process cannot be considered a negotiation under any normal definition of the word: A bunch of lawyers at the State Department write up a 90-page document and then push it in front of the parties and say: ‘Sign it. And if you (one of the parties) sign it and he (the other party) doesn’t then we’ll bomb him.’ And of course, when they said that, Secretary Albright and the State Department knew that one of the parties would not, and could not, sign the agreement. Why? Because — as has received far too little attention from our supposedly inquisitive media — it provided for NATO occupation of not just Kosovo but of all of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) under Paragraph 8 of Appendix B: ‘8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access through out the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], including associated air space and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations’” (7).

Iraq

On January 2001, Holbrooke was quoted as saying: “Saddam Hussein’s activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime. His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times.” Even until his death, Holbrooke continued to call for a deployment of more U.S. troops in Iraq. Conclusion

When looking at all of this, the answer to our previous question becomes quite clear. Who was Richard Holbrooke? Richard Holbrooke was a monster and a war criminal complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people for the sake of profit.

Sources:

1)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/holb-d15.shtml

2)
http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2010/12/15/the-true-richard-holbrooke-legacy#more8351

3)
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/

4)
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14734

5)
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/bptdg/Papers/%204spoils

6)
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/Clips/2009/mar/090321IngraoBosnia.html

7)
http://www.counterpunch.org/jatras.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Systems of Stratification:‭ ‬Gender in Capitalist Society

29 Nov

The capitalist system, by its very construction, requires systems of stratification to perpetuate itself. These systems serve many functions, but chief among them is as a means of dividing workers against one another. To distract and befuddle the endeavors of the working class, the capitalists champion reactionary ideological currents that turn the frustrations of the masses of workers onto other workers, rather than against their common enemy, the capitalist class itself. One such system is that of patriarchy, the male chauvinism which serves to place women at all levels of society into a position below men.

Gender in Pre-Capitalism

There have been many justifications for patriarchy asserted by proponents of gender chauvinism. One frequent assertion is that this chauvinism is “natural” to human beings, and that by our very design systems of stratification and violence based on gender are inevitable. This argument, like other “human nature” arguments, is fundamentally flawed, being that it ignores the social origin for these systems in favor of an arbitrary and intellectually lazy stab at a “human nature” that can be applied regardless of other prevailing factors. The fact of the matter is that women were not always placed in a position of submission to men. In hunter-gatherer societies, for instance, before notions of private property were ever conceived of socially, women occupied a similar social position to men. When everyone within a community was forced to work to gather food, through hunting game and gathering wild fruits and nuts, the labor of every person was every bit as essential to survival. Out of necessity, everyone contributed their labor to the common need, from the gathering of food and materials to the rearing of children. As a result, these societies were matrilineal (as in, lineage was determined by the mother) and women had a significant role in administrative tasks within these communities.

With the emergence of early agriculture and notions of private property, women were placed into a position of subservience to men. In his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels referred to this as “the world historical defeat of the female sex” as it replaced the once equitable position of women with a system of patriarchy. As private property came to define the organization of society, the role of men as warriors to expropriate and defend property became essential, and lineage based on the father became important for ensuring that property remained in the hands of the sons of its male owners. As property became the new means to social power, women as a property-less group assumed little to no power within society, allowing their social position to be redefined in a manner which suited the needs of male property-owners. As systems of production evolved over time, new definitions of the family and role of women in society were conceived and enforced by the ruling classes. The Bourgeois Family

As capitalism emerged, a new definition of the family came to the forefront, and the role of women was modified to attend to the specific needs of capitalism. The emphasis on a nuclear family unit as a means of production, with a distinction between “house work” and that work which is done in the public sphere for a wage, redefined the status of women as a domestic slave to the needs of capitalist production. While men worked in the factories and fields, women were expected to take care of all other socially necessary labor, from cleaning house to raising children. In this sense, women rendered onto the capitalist class a great service, in that they provided services for free that the capitalists would need to invest their surplus value into. It was not the capitalist who had to raise the children of their workers, clean their homes, offer them sexual services and emotional support. This task fell to women, who were forced into this position of subservience by laws against their industrial participation, attitudes which spoke towards their “inferiority” and a whole host of other economic and cultural restraints on their independence and advancement. The old chains of chivalry and the old definitions of family were replaced with a new patriarchy geared towards the needs of this new system. Marxism and Women’s Liberation

Marx and Engels spoke to this end in the early 19th century, in a time when women were completely discarded in theoretical understanding s of society. Even in an age of Enlightenment ideas, the women’s question was neglected, dismissed, or otherwise characterized in a manner as to make it irrelevant or non-existent. Marxism, however, was the first serious stab at the issue, in that it acknowledged the essential injustice of patriarchy and made scientific assessments as to its origins and the means towards its resolution. Marx and Engels understood the struggle of women to be intertwined with the struggle of workers for emancipation, and later Marxist revolutionaries carried on this understanding in their revolutionary work.

As a result of this understanding, Marxism-Leninism fought in earnest to advance the rights and participation of women in society in a way that had never been seen before. In the Bolshevik revolution, woman cadres and activists played an essential role in the victory of the workers over Czarism and Imperialism. Such revolutionaries as Alexandra Kollontai, who would later become the world’s first female ambassador, fought along with Lenin against the old order. Later, women would play an essential role in defending the new Soviet Union from invasion by imperialist powers. In World War II, for instance, women like Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya fought along the Red Army and the Soviet Partisans to challenge and expel the invading Nazis.

In every society that had a socialist revolution, great efforts were made to advance the social status of women, often in societies which were characterized by a particularly low status of women. In Albania, for instance, women went from being considered the lowest level of property to making up a significant percentage of the People’s Councils and People’s Assembly. On the topic of women’s rights, Enver Hoxha once famously declared “The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women’s rights.” Capitalist Patriarchy Today

Despite attempts at solving the problem of gender inequality through reform, capitalism still creates a situation in which women are subjected to economic, cultural and political domination. Women still make less money, have higher rates of poverty and face a societal chauvinism which seeks to make them into objects rather than respect their inherent humanity. Although blatant discrimination based on gender in employment have been rendered illegal in many cases, the core roots of gender inequality in employment have not been addressed. Legislation that makes it illegal to pay women less for doing the same work as men, even when it isn’t being pigeonholed by a legal system that places the onus on woman workers to find out whether this is happening to them or not (see the case of Lilly Ledbetter) does not address that men and women tend to be found in different professions, and those professions in which women represent a majority are underpaid by the capitalist system.

So called “care work,” which represents socially necessary labor from nursing to teaching, elder care and child care, has been socially fetishized as being the realm of women. It is what is expected of women every day by default, with the sentiment being that women are somehow natural “nurturers” and thus must be expected to this work at lower wages. The assumption is that this labor of “caring” is “unskilled” and can simply be demanded of women. Not only are women expected to wait on their husbands and children hand and foot without pay, they must also wait others for a pittance. This is the economics of capitalist patriarchy: if it doesn’t make a profit, make women do it for less.

This ideology of the obligatory social mother figure, wiping the backsides of society for it, is reinforced through a culture which fetishizes domesticity in women. Household products are often hawked with commercials depicitng the “contented mother” character whose only problems are cutting through the grease on the dishes she’s scrubbing, driving her children to soccer practice and prepairing dinner for her husband. Not much has changed in advertising since the 1950’s, where domestic violence against women was a recurring gag in television sitcoms. In some respects, the new patriarchy has surpassed the old patriarchy in its perversion.

In the old capitalist patriarchy, domesticity was all that was demanded of women. They were to cook, clean, care for children and be submissive to her male counterpart. Every effort was taken to limit her industrial participation in favor of prioritizing her home-making obligations. Now, however, not only must women be the at-home mom. They must also be the business-saavy, child-transporting, non-aging, trim and slender sexual vixen who does it all and more. Every magazine, every film and television show demands absolute perfection in every regard. Men can be lazy, unshaven, overweight and under-dressed, yet women must constantly be painted and powdered, fit and well dressed, line-less and wrinkle-less. To not live up to this unrealistic expectation is to fail and, as a result, women are culturally beaten into submission by a patriarchal norm that shackles them to the expectations of their male counterparts.

Sexual Violence and Imperialism

What’s worse than the everyday oppression of women in advanced-industrialized countries is how imperialism has and continues to utilize sexual violence as an essential component to its colonialist ambitions. Rape, for instance, is a frequent occurrence in colonialism and in imperialist wars which seeks to impose the domination of an occupying force uppon the occupied. This is a crime that has been a frequent theme in capitalist domination, and despite all of the apologism for imperialism as being a force that wants to “defend the rights of women,” the reality is that this “defense” entails creating the situation in which women must be made to live in fear. The recent legalization of rape in Afghanistan speaks volumes toward this end. As well, women’s reproductive freedom is frequently constricted by colonialist and imperialist powers. In some cases, obligatory hysterectomys have been given to women in indigenous communities seeking health care. The domination of women, their subjugation to the desires of imperialism and colonialism, necessitates sexual violence in many forms and is inevitable in imperial capitalism. Conclusion: The Struggle for Women’s Liberation is Essential to the Struggle for Worker’s Liberation

In order to end the systems of stratification that capitalism creates, capitalism itself must be targeted for a full-scale assault by the proletariat. Gender chauvinism is one of these systems. The oppression of women under capitalism cannot be solved within capitalism: working men and women must unite for the purpose of breaking the common chains which bind them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Revolutionary Process

11 Aug

It is without a doubt that our society as it stands is in desperate need of change. How does society truly change? What does change entail? Numerous ideologies have different ways of approaching these questions. Liberalism acknowledges that “change” to society is necessary, but its method for seeking such undefined “change” comes from unprincipled peace, reform and pacifism (except when it comes to people of countries occupied by the US). The meaningless bantering and rhetoric of liberalism do little for society and merely enable the free market system to stand on newfound legs with the same ulterior motives for exploitation and systematic destruction. On the other hand, the conservative movement wishes for change only to revert back to their exploitative Utopia free from the pressures of regulation and “socialist tyrants.” Their methods for change are every bit as deplorable as liberalism.

Only through a revolution of the working movement led by an organized vanguard can there ever exist true change in society. In this article we shall examine the stages of the revolutionary process, what it means to be a revolutionary and the morality of revolutionary movements.

What is a Revolution?

First I believe it is necessary to define revolution in relation to Marxism. A revolution itself is movement dedicated to overthrowing of a political system that is viewed in a less than favorable light by the majority of society. Revolution is often a highly democratic movement, as it is influenced especially by the working class people themselves. Instead of mere reform movements or electoral means via bourgeois democracy, revolution is a means of overthrowing current political systems by force and action. Violence is an inevitable but justifiable output of the revolutionary process, justified primarily through direct democracy, the largest majority possible lending their support to the revolutionary movement. In a socialist revolution, those who are repressed are merely those who have been oppressors and exploiters throughout their life; the bourgeoisie and imperialists.

What do Revolutionaries Want?

Revolutionary movements expose the inherent contradictions within society, expose corruption and exploitation, and upon successful seizure of power, build a new government that is in the interest of the working people. Revolutionary movements are not truly guided by hatred, but by love, as revolutionaries wish to better improve society and mankind by removing the very conditions that make tyranny and exploitation possible. The duty of Marxist revolutionaries is to give humanity a greater sense of expression and freedom than it could have ever known in the capitalist system, through the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism.

How is a Revolution Possible?

So how is a revolution made possible and what occurs in a revolutionary process? Excellent question. First and foremost is in imperative that one understands the process of capitalism before it is possible to empathize with Marxist revolution, however. In other words, one must understand the exploitative and inhumane nature of capitalism to understand why such a large amount of people would wish to overthrow it. Capitalism exists as a form of class society, a detriment to human development. In the class-based society of capitalism one class of society provides its labor for the other, more powerful class of society; the majority of society is comprised of the working class proletariat who must sell their labor power for the ruling class bourgeoisie in order to survive via wage slavery. Therefore, capitalism is a class based system of continuance of exploitation; the ruling class bourgeoisie profit from the labor of the proletarian class. The state then enforces the proletariat, the exploited class, to submit to its form of slavery. All the while the state further enforces its dominion through imperialism, nationalism and ways of dividing the proletariat so as to remain ignorant of their conditions. While it is quite clear that any Marxist could ramble on about how capitalism functions for years, I feel this is a sufficient enough explanation for how capitalism works and why it must be abolished. Now it is time to discuss the process of a revolutionary movement!

How Does a Revolution Happen?

A revolutionary movement arises when certain conditions have been reached. These conditions include an ample amount of proletarian class consciousness and the formation of an organized vanguard party to guide the proletariat and furthermore to spearhead class consciousness. Class consciousness is when the proletariat realizes the need for a sense of collective unity and therefore realizes their conditions in the capitalist society and their relation to the social means of production. It is an absolute necessity for revolution to have the proletariat be united, however, the level of class consciousness does not have to be one hundred percent. Such idealism is harmful and would ultimately lead to idleness rather than action.

Instead of waiting however many hundreds of years it would potentially take for the working class to grow consciousness all on their own, a revolutionary vanguard party arises and firmly grasps control of the revolutionary movement. Only with the guidance and leadership of a well disciplined, well armed, well educated, and well organized vanguard operating on the principles of democratic-centralism can the masses themselves achieve socialism. The vanguard spearheads class consciousness and further development. For example, Lenin and the Bolsheviks underwent a series of open, fair debates with ideological opponents in order to better educate them about Marxism. Schools that were developed in the Soviet Union made Marxism a subject, and as a result, the people themselves learned to develop class consciousness. The people lend their support to the vanguard and are then armed and mobilized to combat capitalistic exploitation, and essentially to revolutionize.

The revolutionary process is sustained through the dictatorship of the proletariat in which the working class direct their power against bourgeois exploiters, forcing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie out of power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a temporary phase, as socialism, until final communism—a stateless, classless society—is reached. The repression against the bourgeoisie is willed by the people against enemies of freedom and justice and those who have existed solely as parasitic lifeforms, draining society of all its life. Essentially the struggle of revolution is the struggle against those who support freedom and those who do not.

The dictatorship of proletariat is organized through democratic-centralism: “democracy in discussion, centralism in action.” Democratic-centralism is a means of balancing democracy with proper organization. Too much democracy leads to confusion and lack of action, whereas too much centralism leads to bureaucracy. Regardless, democratic-centralism, in the thorough application of proletarian democracy, is far more democratic than the Western liberal bourgeois governments could ever hope to be. But once more, there must be balance in democracy versus centralism. This balance relates to specific circumstances, however, and is subject to change according on the conditions society faces as well. Overall, the necessities of democratic-centralism include proper balance between democracy and centralism, organization, and most importantly, unity. Unity is an absolute necessity for socialism to develop!

After Revolution

So upon proper revolution and proper application of democratic-centralism, then what? There comes the matter of the state. As mentioned, the state merely exists as a means of enforcing the will of the ruling class upon the lower class, but this definition is far more suitable for capitalist states than socialist states, or workers states. In the socialist state, the working class assumes control of the state, applying democracy and abolishing exploitation. The will of the proletariat is enforced against the remaining bourgeoisie and those counter-revolutionaries who violent oppose socialism and defend capitalist exploitation. According to Marx, gaining control of the state is the first step in revolution itself: “The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, (i.e. of the proletariat organized as the ruling class); and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” Clearly the working class themselves work in unison to remove exploitative elements of the capitalist state, not to enforce the same total state machine of capitalism!

The proletariat works to abolish classes, wage slavery, and the like, and therefore they work for liberation. Eventually, once the state begins to loose counter-revolutionary forces, once class distinctions are abolished, once property becomes of a more public level, and once capital loses it’s deadly grasp over the people, the state is able to wither away, once communism is achieved.

Where do revolutions take place? Shall they take place internationally or within one country? Ideally, socialist revolutions would occur spontaneously on international levels, especially in the advanced capitalist countries. However, Marxist-Leninists acknowledge that such wishful thinking leads to idleness and ultra-left idealism. Therefore, the scientific socialists, the Marxist-Leninists, believe it is possible for revolutionary socialism to be constructed within one country. It is true that Marx called for workers of the world to unite, but clearly it is not as simple as romanticized world revolution. In order to truly realize revolutionary movements in multiple countries, we must apply revolutions to our own country. Building a socialist “base” for which internationalism can then expand is the most scientific approach to achieving socialism.

The Soviet Union and Albania prove that socialism is possible to be developed in one country, as clearly the people and their armies managed to fend against imperialistic forces, all the while achieving scores of positive things and advancing past capitalism themselves. Socialism itself is indeed a higher stage of human progress than capitalism, so of course socialism can be built in one country, so long as there is a proper vanguard and proper emphasis on the proletarian class themselves. As we can see, the steps to achieving communism are not black-and-white. There is a scientific method involved here, and in order to bring about socialism in our era we must work to put it into practice.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Letters to the American Party of Labor: If Socialism is So Great, Why Did it Collapse?

18 Jul

The following is a letter sent to redphoenixsite@gmail.com from alias NewDealNow.

Dear APL,

I’ve been reading your articles in The Red Phoenix for a while, and I like some of the things you have to say about Glenn Beck and attacking conservatives…but I must confess that I haven’t the faintest idea of why anyone in this day and age would champion an ideology that clearly did not work. Socialism has collapsed everywhere it has been tried, and where it hasn’t, it’s turned into a mess of totalitarian despots and broken economies. It’s obvious that some kind of market needs to take place. The country you guys like the most, Albania, is a NATO member now. Let’s face it: it didn’t work, isn’t going to work, and we need new ideas that start fresh and combine the best of both worlds. We need something to bring workers and innovators together, not tear them apart. I look forward to reading your response, and hope that some of these concerns have sunk in.

We thank you for your letter.

The APL should clarify that while we do appreciate our reader’s attention to our projects in attacking and refuting American reaction, we do not view it in terms of “liberal” or “conservative”—we are attacking capitalism-imperialism and its manifestations. Unlike others, we do not play “lesser evil” games between liberals and conservatives in the USA.

Socialism vs. Revisionism

The most significant claim made by the author is the notion that socialism collapsed before and therefore should be evaluated as a failure. This argument is the premier bourgeois weapon against socialism. In order to understand why the socialist countries collapsed, it is necessary to understand that by the time they collapsed they could no longer be called socialist. In a word, revisionism triumphed. This is the tragedy of the history of Marxism. The term “revisionism,” when applied to a country, organization or political line of thought, means revising the fundamentals of Marxism to the point where it is no longer revolutionary. Marxism has changed and corrected since the time of Marx in order to adapt to new conditions, but the foundations have remained the same. Revisionism, however, means to degenerate Marxism into bourgeois metaphysics and ultimately capitalism. Most of the problems the bourgeoisie attest to 20th century socialism (stagnating economies, collapses) were actually the fault of 20th century revisionism. Ceauşescu’s Romania had many shortages, while those that stuck to the ideology of Marxism had few to none. These problems emerged when the countries in question stepped off the socialist path, not on it. Revisionism fails, but Leninism works.

The capitalist scholars claimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc proved the failure of socialism. For this to be true, the class nature of the state and system of ownership in these countries would have had to be socialist at the time of collapse. The assumption here is that those countries remained the same from their establishment all the way until the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the socialist construction experienced in the Soviet Union as the country of the first successful proletarian revolution and in Eastern European countries where, after World War II, regimes of people’s democracy were established, was derailed by revisionism. Countries such as China, Cuba, South Yemen and Angola claimed they were socialist, but the proletariat in those countries had never become organized as the hegemonic class in power, nor had the production relations reached a path of socialist development.

Many say capitalism was restored in the Gorbachev Era, but it was much earlier.

The Soviet Union and Albania were the models of socialist nations, in that Marxism-Leninism was consistently applied for most of their existence and they maintained the class struggle against their bourgeoisie instead of entering into alliance with them. However, the central planning and state ownership in the USSR did not remain unchanged from the 1950s, nor did the capitalist restoration and transition to a market economy only take place during the reign of Gorbachev. The rise of the Khrushchevites to power in the USSR marked the beginning of the degeneration of Soviet socialism. Central planning and state ownership were undermined, and would later be abolished completely after the Liberman and Kosygin reforms in 1965, which marked the final nail in the coffin for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR. Socialism Did Work

The socialist camp did collapse, but it endured for a very long period of time. Bourgeois economists predicted that the collapse of socialism would happen immediately after its foundations and outset—this did not happen. The socialist system was able to build a world superpower and endure for decades, defeat a military juggernaut that was able to walk right through Europe and produce a planned economy with working industry, collectivized agriculture and a livable life for the entire population.

Albania was the only country where the process of socialism was uninterrupted until the 1980s, despite unimaginable difficulties. Albania kicked out the fascist troops of both Hitler and Mussolini without foreign assistance, doubled life expectancy, electrified the entire country, established socialist relations of production, abolished taxes, provided free health care and education up to the highest level, industrialized despite the fact that it was a tribal society until 1950s, abolished honor killings (which now account for over 25% of all Albanian deaths), abolished sex slavery of women, stood up to both American imperialism and Soviet revisionism equally, lead the longest-lasting socialist state in human history, established working class control and elections over production centers, brought illiteracy down from 90-95% to on the level of the United States, and so on and so forth forever. Many of the same gains were also achieved in the socialist period of the USSR. “Totalitarianism”

The American Party of Labor does not recognize any such political or economic system as “totalitarianism.” For more on this, read this article: The Myth of “Totalitarianism.”

Ironically, the liberal criticism of Marxism as dogma based on faith and not logic, or of Marxism as “totalitarian,” is essentially saying that other ideologies, conveniently including liberalism and capitalism, are not so-called “totalitarian,” but grounded in material reality and completely uninfluenced by preconceived theorization. In other words, this theory is similar to the religious notion of all other religions being lies.

Economic Stagnation?

Is this accusation accurate? In reality, the Soviet economy was not stagnating when it out-produced every country in WWII with the production of tanks, firearms and light infantry, nor was the Albanian economy ever stagnating during the Marxist-Leninist period. The stagnation only came with the advent of capitalism. Official statistics verified by British economists show that between 1951 and 1985 in Albania:

Agricultural production increased by 4.5 times;

Retail sales per head of population: 5.5 times;

Industrial production increased by 16.2 times;

Chrome production increased by 30.9 times;

Electric power production increased by 217.1 times;

Chemical production increased by 585.8 times;

(‘Statistical Yearbook of the PSR of Albania 1988′; Tirana; 1988; p.: 81, 87, 122).

In addition, from the book Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: the Case of Albania by Adi Schnytzer:

Growth indices for the Albanian economy (1938=1)

Gross domestic material product

1950 – 1.7

1960 – 4.0

1970 – 8.3

1973 – 10.7

Global agricultural production

1950 – 1.2

1960 – 1.7

1970 – 3.1

1973 – 3.5

Global industrial production

1950 – 4

1960 – 25

1970 – 64

1973 – 86

Retail trade turnover

1950 – 1.4

1960 – 6

1970 – 10

1973 – 13

Population (millions)

1950 – 1.20

1960 – 1.60

1970 – 2.14

1973 – 2.30

“From the table [presented above] it is clear that the Albanian economy has sustained rapid economic growth since 1950.” The author adds it is surprising that the successes of the Albanian economy have not been more thoroughly catalogued by Western scholars. On page 64 of that same book:

Output and Productivity in Industry

Global industrial production (million leks [Albanian currency] in 1971 prices)

1950 – 461

1955 – 1,275

1960 – 2,781

1963 – 3,385

1970 – 7,104

1973 – 9,608

1975 – 10,798

Industrial labour [sic] force

1950 – 16,337

1955 – 28,964

1960 – 48,074

1963 – 66,941

1970 – 106,223

1973 – 121,602

1975 – 133,437

Labour [sic] productivity (leks/man)

1950 – 28,219

1955 – 44,020

1960 – 57,848

1963 – 50,567

1970 – 66,878

1973 – 79,012

1975 – 80,992The Ebbs and Flows of Revolution

There are those who say that because there are no socialist countries in the world today, then our ideas have “lost,” which is the position taken by the author of the above letter.

Marxism-Leninism is based upon dialectical materialism, the science of human development. It is a scientific outlook that analyzes the development of civilization and the structure of matter. It sees the unity and the struggle between opposites and opposing forces and the struggle between classes and modes of production (feudalism, capitalism, etc). This eternal struggle, which is the cause of what we call change, does not move in a straight line. The period of the transition from capitalism to socialism and then socialism to communism is not a period of smooth, perfect, linear transition. It is a period rife with contradiction, conflict, uncertainty, chaos and struggle. History moves in ebbs and flows, in zigs and zags.

As Enver Hoxha said, “The struggle of the proletariat against the. bourgeoisie is a stem, merciless struggle which goes on continuously. Confronting each other stand two great social forces. On the one side stands the capitalist-imperialist bourgeoisie, which is the most ferocious, deceitful and blood-thirsty class known to history. On the other side stands the proletariat, the class totally dispossessed of means of production, ruthlessly oppressed and exploited by the bourgeoisie, which is at the same time the most advanced class of society which thinks, creates, works and produces, but does not enjoy the fruits of its toil.” In this grand battle of classes, there can be no assurance that the proletariat will win everywhere and always. To say otherwise is pure Utopia.

It took hundreds of years for capitalism to finally conquer feudalism in order to secure itself as an international, global system of production. In addition, the correct scientific line does not guarantee that a group, party, class or country wins every fight and struggle 100% of the time no matter the circumstances. Regardless, it is the APL’s position that the accomplishments of Albania under constant pressure from the British, the Americans, the Greeks, the Yugoslavs and the Italian and German fascists, and later even the Soviets and the Chinese, were truly remarkable and a model for all. The Loss of Albania

As for the loss in Albania, it has come under attack from capitalists and revisionists everywhere. This line of attack, which can be roughly summed up as, “If Albania was so amazing, then why did it collapse?” is of course repeated by anti-Marxists and revisionists ad nauseum. They lost, therefore they must be wrong. This is the “thought” of these people.

This argument reveals much more about our opponents than it reveals about us, since it shows that opponents of the American Party of Labor have no arguments other than what the bourgeoisie says—that socialism is not superior because it collapsed. It also reveals they have no arguments other than the one that negates all of Marxism, since all socialist countries that have existed have collapsed.

The causes of the collapse were not simple. Albania was the last socialist nation in the world. It was alone, and in addition to sabotage and foreign pressure which helped to the revisionists to rise and destroy socialism, there was a coup against Ramiz Alia and Hoxha’s wife that had them arrested and exiled. In 1997 the Albanians tried to overthrow the capitalist Democratic Party under the reactionary Sali Berisha. Conditions have worsened considerably under capitalist rule in Albania, so much so that the Communist Party managed to occupy the entire southern half before NATO troops were called in to crush the rebellion.

Does Liberalism “Work?”

Let us apply this method to this author’s own ideology. What this person would seem to suggest he advocates with his alias “NewDealNow,” is in fact something that has itself been shown to be a complete failure. Right now there is widespread poverty, massive warfare and starvation in the world. So clearly, liberalism is not able to provide even the most basic needs for survival for the vast majority of the human race. When one works within a system, one subjects oneself to that system’s rules. The rule of liberalism is that those with capital hold the power. Even when some redistributive economic policies are allowed by the owners of society, such reforms are easily and frequently undone. Liberal governments themselves are also quite capable of collapsing.

Finally, the APL would say that Marxism-Leninism does not “tear classes apart” as the author suggests. The people are divided into antagonistic classes already. Our goal is to create a society that will eliminate classes.

Stay Tuned for More Reader Responses

We of the American Party of Labor would like to remind our readers that we are open to any questions. We will answer your questions to the fullest extent possible.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Myths Concerning Non-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism

22 Jun

In our time as revolutionaries, we at the APL have been exposed to a great many myths propagated about our ideology, our historical perspective and our method of work. In this essay, we will address some common misconceptions concerning our ideology as put forward by our opponents and offer a rebuttal for each.

The first myth about non-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is that by understanding the latter USSR and China for being social-imperialist in their actions and ends, anti-revisionists, in essence, supported the mass murder of revisionist progressives for the reason that they did not completely agree with or accompany Albania in the Sino-Soviet or the Sino-Albanian split.

The notion that not supporting revisionist states is comparable to supporting their annihilation at the hands of Western imperialism is absurd. It is also every bit as absurd as Brezhnevism’s tacit approval of everyone who flies a red flag. The bottom line here is that being “progressive” in comparison to the grossest manifestations of imperialism and reaction does not make one into a communist. For instance, we at the APL remain consistently anti-imperialist, and we support Cuba and Democratic Korea’s right to not be invaded or controlled by the forces of imperial capitalism. Yet, while we do this, we continue to understand that Castroism and Juche are revisionist ideologies, and that both states are objectively not socialist, are not ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The second myth is that those who don’t conform to “Hoxhaism” are automatically considered revisionist in our eyes, and it is implied that our referring to someone as being “revisionist” comes from some “sectarianism” or “ultra-leftism” on our part, rather than the practiced application of Marxist-Leninist dialectics.

First, it must be noted that “Hoxhaism,” like “Stalinism,” does not exist as a separate tendency from Marxism-Leninism. While we uphold Enver Hoxha and Joseph Stalin as theoreticians, revolutionaries, and leaders of the revolutionary proletariat, we do not see these figures as revolutionizing Leninism in the way that Lenin restored and advanced the revolutionary character of Marxism. Hoxha and Stalin were defenders of Leninism, and put these theories to practice in the Soviet Union and Albania, and their theoretical works served to defend and elaborate on the existing theory of Leninism, not to alter it.

On the other hand, there exist political sects which assert that their leaders, such as Trotsky and Mao, “advanced” Marxist-Leninist theory through their work. These groups even go so far as to call themselves “Trotskyist” and “Maoist” to bring attention to the “advances” made by their particular theories. The reality is, however, that nothing particularly new or revolutionary was asserted in the case of Mao or Trotsky. In addition to plagiarizing existing theorists and asserting classic theory as their own (albeit with minor adjustments in phrasing), Mao Tse Tung and Leon Trotsky adopted opportunistic and counterrevolutionary stances when it suited their immediate political needs. Their theoretical line was reflected in this opportunism, and it is the deviance of revisionist theory from the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism that has led such trends down the road of ineffectualism.

A revisionist is not a revisionist because we don’t like them. A revisionist is a revisionist because they wander off of Leninism’s revolutionary path. Those who advance anti-Leninist positions such as “peaceful coexistence with capitalism,” submitting to the economic domination of the Soviet Union or People’s Republic of China rather than building one’s own socialist industry (as was the case in Eastern Europe and Kampuchea), and head down the path of peaceful reformism are revisionists. Those who would see the construction of socialism in a country halted and reversed, following a theoretical line that would have us throw up our hands because “there aren’t enough proletarians” and “we must allow more advanced capitalist construction before we can attain socialism” are revisionists (as well as counterrevolutionary traitors). There is nothing arbitrary about who the APL calls revisionist, and we are happy to explain who we’d call a revisionist and why.

A third myth has it that we are “mechanical” and “dogmatic.” At this juncture, we must confess that we are dogmatic, in that we insist on world communist revolution, we insist on the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and we intend to follow Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary method which has been tried and proven as the proletariat’s theoretical mainstay against the forces of capitalism, imperialism, and revisionism. In short, we are dogmatic in our intention to win, and the whole of our ideology and activity conforms to the demands of such an intention.

It is for this reason that we continue to be open to debate, and conduct ourselves on the basis of democratic centralism. Marxist-Leninists must always be willing to struggle, because it is in struggle that we find the correct path. It was Lenin’s struggle against the revisionism of the Second International which, in a time when other “communists” were willing to retreat and cling to the trouser-legs of the bourgeoisie in the name of nationalism, gave birth to our theory. It is in struggle that we Leninists are able to remain consistent to the scientific method which Marxism-Leninism provides.

This particular line of attack is the favorite of the Maoists, who assert that it is their theory and theirs alone which offers a historical analysis and revolutionary path that is neither revisionist nor “dogmatic.” Yet, the reality is that Mao’s Philistine theory traded science for bourgeois metaphysics, and in this opportunism concocted such anti-Leninist positions as “the Theory of Three Worlds” and the notion that a society somehow between capitalism and socialism (New Democracy) could exist. These revisionist ideas would inevitably lead to allowing the old bourgeoisie to maintain leadership positions in industry, the support of US imperialism and a whole host of reactionary regimes, including those of Pinochet and Mobutu Sese Seko. Certainly Mao cannot be blamed for subjecting himself to the “mechanical dogma” of Marxism-Leninism in these cases! We at the APL have no need for unquestioning dogmatism, yet we refuse to throw out what is correct and revolutionary in our understanding, or adopt petty-bourgeois and post-materialist positions simply because they are popular among the “left.”

Going along this line of attack, our critics accuse us of supporting every action taken by Enver Hoxha and Joseph Stalin. This is untrue. For instance, we are critical of Stalin for not doing enough to battle his cult of personality. Even though Stalin didn’t actively encourage his personality cult like Mao and Kim Il-Sung did, and even spoke against it, we cannot forgive his failure to act in this matter. We are also critical of Enver Hoxha for banning religion all together, which our party has no intention of doing. Yet, while we hold these criticisms, we must disagree with the Maoists’ 7/10ths assessment of Stalin, being that their method contains more metaphysical garbage than sound dialectical thinking, and hence results in a less than useful synopsis of Stalin’s work.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Response To A Reader

30 Dec

Theories of Restored Capitalism
 Since what is often termed the “collapse of the socialist camp,” there has been an explosion of theories as to why socialism as the capitalists saw it, embodied by the USSR and its allied nations, failed to achieve communism or even survive to the end of the century. From a superficial viewpoint, not only did the bulk of the world’s self-proclaimed socialist governments collapse, but those countries still calling themselves socialist have, for the most part, made huge concessions to the market if they have not embraced open capitalism in all but name. This leads to the popular myth of socialism “not working.”

In contrast, on the anti-capitalist left-wing, theoretical stances can be roughly divided into two groups. One group, encompassing Marxist-Leninists, attempts to make a materialist analysis of real-world socialism’s history. People subscribing to these theories acknowledge that the USSR was at some point socialist, based off analysis of its relations of production, its class character and so on. They also say that socialism was betrayed or corrupted by revisionists (those who distort or water-down Marxism), and that both the USSR and its client states in Eastern Europe degenerated into state-capitalist and imperialist regimes.

The debates among this group hinge on which nations achieved true socialism, when and for how long the USSR was socialist, whether China was ever socialist and most importantly, what sort of mistakes were made in socialist societies that permitted the growth of revisionism?

People who espouse such views, though their analysis may be flawed from time to time, are usually taking a materialist, realistic viewpoint. These views acknowledge that class struggle is not something that happens perfectly. When such people are at their best, they often qualify their criticisms of past regimes with reference to the benefits of hindsight, and they are honest to say that the nature of that future class struggle following a socialist revolution will be determined largely by the reactionary ruling class, not the best-laid plans of Marxist-Leninists. There is no one-shot, one-way path to socialism and communism. That is a realistic view of life.

Then there is another school of thought, a far more idealistic viewpoint held by anarchists, Trotskyists, “Left-Communists,” and some of their fellow travelers. They seem to think they have found a perfect way to run around the question of “why did socialism collapse?” Their specific explanations will differ on a number of points and in terminology, but the answer is generally to claim that all the socialist governments of the 20th century were not only not socialist, but in fact had nothing to do with socialism.
 This is usually followed up by their personal definition of socialism, or the definition accepted by their particular sect of leftist ideology. Naturally because none of these states in question fit that definition, they cannot possibly be socialist. In the mind of such people, it is perfectly acceptable to encourage workers to rise up against capitalism, to struggle for its replacement by socialism, all the while reminding them that well over a dozen nations in the last century had “socialist” revolutions while somehow not even approaching their idealistic standard of “real socialism.”

Apparently real socialism, as it is exists in the minds of such people (and nowhere else) is something more delicate than a butterfly, for if ever the best-laid plans of socialists should not bear fruit, and especially if they should adapt their tactics or system in an attempt to deal with adverse conditions, they run the risk of crushing socialism. In simpler words, it’s all or nothing.

Reality Check

Societies and modes of production are complex things. Anyone who has had the misfortune of debating the ills of capitalism with a libertarian can probably attest to the rather dishonest tactic of disavowing every existing capitalist regime in history as not being “true capitalism”, so as to absolve capitalism as a whole from any crime committed in the name of profit.  Any state intervention in the private sector will be labeled “socialist” in a bizarre worldview where the state and private sector are wholly separate entities, the former being responsible for all evil and the latter the epitome of all that is good and just.  When idealists attempt to defend socialism by disavowing existing attempts at socialism entirely, they are basically guilty of the same faulty logic. Socialism, according to ones ideal, is put forth in a hitherto non-existent, ideal form, real socialism did not live up to that ideal, ergo it cannot be socialism.

In the more privileged countries of the west, particularly those with a history of liberal democracy, this mode of argument seems to be most popular. Americans for example, even leftists, have trouble getting their head around the socialist USSR under Lenin and Stalin, largely because they fail to understand the historical conditions of the Soviet Union. It is illogical to look at Soviet society in a vacuum, as though the Bolsheviks and their allies in the post-war Peoples’ Democracies implemented policies solely on their personal whims for “power mad” reasons.

The Truth About Socialism
 The anarchists, Trotskyites, Left-Communists and their ilk would have us believe that the answers are so simple. They should have put the workers in charge, they shouldn’t have tried to build socialism in one country, and they should have relied on the working class’ self-liberation rather than a vanguard party, and so on forever.
 In reality, we have no examples of a stable, functioning anarchist society beyond the level of a commune or small village. We also have no Left-Communist country or society, nor a socialist state built upon the ideas of Trotsky. We thus have absolutely no reason to believe that these ideas are any better than Marxism-Leninism, or for that matter any superior to the “Stalinist” policies they were opposed to. It is wholly illogical to attribute the downfall of the USSR to “socialism in one country,” and even more illogical to use that downfall as proof of the merits of the euro-centric and imperialist idea of “permanent revolution.”

It may be better than the socialism in the USSR and Albania on paper, but if it can’t leap off the pages into reality, it’s absolutely worthless. The right to pass judgment “from the left” on the highly successful policies of Marxism-Leninism shall go to those who manage to build a socialist society which surpasses those pioneered and built by Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, and their thousands of comrades and the working masses.

Our Position
 The American Party of Labor inevitably faces an uphill battle against those on the left who have been permitted to skirt the question of socialist revolution by disavowing every historical socialist revolution, preferring instead to try and sell the workers snake oil in the form of utopian socialist ideas with no working model, no coherent solution, and no contingency plan to deal with unforeseen consequences.

The American Party of Labor sees socialism as having existed in the USSR and Albania. We see it in the context of history and we do not attempt to sell our working comrades a rose-garden view of socialism, where from the first days after the overthrow of the ruling class all workers begin to live in harmony and run their society and economy in perfect alignment with the proletariat’s objective long-term interests.

We are born into a capitalist world drenched in blood and have set ourselves to fight against the fearsome war machine of global imperialism. We have very little evidence to tell us what measures will be necessary to counter the threat of capitalist restoration; we can only promise to ourselves and our comrades that we will learn from past mistakes and past collapses. Even then, the process by which socialism comes to dominate and overthrow capitalism on a worldwide scale will still be far from the ideal of those who prefer to imagine life under communism without considering the conditions of the road leading there.

Virtually all members of the American Party of Labor are veterans of debates as to the definition of socialism. Our Marxist-Leninist, anti-revisionist party maintains that the Soviet Union, from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 to the beginning of Khruschevite reforms starting after 1956, was indeed socialist. We also maintain that the Peoples’ Socialist Republic of Albania, through nearly all of its existence, was socialist, and in many ways more progressive in this respect than the USSR. Whether it fits our ideal or our goals for a socialist society in the United States does not matter in the least.

Letter from a Reader
 With the above positions in mind, the Party has recently received a letter from a self-identified socialist, giving us an excellent opportunity to respond to this kind of idealistic thinking. The author, who will remain anonymous, seems to have an ambiguous purpose in writing his letter. It seems critical of the Party’s view of socialism, yet does not bear much in the way of hostility. They have clearly taken a lot of time to write it, and this justifies a reply.

Below the author’s letter shall be reproduced. We shall address the author’s letter point-by-point.

What makes a socialist party truly socialist? First of all, they must not support any capitalist or imperialist country and war. They can not pursue “peaceful existence” with capitalist country’s.

Generally the American Party of Labor (henceforth referred to by our acronym  “APL”)  would agree, but this is a bit vague. What constitutes “support?” If a socialist country is weak, does it give up its right to the title of “socialist” simply because it pursues some kind of peaceful agreement with its neighbors so as to consolidate the victory of the revolution? True, this is walking a fine line, but diplomacy is a field too complex to take such a black-and-white position.

While they were having fun implementing their social experiment in Catalonia, The anarchists in Spain forgot that any success they might achieve would be worthless if they couldn’t win the war against the fascist Franco that was going on at the time. A future socialist nation may find it necessary to make some concession to tame an imperialist power temporarily, but if in the end the tables turn and socialism is victorious, that embarrassing compromise will become a footnote of history. Lastly on this point, the APL does not support any imperialist country, nor any wars of the ruling class; ergo this can’t be seen as an attack on the socialist nature of the APL.

Unlike the communist China and North Korea of the past and present there should be no “one” leader, the masses must be in complete control or there can be no socialism.

While our party will say that neither China nor North Korea are Marxist-Leninist, and we certainly don’t support a “one leader” system, the idea of “the masses must be in complete control or socialism does not exist” is simply idealistic and utopian.
 Even under communism it is unlikely that “the masses” could possibly be in complete, total control. Even with the withering away of the state, there will always be the necessity to delegate responsibility to various groups of people, preferably democratically, either by vote, by lot, or both. Direct democracy is preferable, insofar as the conditions allow it, but if the burden of making all society’s decisions is equally placed on the shoulders of each individual, things might not turn out as well as planned.

Every individual would need to familiarize himself or herself with every aspect of politics, economics, society, and so on, aided by an unfailingly diligent press and information service, so as to make competent, informed decisions on every issue, thus extending the “work” day perhaps far beyond twenty-four hours. Alternatively, people may, for whatever reason, shirk their responsibilities, and make self-serving, shortsighted, emotionally-based, or simply foolish decisions. Socialist democracy should permit all citizens the opportunity to participate in the running of society in various forms, preferably in those areas for which they show an interest and personal aptitude. We set this as a goal, and we will aim for it, and that is as much as anyone can realistically hope for in this world.

Socialism in America is different than that of any other socialism in the world. More specifically, socialism in the USA sounds difficult to achieve. It is not possible for it to be like any other example of socialism in history.

Though this smacks of American exceptionalism, the last sentence is somewhat true. Socialism in any country will be different from other examples, even if they occur in countries where socialism existed before. Even if the place is the same, the time is still different.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter what your socialist ideology is, but what is important is that we are all, in fact, socialist. Trust me, I know how “important” everyone’s specific ideology is to them. Leninist, Marxist, Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinist, and Guevarist, there are so many ways for us to split and divide among ourselves. Yet all of the socialist people in the United States can not just get over this, not even to realize our common dream: socialism.

Without criticizing the author’s cheap use of “isms,” some of which do not even exist, this is simply not true. There are very pronounced theoretical lines between Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyites, for example. This is why the APL will be publishing a theoretical journal very soon, so that it can explain these divides and the differences between us and our opponents. Many on the left do want socialism and what it entails, that is, a society heading towards a classless communist society. However, some have ideas that are not revolutionary or are based on unrealistic expectations, such as anarchists.

I believe our dream of socialism can be achieved by finding ways to bridge our divides. When I think of the biggest divides between socialist parties besides Maoism vs Leninism etc., I think of reformist against revolution. It is true that everyone wishes that socialism could be constructed peacefully through democracy and the capitalist class would just bend to the will of the masses. This is the main ideology that reformists take. That is to say, reformist think they can reform capitalism democratically. Revolutionaries however, do not dare toy with the idea that a capitalist class would ever hand over the power to the people. Revolutionaries believe that there must be armed revolution to overthrow the power of the ruling capitalist class. In most cases revolutionary socialists believe in something called constant revolution, which means that after a socialist party or movement is in control, there needs to be steps taken to insure that the movement doesn’t turn into state capitalism.

Our party does not believe in reformism or peaceful revolution, so this is not an issue for us. As for the necessity of preventing the rise of state capitalism, this is what we call anti-revisionism, and class struggle after the revolution. It is an ongoing process that will inevitably take a long time.

I would like to take a second to give the reader an example of what I mean by a socialist movement turning into state capitalism. I would like to start off with China because I think it is the easiest way to explain “peaceful existence with capitalist states” and state capitalism. First, let’s talk about “peaceful existence”. This is where said country (China) will work with a capitalist state to generate profits. China sells a lot of merchandise to the United States, but that is not the problem. The problem is that the Chinese state exploits its workers to achieve greater profits for a small amount of the capitalist class and the political elite. The actual workers in china get paid around 5 cents a day (not in US money, in Chinese), while the plant and warehouse owners make millions annualy. This is clearly not an example of worker’s socialism or state socialism, but both market and state capitalism and also worker exploitation is taking place. This is what usually happens when a socialist movement stops being revolutionary, it takes a turn to the right and eventually becomes a capitalist state. Accepting “peaceful existence” with capitalist states is in my eyes is the first step to capitalism for non-revolutionary socialist states.

Our Party, following the analysis made by Enver Hoxha of Albania, does not see China as ever being socialist, or at best a weak socialist society which quickly degenerated due to the Maoists’ misguided policy of allowing local bourgeoisie elements into their party. However, this whole argument against China has little to do with peaceful coexistence. China once criticized the Soviet Union’s “peaceful coexistence” under Khrushchev. They then went to the opposite extreme; teaming up with the United States under the utterly false idea that Soviet social-imperialism was far worse than American imperialism, which was said to be the weaker of the two. In fact the truth was just the opposite.

Constant revolutionary socialist states like Cuba avoid slowly turning capitalist because the majority of the population is made up of revolutionary socialist people.

This is where we slam on the brakes. Cuba and the DPRK are probably the best examples of surviving revisionist states today, but one needs to remember that they do have a private sector, and everything that is necessary to restore full capitalism in the country already exists. In fact, the blockade and America’s ongoing anti-Cuban stance coupled with Cuban national pride may be the only thing preventing American capitalists from rushing in, buying up the infrastructure, and plundering the island nation even more than Cuba’s own bourgeoisie already does. Oh, and incidentally, the masses in Cuba are not in complete control and never have been—in fact to a far less extent than the USSR or Albania.

Which kind of means that they do not want to work with imperialist and capitalist country’s and would rather work with other socialist or progressive movements and states than to bend to the will of a capitalist nation.

Firstly, Cuba itself is a state-capitalist country. Cuba not only has worked and still works with imperialist nations, such as the post-Stalin USSR, but it has also been trying to lift the American embargo so as to trade with all nations around it, perhaps even the US itself. Of course, trade does not inherently equal revisionism, but in Cuba’s situation where it is run on a colonial “cash-crop” economy and the relations of production are for profit, and not for the needs of society, this opening up is merely another sign of integrating itself into the global imperialist market and becoming another US puppet.

Cuba has even gone as far as helping progressive and socialist minority groups in capitalist countries, as opposed to just cooperating with the capitalist ruling class in that nation. I hope everyone reading this now understands a little more about the difference and different ending results that reformist and revolutionary ideals can bring about (I apologize if the example is open and vague, I didn’t want to bore anyone).

Again, this is strange because at the beginning, the author stated that socialism must mean that there is no one leader, and that the masses must be in complete control. Cuba does not fulfill those requirements, which belong to the author of this letter and not I, nor the APL. Now suddenly Cuba, which by those idealistic standards would be state-capitalist and reformist, is being held up as an example of real revolutionary socialism?

we (socialists) who live here in the United States have a very large, uphill battle in-front of us. We are at war with the conservatives, the media and ignorance. It is time that we go on the offensive on all fronts of the battle. First of all, the socialists in America must all learn to work together and discredit any socialist party not willing to cooperate and work with other socialist and liberal movements. Another thing real liberals in America need to move away from is the democratic party.

This is populism, not socialism. There are enough irreconcilable contradictions just between those who call themselves Marxists and anarchists, much less liberals, many of whom do not have any kind of class-based outlook regardless of what they may claim. Embracing liberals also means embracing a great number of petty-bourgeois types who are notoriously fickle and squeamish at any thought of revolution.

The overwhelming majority of liberals, or “progressives” as they identify themselves these days, have no interest in eliminating capitalism. On the contrary, many of them believe it can be tamed. As for “socialists working together,” it is not simply a matter of calling yourself socialist—you have to have a correct political line, one that will actually lead to socialism.

They are kind of enemy number one. The democratic party uses our ideals to get votes while discrediting socialism as “evil” as Obama once so lovingly put it. If we tore down the democratic party today, the socialist parties would get a million new members tomorrow.

The Democratic Party of the United States does not share our ideals in the least. They are, like the Republicans, an imperialist party made up of the bourgeoisie that serves the interests of capitalism. They have been responsible for just as many atrocities and militarism as the Republicans. Their class interests are not our interests in any way, shape or form.
 These days they barely even pretend to care about workers. Their basic appeal to the workers is to point out the alternative to the Republicans. This is the base of the two-party system: it’s nothing but a political good-cop, bad-cop routine. Furthermore, the socialist parties would NOT get a million new members tomorrow if the Democrats were dissolved. If anything, the Green Party would benefit, or perhaps another section of the bourgeoisie.

Unfortunately one thing I think most people have a problem with is understanding that when the socialist revolution happens here in the USA the hero’s of that revolution will not be Lenin or Mao or any of the past revolutionaries, It will be Americans like you and me and our comrades across the country. We must find our way to the revolution by ourselves as oppose to looking to past revolutionaries and trying to duplicate their revolutions path. We are not Russia or Cuba or Vietnam, we have to be the United States of America’s socialist revolution.

Again, this is technically true, but at the same time people need to realize that the experience and theory of revolutionary figures are important. It would do Americans good to learn that there are extremely important figures in history who weren’t American, and in some cases came from very small and poor countries. That being said, our party does its best to promote the best of the theory of Lenin, and the line of Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha without constantly flogging these figures as though they were prophets or infallible. At the end of the day they were men of their time, facing overwhelming difficulties, trying to navigate amongst the jagged rocks of history to build socialist societies.

I have had a lot of people ask me which party I think could best lead a socialist revolution or which party I think is most likely to have electoral success. I always give them the same answer, there is no one party that is capable of either and the only way we will bring about true revolution in the states is through unity.

Again, this is populism, not revolutionary thinking. Calls for “unity” are common in many idealistic movements and they are most often misinformed. “Unity” in this case means unity with enemy forces, including racists, sexists, national-chauvinists, etc. If we are revolutionaries, we want a revolution and must work for it.

Victory is something that can be achieved with the correct strategy, not a hodge-podge of relatively like-minded people who temporarily put their glaring contradictions on hold. History often shows that such broad coalitions often fail despite their numbers. However, history has shown repeatedly that dedicated parties based on not only a sound ideology and strategy but also composed of members who agree on a general program and direction are successful.

Solidarity is a nice jester(sic) but only unity will bring us closer to reaching our goals. These divisions among our groups have been our down fall since the 1800′s. Why is it that the USA has never had a serious uprising?

Assuming we don’t count the Civil War or the La Rebellion as “serious uprisings,” the reason why there was no serious uprising in the decades of radicalism during the 60s and 70s is that there was a hodge-podge movement of various groups, virtually none possessing a coherent, realistic analysis of American capitalism, nor a revolutionary ideology. The New Left of that era was largely influenced by identity politics and the pseudo-Marxist ideas made popular by the so-called “Frankfurt School.” As such, many of these movements were suspicious of Marxism and socialism in general. Many of the youth behind these movements were idealistic and romantic, often from privileged backgrounds. Like the Hippies or the members of the SLA, they imagined that their activities were every bit as revolutionary as the Tupamaros or the 26 July Movement. Is it any wonder that such delusional people failed to spark a real revolution?

Because everyone is so worried about their public image that some groups are afraid to actually fight for the liberation of this country. It is important that we discredit these groups, they are counter-revolutionary and a back slide to our goals for freedom. The revolution has no time to worry about groups who will not fight but will ask for power once the revolution is won.

Who the author is referring to precisely we cannot say.

‘CHE’ Guevara once said: “I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the heart of the beast.” This statement still rings true today. You see we are lucky as North Americans because we will have to fight the hardiest fought victory in the history of socialist struggle.

Why would the American struggle for socialism be the hardest fought? In the foreseeable future it would be difficult if only because America is the leading imperialist country in the world and has had a very weak Marxist/socialist tradition.

On the other hand, one reason it has not developed a strong socialist foundation is largely because of populist appeals like those the author is suggesting. Still, it would be wrong to claim that the struggle for socialism would be hardest in the US simply because socialism as an idea is unpopular. For one thing, the US would most likely not have to face a massive invasion. Civil war yes, but by the time the US is vulnerable to socialist revolution, there will most likely be no power in the world willing or able to invade.

It will take countless man hours of research, fighting and maneuvering to win our uphill struggle against the bourgeoisie politicians and their armed cronies. People will lose their friends they will suffer losses but their sacrifice will bring about the greatest change ever seen by the world.

This could be said of many countries.

A United Socialist States of America would bring about a end to world hunger because the government could no longer pay farmers to not plant crops to keep food prices up.

This is not the sole reason for world hunger—the author completely liquidates imperialism and exploitation in continents like Africa as a source of hunger. Furthermore, a collapse of the US government would also make the reserve currency of many countries worthless, expose secret agreements, and release billions of dollars worth of high-tech military weapons around the world, while destabilizing regimes which can no longer rely on US military support. In other words, it’s not going to be a bowl of cherries. It is necessary, and the end results will be worth it, but don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

Instead the new government would grow as much food as possible and trade our surplus food for the materials we need to poorer countries or country’s in the middle of drought. This country with our help could become the greatest country in the world.

The rest of the world is still on a market economy, which means that flooding the market with excess food would drive down prices for peasants in many countries. Again, don’t jump the gun and make assumptions.

Divided we are useless, but unified we are strong we are a force to be messed with, we are socialist and it’s time we start acting like it and quit all this in-fighting and useless complaining.

This is oversimplification. For one thing, in-fighting amongst left-wing groups is far more civil than amongst our enemies on the right, so you can take solace in that fact. As Marxist-Leninists however, we strive to build our theories and strategies based on a dialectical, materialist analysis of the past and present, rather than proclaiming some ideal and then demanding that any revolution live up to that ideal without exception. Sadly, not all leftists agree with that method. There are “divides” in the left, and for very good reasons.

If all a party does is cry about what is going on in the world and does nothing about it then are they really a socialist party? No. Because a socialist party is a revolutionary party by nature and will never stand by and watch oppression and exploitation take place without raising a finger.

The problem is that when revolutionary parties of the past raised more than a finger, in fact raised their fist, people such as the author have attacked them, sometimes with even more tenacity than the anti-communists themselves. They acted, but they did not act according to the theories of this or that philosopher or theorist, ergo they were condemned as equal to if not worse than the capitalists. Who is to blame for this kind of counter-productive infighting?

It is time comrades, brothers and sisters of freedom that we rise. We rise and make our voice heard and put our plans into motion. It is time for revolution in the USA, it is time to break OUR chains of oppression. No longer should we sit on the sidelines and wait for something to happen to kick start a revolutionary movement, from now on it’s our responsibility to make that something happen.

Revolution does not occur simply because people will it to. It is partially conscious action on the part of revolutionaries, and partially due to conditions outside of their personal control. Revolutionaries continually act so as to be ready to take advantage of a revolutionary scenario and try to hasten it as much as possible. However, populist appeals with the aim of building some kind of loud mass, even when punctuated with such radical, romantic slogans, will not lead to change of any sort.

It is time for a socialist America, time is up for the billionaires and major land lords. It is the people’s time! It is the worker’s time! Let us take what is ours comrades, let us take our freedom and let’s make this a equal world for ALL who live in it.

Stirring words indeed, but it will take more than this romantic, youthful zeal to pull off a successful revolution. The American Party of Labor makes honest attempts to work with other progressive groups for common goals, and also attempts to engage in constructive criticism with Marxist organizations and parties which it considers revisionist. We do this not because we are trying to build some kind of broad coalition, but because debate and criticism are the only way to refine theory and practice.
 We engage in these discussions and polemics because we are convinced as to the general correctness of our methodology, and hope that others will agree to the extent that they will join us in our struggle. Our Party is young, but it is filled with dedicated revolutionaries who are passionate about revolution. There are no dreamers among us. You will not see us use our Party’s line as an excuse not to take action toward our goals. Rest assured of that.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Main Features of Art

3 Oct


Art from Socialist Albania

Art from Socialist Albania

Art is a form of reflection of reality in artistic images in the mind of man. Reflecting the surrounding world, art helps people to understand it and serves as a powerful instrument of political, moral and artistic education.

The diversity of phenomena and events and also the different methods of reflecting them in works of art have given rise to diverse kinds of art: poetry and fiction, theatre, music, the cinema, architecture, painting, sculpture.

The cardinal feature of art is that, in contrast to science, it reflects reality not in concepts, but in a concrete form perceivable by the senses, in the form of typical artistic images. The artist creates an artistic image, reveals common, essential features of reality and conveys these features through individual, often inimitable characters, through concrete phenomena of nature and social life. The more vivid, the more tangible the individual traits of the artistic character, the greater its attraction and influence.

Art appeared at the dawn of human society, it arose in the process of labour, in the course of man’s practical activity. Initially art was directly intertwined with labour. To this day it has preserved this connection, though in a more mediated way. Truthful art has always been a real aid to people in their life and work. It has helped them fight the forces of nature, brought them joy and inspired them to feats of labour and exploits in battle.

Aesthetic tastes and requirements, appreciation of beauty in life and in art developed in the process of labour. One of the primary distinctions and tasks of art is to seek out the beautiful in life, to generalise it, typify it, mirror it in artistic images and bring it to man, satisfying his aesthetic requirements and developing his aesthetic emotions.

In a class society art bears a class character, it is partisan. There is no “pure” art, no “art for art’s sake”, nor can there be any. The accessibility, the great power of conviction and emotional impact of art make it an important weapon of the class struggle. That is why classes exploit art as a vehicle of their political, moral and other ideas.

Art is part of the superstructure and it serves the basis on which it develops. Contemporary bourgeois art, for example, serves the reactionary imperialist forces. It seeks to divert the working people from struggle against the exploiters, fosters in people immoral traits, contempt for other peoples and countries and for the forces of peace and progress. Bourgeois art is employed to glorify the capitalist order of things and slander communism and the communist movement. Defending the interests of obsolescent classes, this art departs from the truth of life and becomes formalistic and devoid of content. Among contemporary artists in capitalist countries there are also realists who reflect life truthfully and profoundly, but they are often hounded by the ruling imperialist circles.

Each class creates an art that corresponds to its class interests and aesthetic requirements. But among works of art there are many which have survived their class and age. These are works which vividly and truthfully reflect lasting, general traits inherent in people of the most diverse eras, and also works which make it possible to understand the essence of an era or a class. Among them are the finest sculptures of ancient Greek masters, paintings of the Renaissance, the works of 19th century Russian composers-, and many other works of art which long ago became the possession of all mankind. From this follows another distinction of art, continuity of its development. The art of each new era preserves all that was progressive and good in the art of the preceding eras.

Socialist Art and Its Role in Communist Construction

A qualitatively new, socialist art has arisen on the basis of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its advance to communism. Socialist art assimilates the best from progressive art of the past and constitutes a higher stage in the development of art corresponding to the new historical conditions.

Socialist realism is a creative method of this art. The main content of our age, the movement of society to communism must be reflected truthfully, in a historically concrete and highly artistic way. The art of socialist realism does not stand still but is constantly developed and enriched.

The basic principles of the art of socialist realism are truthfulness and profundity in the reflection of reality, close bonds with the people, partisanship and bold pioneering in the artistic portrayal of life, combined with the use and development of all the progressive traditions of world culture. Socialist realism is conspicuous for its profound socialist content and diversity of vivid national forms. The method of socialist realism affords writers, painters and other artists vast scope to display their creative initiative and high mastery, and to develop numerous creative forms, styles and genres.

Truly realistic art has always been linked with the people, rooted in them, but the organic ties of socialist art with the people, with their life and work are unprecedented. Pointing out the popular character of socialist art, Lenin once said: “Art belongs to the people. Its roots should be deeply implanted in the very thick of the labouring masses. It should be understood and loved by these masses. It must unite and elevate their feelings, thoughts and will. It must stir to activity and develop the art instincts within them.”

1) V.I. Lenin, On Literature and Art

Tags: ,

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

15 Jan

Congress of the Albanian Party of Labor, Until 1992 the Last Socialist State On Earth

The proletariat has the great historical mission of destroying capitalism and building a classless communist society. Yet this new society does not grow out of capitalism directly and at once. Between capitalism and communism “lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (1).

 

The dictatorship of the proletariat arises as a result of the successful socialist revolution and thorough demolition of the bourgeois state machine. It is a qualitatively new type of state and differs radically from the previous states in regard to its class nature, the forms of state organisation and the role it is destined to play.

 

All the preceding types of state were tools of the exploiting classes used for the subjection of the working people and designed to reinforce the system of exploitation and to perpetuate the division of society into oppressors and oppressed. The dictatorship of the proletariat, however, is the rule of the working class which, together with all other working people, destroys capitalism and builds a new society, a society without antagonistic classes and exploitation.

 

“If we translate the Latin, scientific, historico– philosophical term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ into simpler language,” Lenin wrote, “it means just the following:

 

“Only a definite class, namely, the urban workers and the factory, industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the working and exploited people in the struggle to throw off the yoke of capital, in actually carrying it out, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist social system, in the entire struggle for the complete abolition of classes” (2).

 

The theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the crux of Marxism. Only dictatorship, the undivided power of the proletariat, enables the proletariat to put an end to capitalism and build socialism. It is only natural, therefore, that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat has always been, and remains, the pivot of the ideological struggle of Marxism-Leninism against reformism and revisionism. Lenin called the dictatorship of the proletariat the touchstone for testing the real understanding and recognition of Marxism. To be a Marxist it is not enough merely to recognise the struggle of classes, he said. You can only be a Marxist if you extend recognition of the class struggle to recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

Lenin implacably fought against the reformist leaders of the Second International and revisionists who denied the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. He tirelessly  proved that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only means for building socialism. And history has fully corroborated him. [....]

 

Present-day revisionists, however, continue to deny the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, although they do so in more refined ways than their predecessors. Unable to ignore the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the countries of the socialist system, they do not regard it as a universal, natural form of transition from capitalism to socialism, but as a national form applicable only to economically backward countries like the pre-revolutionary Russia. They assert that dictatorship of the proletariat is applicable only in economically backward countries, with a low level of development of the productive forces and almost no forms of political democracy. As regards the industrialised countries, there, in the opinion of the revisionists, the transition to socialism is effected through “pure democracy,” meaning bourgeois democracy.

The views of the reformists and revisionists run counter to history, which convincingly shows that it is impossible to build socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the course of socialist construction, the dictatorship of the proletariat solves a number of major problems by performing specific functions—the main aspects of its activity. We shall now examine these functions.

 

A Workers' Council in Russia - the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a Democracy For the Workers and a Dictatorship Towards the Old Oppressors

The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state which exists in the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. This period is characterised by a multi-structural economy and the bitter class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The crucial task facing the proletariat at that time is to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie, and together with all the working people to build socialism. This task determines the functions of the proletarian state.

 

One of the main domestic functions of the proletarian state in the transition period is the function of suppressing the exploiting classes, the bourgeoisie in the first place. Deprived of its political domination the bourgeoisie in any country cannot reconcile itself to its defeat and the loss of power and privileges, and therefore viciously resists the victorious proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for overcoming the resistance of the bourgeoisie, for defeating it in fierce class battles. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “means a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow…” (4).

 

The suppression of the exploiters is a compulsory task of the proletarian state whatever its form, but this can be done in various forms depending on historical conditions.

 

The suppression of the bourgeoisie, however, is not an aim in itself for the proletariat. Its main aim is to build socialism, to create a .new, socialist economy. What makes this task so difficult is that the socialist revolution begins when there are no ready-made economic forms of socialism. It is the task of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the proletarian state, to organise the economic life of society, to build up a new type of economy superior to capitalism, the economy of socialism.

 

Cited:

1) Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Selected Works Volume Three, p.26.

2) V.I. Lenin, A Great Beginning, Vol. 29, p. 420.

3) http://gushallactionclub.blogspot.com/2008/09/faq-what-is-socialism.html 

4) V.I. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism-An Infantile Disorder”, Collected Works, Vol.31, p.23-24.

Sources: 1, 2 & 3

Tags: , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: