Tag Archives: socialism

Are Fair Wages Under Capitalism Possible?

15 May

Fair wages under capitalism?

Every once in a while you may hear politicians, union leaders and ordinary citizens demand fair wages or fair pay for work. While this is surely a noble goal, the fact that people still struggle for fair wages clearly shows that they have not yet been realized. Women are still paid less than men, black and Latino workers are statistically paid less than white workers, and corporate executives make several hundred and even a thousand-fold what the rest of their workers make. Yet while workers struggle for more of the products of their labor, the main question remains: are fair wages possible at all under capitalism? This depends on our definition of a “fair wage;” after all, your boss would most likely consider paying you less than minimum wage “fair” because of the bias that comes from their class position.

Consider the following: if you walk into a store and buy something for ten dollars you would expect to get back something worth that ten dollars. You wouldn’t expect to buy a single stick of bubble gum; it would have to be something of the same value. At the same time, you cannot expect to get a brand new iPod for that money. The seller will readily inform you that this would be a most unfair exchange for him because you would receive far more than you spend, causing him a deficit.

The labor market works in a similar fashion. Those who are there to make the purchase are the employers, the bourgeoisie, who have capital and are in need of workers to manufacture their products and provide service. Those who seek to be hired, who seek an opportunity to sell their “commodity,” are the workers. This “commodity” that they sell to the capitalist is their labor power. This seems like it could be a fair trade, yet workers continue to demand fairer wages, and the capitalists continue to make higher and higher profits while they refuse these demands. How can this be?

Profits cannot be made from the increasing prices of goods alone, the “free market” rules this option out. After all, if a single capitalist increases his prices, he will soon discover that others sell the same goods of the same quality but for less money. Naturally the majority will go for the cheaper offer and the one selling at a more expensive price will have serious trouble getting rid of his goods and making money. If all the others decide to or are forced to increase their prices, this will affect the single capitalist as well, being that he can’t live off his money alone but has to buy commodities like everybody else. We can conclude that increasing prices can be a temporary means to gain profits for a short time in certain sectors of the economy, but they can never be the sole source of capital.

Let us again consider the labor market. The capitalist invests a certain amount of money to hire the worker $56 for 8 hours of work, a wage of $7 dollars an hour. However, the value of the product of this labor will net his boss $200. So is this extra $144 the work of magic? Of course not. The Marxist Labor Theory of Value explains that value is created by labor power. The amount of spent labor power is measured in time, therefore the value of a commodity is determined by the time necessary to produce it. This means that the value of the worker’s labor power can be measured in the amount of goods and, thus, money he needs to keep himself alive and going, to maintain and restore his ability to work after a long day on the job. Therefore the capitalist is compelled to pay him the bare minimum wage needed for survival (sometimes more, sometimes less), $56 in this example, yet the ratio of the amount needed for the basic maintenance of the worker to the hours needed to earn this much is unlimited. Essentially, the capitalist is able to extract more hours from workers while only compensating them to a minimum and reaping the larger part of the value created by the worker.

In our example, the worker would only need to work for approximately 2 hours and 14 minutes to produce a value of $56, but the capitalist hired the worker for a certain period of time, 8 hours here, and during this time all value produced belongs to the capitalist. The workers are paid not for their labor, but for using their labor power to perform work for the capitalist, and they do so with his means of production. The moment they start working, the product of their labor belongs to their employer, no matter if less (which would most likely get the worker fired) value or more value is produced in that period of time than is embodied in the money the workers have received.

This additional, unpaid labor, is called surplus labor and the value it produces without the worker being compensated for it is called surplus value. The extraction of surplus value from the working class is the basis of the capitalist system. Every capitalist’s goal is to extract as much surplus value as possible as it is the basis of their profit. The only way to press more and more surplus labor from a worker is to either reduce the time he works, to gain capital through investment and/or to increase the time the worker works “for free,” without receiving any payment. To put it bluntly: the higher the wages are for workers, the lesser the profit for the capitalists, and vice versa.

Now the question raised at the beginning can easily be answered: are fair wages possible under capitalism? Can a worker receive the full equivalent of the work he performs in a capitalist society? The answer is no; it is entirely impossible as it would leave no surplus value and thus no profits for the capitalist class, and thus render their existence impossible. It would become obvious that they are superfluous parasites, feeding off of the blood and sweat of the working people and living on the unpaid labor of others. The wealth of a selected minority is based on the exploitation of the majority’s hard work. To expect fair wages under this system is like expecting the abolition of slavery in a slaveholder society, as Marx points out. The moment the slaves are freed, we can no longer speak of a slaveholder society; the moment the working class receives the full value it produced, our society has ceased to be capitalist.

Of course there can be higher and lower wages and many of the things we possess are hardly necessary for our immediate survival, for the regeneration and reproduction of our labor power. It cannot be denied that the living conditions of the workers in America and other industrialized nations have improved since the days of Marx and Engels. Yet this implies in no way that the nature of capitalism has changed. Rather, exploitation has been shifted from being confined to national bounds to being applied internationally. Rather than the wealth of our society being based solely on the exploitation of American workers, it is chiefly based on the suffering of millions of people in the countries plundered and ravaged by imperialism.

The exploitation of these neo-colonies makes the capitalist class a tad more “generous” at home (if they decide to employ workers here at all, rather than sending jobs to sweatshops in Honduras or in southeast Asia). It allows them to extract more than enough surplus value to bask in their abundance and luxuries while tolerating a little loss in their profits by obeying the occasional labor law and paying moderately higher wages, keeping the working class more satisfied and less rebellious. As well, with the option of shipping jobs overseas, the well-spring of exploitable labor abroad allows them to undermine attempts at “fairer” wages at home with threats of outsourcing. While workers abroad often have it worse than we do, it doesn’t change the fact that American workers face exploitation.

Fair wages under socialism?

In capitalism, workers must ultimately face exploitation if this system of profit and the reaping of surplus value is to be maintained. Is there another way to live than this? Marx answers this question in his famous Critique of the Gotha Program:

Let us take, first of all, the words ‘proceeds of labor’ in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today” (Marx 1875).

So, the workers still have to perform surplus labor in a socialist society? What then is changed? First of all, the working day will be much shorter in socialism. Not only the necessary working time will be reduced thanks to full employment and the increasing development of the productive forces, but the time spent for producing surplus labor will also no longer be determined by a capitalist’s boundless greed and result in his personal enrichment. Instead it will be determined by social necessity and will benefit the whole society. Marx also explains why this is necessary at first under socialism:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor.

This is a necessary step towards the final goal, communism:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:

‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’

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

Pictures from Chicago May Day 2011

5 May












Tags: , , , , , ,

Celebrate International Workers’ Day 2011!

1 May


Today we celebrate May Day, also known as International Workers’ Day, a holiday celebrated by working people worldwide. This day began in commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, where police fired upon workers striking for an eight-hour-day. Since then it has become a global celebration of the labor union movement as well as the economic and social gains made by workers.

Without labor, nothing is built, nothing prospers, nothing grows. Wealth, culture, technology, food, furniture, cars, houses, monuments—the workers have made all these things. All development since the beginning of history has been the result of human labor. The first historical act by a human being was production. Despite this, this continual talk about the nonexistent “middle class” coming from the television has caused a loss of class identity among the American people. We live in an age where the phrase “working class” is a smear.

Let us create and consolidate organizations of workers to continue the legacy of May Day. The workers in every country, including America, must combat layoffs and rising unemployment while fighting for better working conditions, social and political rights, respect, a living wage and social support for the basic needs of other workers. Through its actions the working class is able to paving the way for the revolutionary transformation of the whole society.

Let us make May Day, 2011 a day to reinforce our revolutionary and independent spirit through unity and struggle. The age of working people having pride and self-confidence has begun!

120 years of May Day!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

An Analysis of the American Service Economy

10 Feb

Over the course of recent decades, a theory had been presented over and over in the bourgeois press. This theory is known as a “service-based economy.” On the face of it, this theory seems plausible. Like most bourgeois economic theories, it is idealistic in nature and ignores a key factor in economics. There are two types of labor—labor that produces wealth and labor that consumes wealth. This is not to be confused with value; all labor, regardless of whether it extractive, industrial or service, produces a value of some form—a commodity or a use-value. Rather, what we are discussing here is not the creation of value but the creation of wealth. “Wealth” is nothing more or less than the increase in the total value in terms of commodities. As such, in some instances the creation of a use-value can consume wealth regardless of the necessity of its production.

We will use agriculture to present an example of a wealth-creating process. In order to grow a field of wheat, a farmer must first plow the field, then add any soil amendments necessary, plant seeds and use whatever protective measures throughout the year until the harvests, which he naturally labors to collect. In this example we see that labor (plowing, planting, harvesting) + commodities (fertilizers, pesticides, etc) = harvested wheat. Since the value and the amount of wheat is greater than the number of seeds sowed, this process has resulted in an increase of the overall commodity and thus has created wealth.

Now let us present an example of a wealth-consuming process using the art of cooking. Here food ingredients, energy and labor are used to result in a meal, which is then consumed. The meal has more value than the ingredients, energy or even the labor by itself—there has been an increase in value in the cooking process. However, since the labor, energy, ingredients and even the meal itself is immediately consumed, there is an overall loss in commodities. That is to say a loss of wealth—or more accurately—the wealth has been consumed.

Any economy which is based on the consumption of wealth rather than its production is doomed to collapse. What does this mean for the United States in particular, and also, how has collapse been avoided in the US thus far? Collapse is far more than a simple depression, or as the bourgeois media likes to call them these days, recessions. A collapse is no mere crisis of overproduction. Rather it is an overall systemic breakdown of the entire economy, including its base and subsequently the political superstructure associated with that economy, usually in the form of a state. To ascertain what this means for the US in particular, we must first understand that the United States, despite being a bourgeois republic with democratic formulations, is indeed an empire in the sense that it has many colonies around the world. Naturally, there are those countries that are independent on paper. However, realistically they are colonies—or to be more accurate “neo-colonies,” in that their economic and military structures are based upon close association with the US empire. Most of these neo-colonies are in Latin America, although there are neo-colonies throughout the world. There are also direct puppet states of the US, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. These neo-colonies serve the US by providing raw materials and other wealth to be consumed by the overly large proportion of the US economy that is geared toward wealth consumption. It is, in effect, one leg of a two-legged stool that supports the US living standard. The second “leg” is the fact that the US dollar is the de-facto reserve currency used by most of the world. This has been the case since the end of the Second World War, when the Brenton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were established. The use of the dollar as global reserve currency has much impact on the economy. Why?

To understand this, we must first know how the system prior to 1973 worked. Following WWII, the dollar was convertible into gold and gold into dollars. Given that in 1946 the US had the largest reserves of gold in the world this not only made sense, but created a whole new market for US products. Japan and Europe were in ruins and in no shape to begin mass production of wealth until well after recovery had been made. As such, in order to buy finished goods for consumption—food, fuel, clothing and all manner of other items—they to be bought from the United States (unless of course the country in question was in Eastern Europe where the primary production point was the Soviet Union, though the recovery of Eastern Europe was slower as the Soviet Union itself had to recover from the war). Given that most of the Western European countries had already spent their gold, the only other solution was to have them purchase dollars. In large part they became indebted to the US for dollars which were then used for recovery and consumption.

This system worked until the 1960s when with Western Europe and Japan fully recovered and began to pay off the debts to the US and to use whatever dollars they had left to purchase gold, causing a sharp decline in US gold reserves and weakening the currency. This recovery was made possible by the Marshal Plan, initiated by the US toward Western Europe and Japan. However, this has far more to do with the fear of the spread of communism and the Cold War than it did any benevolent intentions of the American government. By the 1960s, with gold flowing out of the US, new industrial competition such as Japan and Germany, and an imperialist war raging in Southeast Asia, the Brenton-Woods system became untenable and was starting to lead to hyperinflation. To address this concern, President Richard Nixon removed the convertibility of the dollar internationally and “allowed the currency to float” as many economists at the time put it. How was he able to do this without jeopardizing the US economy? The answer is simple: oil. Saudi Arabia and the other oil-exporting countries had decided to accept dollars for oil. Oil accounts for OPEC members are denominated in US dollars. As such, since most of the countries of the world need to import oil—including the US by 1973—the main transportation fuel commodity was bought and sold using US dollars. Even if the economy of the country in question didn’t buy a single American product, it would still need dollars to buy oil. This is partially the case with the People’s Republic of China now. By tying oil to the US dollar, a single currency became the most important reserve currency in spite of the fact that other currencies had become available: the British pound, Japanese yen, euro (after 1998) and the deutschmark (prior to 1998). The result of this was that the US needed to print dollars to finance its wealth consumption, which has been the case since the mid 1990s, with a plethora of “free trade agreements” eviscerating the US industrial sector (wealth-producing activities) if not before.

Like all two-legged stools, this one is unstable—so unstable that there has been a war and a long-term occupation of a country to maintain the status quo. One of the reasons for the Iraq War was Hussein attempting to change the Iraq oil accounts out of US dollars into euro. If Iraqi oil was suddenly available in euro, that currency could replace the US dollar as a major reserve currency. Europe continues to have industry and to produce wealth—not on the level of China per se, but in comparison to the US, Europe remains industrialized. Should Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world, start accepting both dollars and euro for oil, other OPEC countries would likewise diversify. These include Iran, with the third-largest oil reserves, and Venezuela with the fifth-largest oil reserves. Even though the US has had a primarily service economy since the early 1990s, total collapse has not occurred. Overall, the de-industrialization of the United States will result in any hopes for advancement being halted with no recovery in sight. Once collapse sets in, real estate in “suburbia” will become worthless, mounting debts from spending to keep up living standards privately will result in a flux of real assets—everything from televisions to jewelry to vegetables—being transferred from the many to the few, a process which has already started, but under collapse will accelerate. This will culminate in asset-stripping from foreclosed housing, idle industry, etc. Avoiding this will be impossible without a major overhaul of the economic and political system. What is needed is socialist transformation and re-industrialization.

Regulation of capitalism, as the so-called progressives want to do will not work; after all, all it took was a willing “conservative” administration and “conservative” Congress to destroy those regulations and we have no reason to expect that even if said regulations were restored the powers-that-be could not overturn them again given a little time.

Only by working people taking the reigns of the economy and the state can the situation be reversed and living standards restored or even advanced. Such a socialist economy must naturally realize that the basis of wealth itself is in the production of commodities. Services, while necessary, should never be the basis of any economy.

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

Statement on Unemployment

5 Feb

For Immediate Release

The January unemployment figures have been released. We believe that they will be slightly lower than before, and that the Obama Administration will be using this to say that their policies are working. However, there is a deeper truth to the matter.

The December 2010 unemployment figures, set at 9.4%, are grossly underestimated. The unemployment rate in the United States is calculated not by the amount of people who are able-bodied and out of work, but rather by those who are collecting unemployment insurance. As such, once someone has exhausted their benefits, they magically become employed. This rate also does not count those who are under-employed, that is to say those workers who are working part-time but should be working full-time. It also does not count as unemployed those workers who are working jobs far beneath their actual skill set or educational level.

With the election of many Republicans, most of whom are Tea Klux-Klaners, it is likely that the U.S. House of Representatives will attempt to cut the unemployment benefit package this year. After all, it is a cornerstone of their “Cut-Go” strategy.

Naturally, this will have reverberating effects across the economy. Those who are currently using their benefits to pay their bills and buy food will suddenly have nothing. Those who relied on the spending of those benefits will likewise face either a reduction of hours or unemployment.

The American Party of Labor understands that unless the working people of this country rise up, and seize the machinery of the state and the economy it is impossible for every worker to be guaranteed their social right to full gainful employment at a livable income.

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

Fascism: Origins and Ideology

1 Feb

Post War Chaos

The social and political upheaval that accompanied the end of World War I fused the various attitudes (elitism, racism, irrationalism, anti-modernism) that characterized the radical right of the early years of the century into a cohesive political movement, fascism.

Fascism was nurtured in the atmosphere of chaos, uncertainty, disillusionment, and rebellion that swept the world in 1919.  Demobilized soldiers returned home to face unemployment, bread lines, strikes and riots.  The successful communist revolution in Russia and the growth of an international communist movement panicked the established order, especially business interests who felt that their social, economic, and political positions were directly threatened.  Many thought that a force willing and able to resort to unlimited counter-revolutionary violence was necessary to remedy the situation.

Street fighting in Berlin (1919)

Mussolini Comes to Power in Italy

Just such a force appeared in Italy.  Seemingly coming out of nowhere, black-uniformed paramilitary groups led by a former socialist turned ultra-nationalist Benito Mussolini stepped into the fray.  Nicknamed the “Blackshirts,” Mussolini’s squads brutally attacked socialists, communists, trade unionists and their sympathizers.  Soon, Mussolini’s squads attracted the attention of Italian businessmen who saw them as their best guarantee against the rising tide of revolution.  Support and money started to flow to Mussolini’s Fascisti di Combattimento or “Combat Units.” Making full use of the prevailing mood of chaos, the fascists combined extreme violence, passionate anti-communism and brute force to propel them to the forefront of Italian politics.  By 1921, the socialists and communists had been routed; and, backed up by his private army of Blackshirts, Mussolini becomes Italy’s main power broker.  Hailed by his followers as Il Duce (“the Leader”), Mussolini rallies the fascists to march on Rome on October 22, 1922; an act that intimidates Italian King Victor-Emmanuel into naming Mussolini as Prime Minister. Mussolini used his Blackshirts to brutalize any and all opposition, and, by 1925 his power was complete. The fascist dictatorship had begun.

Mussolini (center) and leading Fascists (1922)

The Fascist National Party, as it called itself after 1921, was governed by a Fascist Grand Council headed by Mussolini. In fact, however, power was much more diffused in Fascist Italy than appeared on the surface. The base of the fascist movement was the Blackshirt foot soldiers, the ‘squadristi.’ These fascist squads were controlled by a local boss or ‘Ras’ – curiously, this term comes from an Ethiopian term for a chieftain. Every neighborhood, city, and province had a Ras who operated as a near independent power in his region. Thus, despite Fascist propaganda which loudly claimed a monolithic unity behind its Duce, Mussolini never had complete freedom of action and always had to take into account the wishes and rivalries of the fascist bosses.

Il Duce Speaks

More effective at propaganda than at actually ruling, the fascist government quite often operated as more of a Mafia-like patronage structure than as an efficiently running state.  This despite fascist claims of establishing a modern, streamlined, disciplined system.  As for the name ‘fascism’ itself, there is some dispute as to its origin.  On the one hand there is the Italian word fascio, meaning a unit or detachment; on the other there is the fasces, a symbol of state authority in ancient Rome, that consisted of an axe in a bundle of rods.  The fascists will take this ancient symbol and make it their emblem.  Often contradictory, fascist thought claimed to reject liberalism and communism and to embrace authority, hierarchy and perpetual action and mobilization.  The fascist slogan of “Credire! Obbedire!  Combattire!” (“Believe!  Obey!  Fight!) embodied this sense of militarization as did the Fascist Decalogue, which every school child had to memorize:

  • Know that the Fascist and in particular the soldier, must not believe in perpetual peace.
  • Days of imprisonment are always deserved.
  • The nation serves even as a sentinel over a can of petrol.
  • A companion must be a brother, first, because he lives with you, and secondly because he thinks like you.
  • The rifle and the cartridge belt, and the rest, are confided to you not to rust in leisure, but to be preserved in war.
  • Do not ever say “The Government will pay . . . ” because it is you who pay; and the Government is that which you willed to have, and for which you put on a uniform.
  • Discipline is the soul of armies; without it there are no soldiers, only confusion and defeat.
  • For a volunteer there are no extenuating circumstances when he is disobedient.
  • One thing must be dear to you above all: the life of the Duce.
  • Mussolini is always right.

The fascist regime touted its achievements in expanding the educational  system and leisure-time activities, giving monetary bonuses to large families and embarking on major construction projects. Especially prestigious was an agreement with the Catholic Church which, for the first time, recognized an Italian government as legitimate. In economics, fascism promoted the idea of national self-sufficiency and large labor unions which were merged with corporate management, the corporate state. In reality, production declined, wages fell and big business and industrial interests dominated the fascist state.

Flag of the Fascist National Party (note fasces)

Fascism Defined

In 1935, the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International famously defined fascism as “the openly terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” This definition, termed the Dimitrov Formulation (after Georgi Dimitrov, head of the Comintern) provides a solid Marxist foundation for understanding the nature of fascism.  Some further fleshing out, though, is needed in order to fully distinguish fascism from other forms of bourgeois repression; for fascism is a very specific type of bourgeois dictatorship with its own unique features.

A problem here arises because, unlike other ideologies, fascism does not have a coherent body of thought behind it.  This is, perhaps a consequence of fascism’s origins in the various attitudes that constituted the eclectic radical right of the 19th century.  The closest that fascism comes to having a “Bible,” Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, is very specific to early 20th century German issues and does not function as a unifying text.  Many individuals from different backgrounds and concerns will come to fascism for different reasons.  Thus, there will be what has been termed “hyphenated fascism”:  radical-fascism, clerical-fascism, monarcho-fascism etc. It is often easier to say what fascism is against than to discern what fascism is for.  Moreover, the image fascism projects as a movement is often at variance with the reality that fascism imposes once it comes to power.  There will be two closely related, yet distinct variants of fascism:  Italian fascism and German fascism (National Socialism or Nazism).  However, it is possible to outline some of the qualities which all fascist movements have in common:

  • Fascism claims to be anti-liberal; anti-conservative and anti-communist.
  • Fascism claims to be a ‘Third Way,’ rejecting both capitalism and communism.
  • Fascism strives to establish a nationalist, authoritarian regime.
  • Fascism rejects the idea of class struggle, offering nationalism in its place.  The idea of melding labor and management into a nationalist whole is variously termed, in fascist terminology, National Corporatism (the Corporate State), National Socialism, or National Syndicalism.
  • Fascism actively pursues imperialism and territorial expansion.
  • Fascism rejects reason and rationality, and embraces irrationalism and romanticism.  As such, fascism makes extensive use of symbols, emblems, and uniforms.
  • Fascism encourages the total militarization of society and espouses a philosophy of ‘romantic violence.’
  • Fascism creates private paramilitary militias.
  • Fascism is extremely male supremacist, relegating women to subservient roles in society.
  • Fascism sees itself as a movement of the young, emphasizing energy, health, vitality and generational conflict.
  • Fascism promotes a charismatic, personalist, dictatorial style of leadership; with the leader worshipped as a god-like figure.

Italian and German Fascism Embodied: Mussolini and Hitler

Fascist Irrationalism: Book Burning in Nazi Germany

Italian Magazine Asserting “Youth on the March.” Fascist Militarization and the “Movement of the Young”

German Poster: Worship of the Leader

Although most of its first adherents were demobilized soldiers and street “toughs,” fascism broadened its appeal – otherwise it would have remained a marginal movement.  Industrialists were attracted to fascism for its intense anti-communism.  Large segments of the petty-bourgeois, office workers and small business owners, saw fascism as both protecting them from big business (note the contradiction with the fact of big business support for fascism) and saving them from falling into the working class.  Many in rural areas saw fascism as providing opportunities for advancement.  Thus, fascism became a mass movement.

Fascist movements aping Mussolini’s Italy and, later, Hitler’s Germany, spread throughout the world.  Falangism in Spain, Rexism in Belgium, Peronism in Argentina, the Arrow Cross in Hungary, the Iron Guard in Romania, and ex-Labour Party member Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the United Kingdom.  Of the two variants of fascism, the Italian and German, some fascists claimed loyalty to the one, some to the other.  The difference between the two lies in that racism and anti-Semitism, while not a necessary component of Italian fascism, is central to German fascism (Nazism.)

Two ex-‘socialists:’ Mussolini and his British Protégé, Oswald Mosely

The Weimar Republic in Germany

After the German surrender in World War I, and the Kaiser’s exile to Holland, a new liberal democratic government was established, the Weimar Republic.  Led by moderates, the new German government managed to survive threats from both the left (the Spartacist Rebellion) and the right (an abortive attempt to establish a military dictatorship, the “Kapp Putsch”).  However, the Weimar Republic was discredited in the eyes of many for agreeing to the provisions of the Versailles Conference. This conference dismantled Germany’s oversees empire, took German territory and handed it over to the newly created state of Poland, placed French troops on German soil, forbade the existence of a German submarine fleet and air force, strictly limited the size of the German army, ordered that Germany pay billions of dollars worth of reparations to the British and French and decreed that Germany bear the sole blame for the outbreak of World War I.  Indeed, many refused to believe that Germany had even been defeated in the War; preferring, instead, to claim that Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by Jews, Liberals, politicians and socialists.

Street scene, Weimar Germany

This conspiracy theory, that Germany had been betrayed during the War, coupled with the failed communist revolution of 1919 led to rise of ultra-nationalist paramilitary gangs, such as the Frei Korps.  After helping destroy the communist rising and murdering its leaders, groups such as the Frei Korps now directed their anger at the Weimar Republic itself.  Assassination, political violence and right-wing plots to overthrow the government were rife in the early years of the Republic.  One such attempt, the Beer Hall Putsch “uprising” of 1923 took place in a Munich beer hall, hence the name, when a group of conspirators kidnapped leading city politicians who were holding a public meeting in the beer hall.  The conspirators’ plan was to seize the politicians, force them to call out the army, then march to Berlin and overthrow the Republic.  The plot was a dismal failure.  The army refused to play along, and most of the conspirators were caught or killed.  The leader of the conspiracy, an Austrian-born ex-corporal in the German army, was tried for treason and jailed.  His name was Adolf Hitler.

The Beer Hall Putsch, Munich 1923

Hitler and the Origins of Nazism

Born the son of an Austrian customs officer in 1889, the young Adolf Hitler originally wanted to be an artist.  Portfolio in hand, he traveled to Vienna, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1905 to enroll in the Academy of Fine Arts.  Hitler’s application was twice rejected by the Academy, and, penniless and homeless, he was compelled to eke out an existence on the streets of Vienna.

Painting by Hitler

Many historians and biographers have emphasized the importance of Hitler’s Vienna years (1905 – 1913) in the formation of his thought and personality.  It is in Vienna that Hitler first encounters racist and anti-Semitic literature.  Alone, bitter, resentful, too proud to work, surrounded by “hordes of alien races” (Slavs, Hungarians, Jews); Hitler moves from flop house to flop house, making a meager living by drawing post cards for tourists and spending the little money he had on racist literature and attending performances of Richard Wagner’s  mediaeval-heroic German operas.  Moving to Munich in 1913 to be among “real Germans” likewise ends in failure, and Hitler ends up on the streets again.  It is here, in Munich, that the declaration of war finds him in 1914, and Hitler joins the German army.

In many ways, the army provided Hitler with a sense of belonging that he had not known since leaving home in 1905.  He is several times cited for bravery in combat, and is awarded the Iron Cross, First Class, Germany’s highest military decoration.  This is interesting in that the Iron Cross, First Class, was a decoration usually given only to officers; yet Hitler never rises beyond the rank of lance-corporal.  The fact has caused some biographers to wonder if there was something about the moody loner who preferred to stay in barracks reading anti-Semitic literature rather than engaging in the usual carousing of young soldiers on leave that made his superiors not want to promote him.  In any event, the end of the War finds Hitler in a military hospital recovering from a mustard gas attack.  Like many others, Hitler is shocked at the news of Germany’s surrender and believes that Germany could only have been stabbed in the back by Jews and socialists.  Peacetime leaves Hitler with few options, and, rather than returning to the streets, he takes a job working as spy for the German military police.

Lance-Corporal Adolf Hitler

It is in this capacity that Hitler is sent to spy on a newly formed political group in Munich, the German Workers Party.  In the hothouse atmosphere of 1919 Munich, the military authorities assumed that a group calling themselves the “German Workers Party” would be another communist grouping.  After attending some meetings, Hitler is pleased to report back to his superiors that the German Workers Party is not a communist organization; rather, it is an ultra-patriotic nationalist group.  The group’s name is explained in that it intended to win German workers away from socialism and steer them into right-wing politics.

Hitler joins the group he was originally sent to spy on.  While attending meetings of the German Workers Party, Hitler discovers a previously unknown talent, a gift for public speaking and the ability to enthrall an audience with oratory.  Soon, the one-time spy becomes the organization’s most valuable member, and then its leader (“Fuhrer”). Once assuming leadership, Hitler changes the name of the group to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).  The Nazi party, as it became known, is born.

Modeling his party on Mussolini’s fascists (in fact, at this time Hitler wrote a fan letter to Mussolini asking for an autographed picture, the Duce never replied – Hitler would later remind Mussolini of this), the newly formed Nazi Party acquired a potent symbol in the ancient Hindu/Buddhist swastika (in the eyes of some racist theorists, the “Aryan” or white race originated in northern India), an ideology that combined Italian-style fascism with virulent racism and anti-Semitism and built up a private paramilitary militia.  This brown shirt wearing paramilitary force, the “Storm Troopers,” (SA) would be Hitler’s instrument in bullying his political opponents and engaging in street fights with the communists.  Rising to the position of SA Chief of Staff would be one of Hitler’s first political followers, the battle-scarred ex-army captain Ernst Röhm.

NSDAP Banner

SA Men on Parade

SA Chief Ernst Röhm

After the debacle of the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler is sentenced to five years imprisonment.  The court was lenient on him, and it’s worth remarking that Hitler was only sentenced to five years for treason and, actually, only served eight months of that sentence before being pardoned and released.  During his confinement, Hitler is encouraged by his personal secretary, Rudolf Hess, to put his ideas down on paper.  As a result, Hitler writes Mein Kampf (My Struggle), the action plan of the Nazi movement.  In Mein Kampf, Hitler outlines his philosophy of extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, and his plans for a new German Empire to be had in the East.  Today, historians debate exactly how much Hitler’s later actions can be traced to Mein Kampf, but the fact remains that much of it is there – from the invasion of Russia to statement that German would have been better off if a “hundred thousand Jews had been gassed at the beginning of World War I.”

Hitler also used his enforced leisure time to do some thinking about the future of his movement.  He concludes that attempts at a violent seizure of power, such as the Beer Hall Putsch, were wrong-headed.  Instead, he now insists that the Nazis must come to power constitutionally, by gaining the support of the two most important groups in German society: the industrialists and the military.  However, after his release, he finds it almost impossible to reign in the rowdy, street-brawling SA.  More and more, Hitler finds that he cannot trust the SA to moderate their actions, and he more and more he finds them an embarrassment and an impediment to winning the support of the German elite.  Thus, Hitler creates a new, disciplined, paramilitary force to serve as his personal army.  Personally loyal to him and only him, this new force from the beginning thought of itself as an elite, imperial guard – in contrast to the beer drinking, back alley fighting SA.  Sporting an all black uniform, this new force would be known as the “Schutzstaffl” (“honor guard”), the SS.  Although at first constituted as only a part of the much larger SA, the SS, and its new leader Heinrich Himmler would play a major role in Hitler’s later regime.

Hitler’s Secretary, Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess

Mein Kampf

Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler

After coming out of prison, Hitler rebuilds his movement and actively courts the army and big business.  Followers such as war hero Hermann Göring, and the intellectual – and master propagandist – Paul Josef Göbbels are instrumental in getting Hitler the support of influential German circles.  The Nazi Party grows in size and strength, but it will take the crisis of the Great Depression to propel Hitler into power.

A Banker and Generals: Hitler and his Supporters, SA Chief Röhm Second from the Right

Hitler’s War Hero: Ex-Fighter Pilot Hermann Göring

 

Hitler’s Intellectual: Propagandist Paul Josef Göbbels

Hitler’s Old Image: In SA Uniform

 

Hitler’s New Image: In Respectable Double-Breasted Business Suit

Hitler Comes to Power in Germany

The poverty, despair and labor militancy sparked by the Great Depression were the factors that led to Hitler’s coming to power.  Nazi strength had grown throughout the late 1920s.  However, many of the people whose support Hitler wanted still kept aloof from “the vulgar little Austrian corporal,” and disdained his band of uniformed ruffians.  The Depression would win them over to Hitler’s camp.  The daily scenes of unemployment and homelessness and the increased militancy of the Communist Party (KPD) caused many members of the German elite to fear that the events of 1919 were about to be repeated.

Hitler’s Enemy: German Communist Party (KPD) Leader, Ernst Thaelmann

By the end of 1932, just as the Nazi Party’s electoral strength was declining, a group of conservative businessmen and politicians, led by the Conservative Catholic Party (Zentrum) leader, Franz von Papen, pressured President Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor (Prime Minister).  According to the Weimar constitution, the German Presidency was a largely ceremonial office; but the President did have one critical power, he appointed the Chancellor, the official who effectively ran the government.  President Hindenburg was seen by many Germans of all political stripes as a bulwark of no-nonsense, traditional German values – besides, he was publicly known to detest Hitler and the Nazis.  But Papen and the politicians were persuasive; they convinced Hindenburg that Hitler was the perfect foil to use against the rising popularity of communism.  Once Hitler and his thugs had gotten rid of the KPD, Papen argued, then the Conservatives would no longer need him, and Hitler would be shunted aside.

Thus, on January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg named Adolf Hitler Chancellor of Germany.  Within two months the Nazis would establish their dictatorship.

Hitler’s Sponsor – and Dupe – Conservative Catholic Politician Franz von Papen

German President Paul von Hindenburg

Stepping Into Power with the Aid of Big Business: Hitler and Bank President Hjalmar Schacht

The Nazi State

In the early morning hours of February 27, 1933, the city of Berlin was shocked to discover that the German parliament (Reichstag) was on fire.  Blaming the Reichstag fire on the communists, Hitler asked for, and was granted, sweeping powers in order to deal with the “emergency.”  The very next day, the constitution was canceled, the right of habeus corpus was suspended and the KPD and SPD outlawed.  Hitler was given dictatorial power almost overnight.  A reign of terror was unleashed as the Nazis rounded up and suppressed communists, socialists, trade unionists and liberals.

The press was silenced; and the first concentration camp, Dachau, outside of Munich, was opened to receive the incoming tidal wave of political prisoners.  Although several communists were arrested and tried for setting the Reichstag fire – including a Bulgarian Communist living in Berlin, Georgi Dimitrov, who managed to refute the charges and later became head of the Comintern – it was soon evident that it was the Nazis themselves who set the fire.  In short, a false crisis was created to justify Hitler’s dictatorship.  In order to expedite the increasing repression, Göring formed a new police organization, the Geheime Staatspolizei (“Secret State Police”).  Eventually becoming part of Himmler’s SS-empire, the Geheime Staatspolizei became the main instrument of Hitler’s terror.  It fell upon some unknown clerk in the Berlin post office to devise a postal mark for the new police agency, and unable to fit “Geheime Staatspolizei “ on to a stamp, decided to abbreviate.  In this way, one of the most fearsome words of the 20th century came into existence: “Gestapo.”

The Reichstag in Flames (February 27, 1933)

Reichstag Fire Defendant and Later Comintern Head, Georgi Dimitrov

‘Life’ in Dachau Concentration Camp

Death in Dachau Concentration Camp

Over the next year, Hitler ‘Nazified’ German institutions.  In a process known as Gleichschaltung (“getting into line”), the German government bureaucracy, military, and civil society – even leading elements of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches – were brought into line with Nazi policy.

Gleichschaltung in Action: The Church Nazified. Propaganda Minister Göbbels is at Right

By the beginning of 1934, most of Germany had been brought to heel.  Only one institution remained in opposition to Hitler: ironically, this was to be his own organization, the SA.  As the Nazi regime extended its hold on German society; the SA felt more and more disenchanted.  Spouting a “share the wealth” attitude, the SA had hoped that a “national revolution” would have reaped benefits. It became more and more evident that this was not going to happen.

Seeing their Fuhrer rubbing shoulders with the elite and wearing white tie and tails as he attend the opera in the company of millionaires infuriated the rough and rowdy Storm Troopers.  The SA Chief of Staff, Ernst Röhm, one of Hitler’s oldest confidantes, started making ominous speeches stating that “Adolf sold us out,” calling for a “second revolution,” and demanding that the SA should become a new German “Peoples’ Army.”  This was definitely not what Hitler’s military and industrial sponsors wanted to hear.  They had cast their lot in with the Fuhrer to prevent just such radical talk.  Moreover, the conservative German military bristled at the thought that an open homosexual such as Röhm, and his gang of thugs, would dare to displace them.  Hitler stands to lose the support he worked so hard to get.  Internal faction-fighting within the Nazi leadership also played a part, as Göring coveted Röhm’s “number two position,” and Himmler’s SS would never get anywhere so long as it continued to be merely a segment of the SA.

Hitler decides to act.  On the night of June 30, 1934, while the SA leadership was on vacation at a small German resort, Hitler strikes.  SS troops surround the hotel where the SA leaders are staying.  The SA men are dragged from their beds, taken into the hotel courtyard and summarily shot.  Many, having no clue what is happening to them, go to their deaths shouting “Heil Hitler!”  Röhm is placed under arrest, taken to Stadelheim prison outside of Munich, and invited to commit suicide.  When he refuses, he’s cut down by the SS.  The bloodbath, known as the Night of the Long Knives, continues until July 2, as the SA leadership is decimated.  There will be no “second revolution” in Hitler’s Germany.

David Lowe cartoon satirizing the Night of the Long Knives: Hitler holds smoking gun as the Storm Troopers surrender to their fate. Behind him, monkey-like is Göbbels; at Hitler’s side stands Göring, dressed as a figure out of German opera. The original caption read: “Now They Salute with Both Hands.”

Territorial Expansion

Three consequences stemmed from the Night of the Long Knives:   The SS becomes a state-within-the-state as Himmler’s black uniformed band assumes all police and security duties (the disciplined SS will become more of a threat to the conservative German officer corps than Röhm’s SA hooligans could ever be); Hitler’s power is now absolute. President Hindenburg’s death later that year gave Hitler the opportunity to abolish the office of President and concentrate all power in himself as “Chancellor and Fuhrer.”  Hitler is now free to pursue his territorial ambitions.  The events leading up to World War II soon will follow.

Hitler Victorious

After World War II was over, an American officer asked Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller, an opponent of Hitler recently liberated from a concentration camp, how all this could have happened.  “How could this have happened, in Germany of all places?  Germany, one of the most cultured and civilized nations in Europe, the land of Mozart and Beethoven, the land of science and philosophy.  How could this have happened in Germany?” the officer asked.  Niemoller’s reply has become legendary.  The Pastor said:

“First they came for the Communists; and I didn’t speak up – because I wasn’t a Communist.

“Then they came for the Jews; and I didn’t speak up – because I wasn’t a Jew.

“Then they came for the trade unionists; and I didn’t speak up — because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

“Then they came for the Catholics; and I didn’t speak up – because I was a Protestant.

“Then they came for me – and by that time, no one was left to speak up.”

Caught between the Swastika and the Cross: Pastor Niemoller

Pastor Niemoller’s Reply

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review of “Modern Times”

17 Dec

Modern Times (1936), written, directed and starring Charlie Chaplin as the Tramp, is widely regarded as a classic film which, although mostly silent and black-and-white, effortlessly entertains contemporary audiences.

Plot summary

(Contains Spoilers)

The film begins with Chaplin’s well-known character of the Tramp, as a factory worker laboring on an assembly line. Eventually the stress of the job, mainly having to move faster than humanly possible to keep up with the assembly line, causes Chaplin’s character to suffer a mental breakdown and be sent to a hospital. Upon release from the hospital, the Tramp notices a red flag fall off of a truck. He goes to pick it up with the intent to return it. However, a group of protesting workers march up behind him, making it appear as if he is the leader of a communist rally. The protest is brutally put down by the police and the Tramp is arrested as a communist leader.

In prison, the Tramp accidentally prevents a prison break, is hailed as a hero and is allowed to leave jail. When he gets to the outside world, he finds it is very difficult to become employed or make a living. The conditions the working class had to endure during the Depression are highlighted here. The Tramp concludes life in prison was better, so attempts to get arrested again. While attempting to do so, he encounters the Gamine, who becomes something of a love interest for the Tramp (although when they have places to live, they always sleep apart).

Their first plan to live a better life involves the Tramp getting a job as the night watchman for a department store. While no one is there, they can have the place to themselves. The plan works well until a group of criminals break into the store. The Tramp recognizes one of them as a former co-worker form his old assembly line job, and it is revealed that the burglars are only looking for food since conditions have become so harsh. The next morning, the Tramp is arrested apparently for the poor job he’s done as night watchman.

Skip ahead ten days. The Gamine locates the Tramp and takes him to an abandoned shack she found by the beach. They live in poverty until the Tramp gets a new job at a recently-opened factory. After a comedic scene where his boss becomes trapped in some machinery, the factory workers go on strike. Unfortunately for the Tramp, he accidentally aggravates the police and the riot is put down and the Tramp sent off to prison once again for two weeks.

After his release, the Tramp gets another thankless low-wage job as a waiter at a café where the Gamin now works as a dancer. After failing to take a roast duck to the table of some easily annoyed bourgeois patrons, the Tramp is given a chance to entertain the clientèle of the café by singing to make up for his failed (but hilarious) waiter work. Despite losing the lyrics, the Tramp manages to entertain everyone in the café by singing lyrics composed of absolute nonsense. Of course, the success isn’t to last, as the police again show up to arrest the Gamine for the last time she evaded them. Since this is a comedy, the police are buffoons and the protagonists escape again. The film ends on a positive note when the Tamp encourages the Gamine to remain hopeful that the future will be better, and they walk off into the sunrise. Politics

Politically, the film has many themes that will have progressive-minded individuals nodding in agreement, touching on the poor conditions workers have to endure, the brutality of police, the repression of socialists and unions, the issues unemployment, homelessness, the increase of exploitation with industrialization under capitalism and so forth, all of which are presented in a way that makes the viewer sympathetic with the working class.

There is no doubt that this movie would not have been released if Chaplin wasn’t so widely known. It should not surprise anyone to hear that Chaplin was accused of being a communist, both for the themes in this film and in later politically-charged works such as The Great Dictator (which satirized fascism) and Monsieur Verdoux (which satirized capitalism).

Critical View

Politics aside, it is also a great film technically and critically, as it was made partially as a send-off to the silent movie era, but also contains several scenes with audible lines, which worked well for it. Chaplin wore many hats during the production, writing, directing, producing, starring and even writing the music for his film. The screens used by the bosses to check up on their workers and the scenes where Chaplin and later his immediate supervisor get trapped in giant machines were astoundingly well-done for 1936 and still are impressive today. The film is also very funny, making use of the trademark humor one would expect from Charlie Chaplin.

Conclusion

Modern Times has aged very well, and still entertains modern audiences just as well it did in 1936. That, alongside the entertaining antics of Chaplin and progressive ideas inserted throughout the plot, makes Modern Times a film we would recommend to just about anyone.

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

American Left-Wing Music

13 Dec

Left-wing music has been a cornerstone of the American socialist movement throughout its entire history. Stemming from the early 1900s to the present day, a good number of musicians and bands have expounded socialism through their lyrics and song content. Whether it is in support of Marxism-Leninism or other various forms of leftism, music has always been there to get the idea across to the broad masses. Many of said artists have themselves been victimized by capitalist society and the capitalist mode of production, influencing them to spread the word on the injustice inherit in the profit motive and the damage it wreaks on workers, the environment, and the family unit.

While not American, what is likely the most widely recognizable socialist songs is, of course, the Internationale. The original French words were written in June 1871 by Eugène Pottier (1816–1887), previously a member of the Paris Commune. It was first publicly performed in July 1888. Since then, The Internationale has been translated in nearly every language and was even adopted as the Soviet Union’s original national anthem. It has also become a popular rallying song sung by students and workers.

Written by Ralph Chaplin in 1915, Solidarity Forever is a pro-union song originally created for use within the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), although other unions and some political parties have been known to sing it during rallies or demonstrations. Chaplin began writing the song in 1914 as he was covering the Kanawha coal miners’ strike in West Virginia, in which miners and their families were forcibly evicted from company houses by mine guards. The Preamble of the song makes a brilliant and simple class analysis of American society with, “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common,” stating quite plainly that the contradictions inherent between the laboring and capitalist classes will continue until the workers take control of society and expropriate the exploiting classes. Throughout the years, stanzas have been added and/or modified to the original lyrics. For example in the 1970s, women members added their take on their involvement in the IWW’s affairs:

“We’re the women of the union and we sure know how to fight.

We’ll fight for women’s issues and we’ll fight for women’s rights.

A woman’s work is never done from morning until night.

Women make the union strong!

(Chorus)

It is we who wash dishes, scrub the floors and clean the dirt,

Feed the kids and send them off to school – and then we go to work,

Where we work for half men’s wages for a boss who likes to flirt.

But the union makes us strong!

(Chorus)”

Although Ralph Chaplin was an anarchist and opposed “state” socialism, we commemorate his work and his dedication to the class struggle and for taking the time to produce this work that would remain in the hearts of millions of toilers.

A lesser known left-leaning song, The Battle Hymn of Cooperation, was written by a baker (Elizabeth Mead) and a busboy (Carl Ferguson), who won a five-dollar prize for composing “the best song on cooperation.” The song was sung at the annual meetings of the Consumers Cooperative Association of Missouri, several thousand strong. It is the official song of the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA). It is notably sung also to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

Bandiera Rossa became one of the most popular songs of the Italian labor movement. The lyrics were written by Carlo Tuzzi in 1908, obtaining the melody from two Lombardian folk songs. The last two lines “Evviva il comunismo e la libertà,” or in English “Long live communism and liberty,” were put in the text after the rise of Benito Mussolini’s fascist government in Italy. Since the song was first written and published, there have been many remakes of the song, especially by South American socialists and communists.

With the escalation of the wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, a new generation of anti-imperialist culture was born, leading to one what was quite possibly the most lively and active periods in American history. Marching, protests songs, and sit-ins were commonplace and became well practiced methods of civil disobedience. To compliment this, new forms of anti-imperialist music gripped the American left. In 1969, Country Joe and the Fish performed their I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag at Woodstock to many peace-loving youth’s ears. The song’s lyrics are satirical, yet they contain a strong anti-war message.

“Well, come on all of you, big strong men,

Uncle Sam needs your help again.

He’s got himself in a terrible jam

Way down yonder in Vietnam

So put down your books and pick up a gun,

We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it’s one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?

Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam;

And it’s five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don’t be slow,

Why man, this is war au-go-go

There’s plenty good money to be made

By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,

But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,

They drop it on the Viet Cong.

[second stanza repeats]

Well, come on generals, let’s move fast;

Your big chance has come at last.

Now you can go out and get those reds

‘Cause the only good commie is the one that’s dead

And you know that peace can only be won

When we’ve blown ‘em all to kingdom come.

[second stanza repeats]

Come on mothers throughout the land,

Pack your boys off to Vietnam.

Come on fathers, and don’t hesitate

To send your sons off before it’s too late.

And you can be the first ones in your block

To have your boy come home in a box.

[second stanza repeats]”

This is an obvious strike towards all the warmongerers in the Vietnam War-era U.S. government, as well an attack on all those taken in by nationalism who volunteer to die fighting for the wrong side.

In 1972, David Crosby and Graham Nash released their single, Immigration Man, inspired by an incident that occurred between Nash and an immigration official as he was making his way into the United States for a concert. A U.S. Customs official had held him up, and although Nash was allowed to go through after people started coming up to him for his autograph, he was indignant. The song speaks of getting stopped by the “immigration man.” The song then describes Nash’s trouble producing documents and filling out a form “as big as a blanket.” “Come on and let me in, immigration man. Can I cross the line and pray I can stay another day.” Towards the end of the song, he gives a warning to would-be global travelers, “So go where you will, as long as you think you can. You better watch out, watch out for the man, anywhere you’re going.”
In his discussion of his motivations for writing the song with Crosby, Nash stated, “I’m not against local colour, but why should you fight me just because you speak differently than I do?” Nash also expressed his reasoning as to why he chose a picture of the earth from space for the cover of the sheet music for their song. “When you look at a photograph of the earth you don’t see any borders. That realization is where our hope as a planet lies.”

Tom Paxton, a progressive-minded folk song writer, has written numerous songs that take a forward-thinking stand on such issues as racial injustice, fascism and finance capital. An anti-aggression song was written by him, titled Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation, in which he mocks LBJ’s promises of withdrawal from Vietnam, only to lead to further troop deployment and the increase in foreign aggression the small, former colonial country. The second stanza is as follows: “Lyndon Johnson told the nation have no fear of escalation. I am trying everyone to please. Although this isn’t really a war, we’re sending fifty-thousand more, to help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese.” Interestingly enough, one could substitute these lines for nearly any international conflict, and the core presentation still holds solid. From Grenada and Nicaragua to Afghanistan and Iraq, our politicians have always used the same excuses to justify their class based interests in other countries.

Revolutionary leftist music was carried over to the 80s, 90s, and 00s and given a hip-hop and hard rock makeover. Both working within the boundaries of and superceding a market dominated by gangster rap, a noticeable number of pro-revolution bands have gained prominence among the public.

To give an example, Immortal Technique has published numerous songs and albums portraying life in the third world, as well as life in the first world ghetto. His songs and views generally portray the socialist point view on issues such as class hierarchy, racism, colonialism, poverty and government. In his music, he expresses the fact that record companies, and not artists themselves, are the ones who gain the most out of producing music. His song, The Third World speaks of colonialism of Africa by the United States of America and Europe with the support of the Catholic Church. He speaks against the funding of pro-capitalist militias and the traditional economic subordination of the majority of African workers and farmers at the expense of United States backed regimes and semi-colonial relations. His lyrics are hard-hitting towards reactionary elements in America.

“Just death following the forth right disaster, a legacy of bastards

With plastic explosives your futures been eroded

Cause you forgot that when your free it’s multiplied indefinitely

By the struggle that be the struggle I see

To socialistically united the third world countries

Expose hypocrisy in Americas democracy

Sloppily obsessed with stopping me cause I speak prophecy

Trample and dismantle your capitalist philosophy

The same way I stomp the conquering rap monopoly”

Even more well-known is the group Rage Against the Machine. Formed in 1991 and inspired by acts such as Public Enemy and Death Squad, their music can best be described as an outspoken concoction of creative rap and heavy metal geared towards a radical audience. The band’s most notable video is perhaps their performance of Sleep Now in the Fire, which was recorded in from of the New York Stock Exchange on January 26, 2000. Upon setting up, the band’s lead singer, Zack de la Rocha proclaimed to the audience, “Brothers and Sisters, our democracy has been hijacked!” Their performance sparked both positive and negative response from both supporters of the band as well as police, respectively, causing the doors of the New York Stock Exchange to close temporarily. The director of the music video, Michael Moore, complimented that, “We decided to shoot this video in the belly of the beast.” Michael Moore himself was detained by police and threatened with arrest during the video’s production.

In 1992, a politically-minded hip-hop group was formed in Oakland, California. Many today recognize them as The Coup. Originally comprised of three emcees, Raymond “Boots” Riley, and E-Roc along with DJ Pam the Funkstress, E-Roc left the group after their second album was released. The Coup is now a duo of Boots Riley and DJ Pam. The Marxist hip-hop group has produced sometimes serious and sometimes satirical lyrics, criticizing American politics, police brutality, capitalism and pimping as a form of exploitation towards women.

“I think that people should have democratic control over the profits that they produce. It is not real democracy until you have that. And the plain and simple definition of communism is the people having democratic control over the profits that they create.” – Raymond “Boots” Riley

In the early 1990s, The Coup released Dig It. According to Robin D.G. Kelley and Betsy Esch, “The Coup refers to its members as “The Wretched of the Earth”; tells listeners to read The Communist Manifesto; and conjures up revolutionary icons such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Kwame Nkrumah, H. Rap Brown, Kenya’s Mau Mau movement, and Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt” (1). The group takes an internationalist viewpoint by commemorating and offering references to leftist authors, guerillas and theoreticians. Every country’s revolutionary movement is embodied in its music, and the United States is no exception.

Sources:

1) Robin D.G. Kelley and Betsy Esch, Black Like Mao: Red China & Black Revolution, Part 1.

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

On Marxism-Leninism

8 Sep

When one removes the rose-colored glasses of American consumerist ideology, that anti-culture which assures us that happiness is only “one purchase away,” the world we see is one plagued by stratification. We live in a world of billionaires and starving children, occupiers and the occupied. Prevailing thought reinforces ideologically ingrained racial, gender, sexual and religious hierarchies. In every instance of social inequity, the exercise and administration of power is held in one set of hands over all others. The powerful protect their position by subjecting those with less power to their dominion through domination in thought and action, through hegemony in ideology and the violent repression of dissenters. The sources of division and injustices in our world are many, yet the majority of social ills find their roots in the economic circumstances of modern capital.

Social inequality in contemporary capitalist society is a direct result of a mode of production in which the bourgeoisie, the class which owns the means of production and capital resources, utilizes its position to exploit surplus value produced by the proletariat, the working class who have only their labor to sell. This class division, and the dictatorship of capital over the laboring masses that is inevitably the result of such a division, is a central feature of capitalist production. Inequality isn’t an unfortunate accident; it is essential for the survival of the bourgeoisie as a class. In order to continue to glut themselves on the surplus value produced by workers, they require a reserve of labor to keep wages low and power structures reinforced. For those who would champion equality and social justice for the proletariat, the solution to the injustices of capitalism cannot be found within the system itself. The solution is a new system,in which the laboring masses own the means of production. This form of society, without state or class, is called communism. This is the only form of society in which the term “democracy” can be applied without a tinge of irony, because the impediments which persist under the farce of capitalism’s “liberal democracy” do not exist in a society wherein the means of production are owned collectively.

In order to achieve this higher form of social interaction, the proletariat first must be guided to revolution. To accomplish this end, those of the world proletariat and laboring classes must unite in a spirit of proletarian internationalism to crush their mutual oppressors. The role of vanguard parties, who are made up of those workers advanced in the theory and practice of revolution, act as a force for creating this solidarity by educating the proletariat and working masses and eventually spear-heading the revolutionary struggle against capital and its lackeys. Once revolution occurs, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie will be replaced with dictatorship of the proletariat, otherwise known as socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat will serve as a means of defending the gains of revolution from capitalist insurgency and imperialist aggression, as well as to instill in the proletariat the revolutionary consciousness they will require to advance society towards communism.

The theory that allows the proletariat to guide their activity and understanding of how to carry out revolution against capitalism is the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the revolutionary science that applies materialist dialectics to the conditions of capitalism in the age of imperialism. This essential theory was brought into being by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and later developed by Vladimir Lenin, who restored its revolutionary character after the opportunism of the Second International. Lenin dedicated his life to the cause of revolution, and during the First World War led the Russian proletariat to victory against the forces of Czarism and imperialism, bringing about the world’s first socialist state. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) proceeded upon a path of socialist industrialization under Lenin and Stalin, and during these years greatly advanced the cause of the proletariat by supporting revolutionary movements abroad, as well as standing as a force of opposition against the forces of fascism and imperialism during the Second World War. Although the USSR would eventually fall into revisionism, giving up revolutionary theory and eventually dismantling the dictatorship of the proletariat under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the Soviet Union stands as an example which proves that the construction of socialism is possible.

The socialist societies which emerged during the 20th century were guided to revolution during partisan warfare against fascism, imperialism and invading powers. These societies made enormous leaps in providing the proletariat of these countries with a better life by raising the level of industry, literacy, healthcare, women’s’ rights and worker participation in administration in all areas of life. When one looks past the veil of Western propaganda from Solzhenitsyn to Conquest, the reality of life under socialism was a positive one for all except the would-be exploiters of the proletariat.

When one learns that it is the economic system at fault and about the true nature of classes and class struggle, when one learns that the world we live in is built upon the crushing domination of the few over the many, when the suffering and anguish of the world’s laborers is for the sole purpose of fattening the bank accounts of wealthy men in suits, it becomes clear what must be done: the assault of the international bourgeoisie against all that is good and decent needs to be met with an equal assault on their position of domination.

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

Philosophy as a Science

1 Sep

Philosophy is one of the oldest sciences. Many philosophical systems have been developed by the most diverse social classes and groups in different historical conditions and countries. In order to find our bearings in this multitude of philosophical systems, ascertain their scientific value and determine the place that each occupies in the history of philosophical thought, it is necessary in the first place to see how a philosophical system or a philosopher solves the fundamental question of philosophy.

If we look carefully at the surrounding world we shall see that all objects and phenomena are either material, or ideal, spiritual Material phenomena embrace everything that exists objectively, i.e., outside of man’s consciousness and independently of it (objects and processes on Earth, the countless bodies of the Universe, etc.). On the other hand, all that exists in the consciousness of man and all that comprises the sphere of his mental activity (thoughts, sensations, emotions, etc.), is related to the sphere of the ideal, the spiritual.

How are the material and the spiritual connected? Is 15the spiritual, the ideal engendered by the material, or vice versa? It is the nature of this connection, of the relation of consciousness to being, of the spiritual to the material that constitutes the fundamental question of philosophy.

The relation of consciousness to being is the fundamental question of philosophy because the answer to it determines the solution of all other philosophical problems: the unity of the world, the character of the laws governing its development, the essence of knowledge and ways of cognising the world, etc. Hence, it is impossible to create a philosophical system and draw a picture of the world as a whole without first solving the fundamental question of philosophy.

There are two aspects to this question. The first is the solution of the problem, what is primary, matter or consciousness—was it matter that was the source of consciousness—or vice versa. The other aspect answers the question, is the world cognisable, can man’s reason penetrate the secrets of nature and ascertain the laws of its development.

Pondering the content of the fundamental question of philosophy it is easy to perceive that there can be only two diametrically opposite approaches:. to recognise either matter or consciousness as primary. That accounts for the existence of two basic trends in philosophy—materialism and idealism—which appeared a long time ago.

Philosophers who regard matter as primary and consciousness as secondary and as a derivative of matter, are materialists (from Latin materia, meaning matter). They maintain that matter is eternal, that no one had ever created it and that there are no supernatural forces in the world. As regards consciousness, it is the product of the historical development of matter, a property of that exceptionally complex material body, the human brain.

Philosophers who believe that the “spirit”, or consciousness is primary are idealists. They maintain that consciousness existed prior to matter and brought it into being, and that it is the primary foundation of everything that exists. Idealists are divided on the question what kind of consciousness “creates” the world. The so-called subjective idealists assert that the world is “created” by the consciousness of the individual—the subject. Objective idealists, on the other hand, insist that the world is “created” by some kind of an 16objective (super-individual) consciousness. Though in different philosophical systems this objective consciousness is called either an “absolute
idea”, or “universal will”, etc., it is easy to discern that it presupposes God.

The views of the philosophers on the solution of the other aspect of the fundamental question of philosophy are likewise divided.

The world is knowable, assert the materialists. Man’s knowledge of the world is trustworthy, his reason can penetrate the internal nature of things and cognise their essence.

Many idealists deny the knowability of the world. They are called agnostics (from Greek agnostos—unknown, unknowable, not knowing). Other idealists, even if they believe that the world is knowable, in reality distort the essence of knowledge. They claim that man cognises his own thoughts, emotions (subjective idealists), or a mystic “idea”, a “universal spirit” (objective idealists), and not the objective world, nature.

Source #1

Source #2

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

Celebrate the 91st Anniversary of American Communism

31 Aug

Today marks the 91st anniversary of the birth of the first American Communist Party. The Communist Labor Party was formed on August 31, 1919 by John Reed, Benjamin Gitlow and other expelled members from the Socialist Party of America. The very next day the Communist Party of America was formed by more expelled members from the SPA and the former Socialist Party of Michigan. The Communist International (Comintern) encouraged these two infant parties to merge under a banner of unity. In effect, the Communist Party of America was born in May of 1921.

The Communist Party at this time numbered around 12,000 members. It would rise during the 1930s as a monolithic and militant party. American communists took roles in leading and organizing many groups, such as the American League for Peace and Democracy, the National Negro Congress, the American Writers Union and the American Youth Congress. Communists were also major players in the labor unions and by 1945, American communists led eighteen Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) affiliates that represented 1,370,000 workers; one-fourth of the CIO’s total membership. Despite being only being seventeen years old, the CPA brought as many as 66,000 advanced members of the working class into its ranks.

Today is the day to celebrate the achievements of American communism!

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

American Progressivism

23 Aug

A growing trend in American reactionary thought is painting progressivism as “the cancer of America,” often even misusing the term as a synonym for socialism and radicalism. Progressivism can be loosely defined as reformist “welfare state” capitalism. These days the term “progressive” is usually used to mean the same thing as “liberal,” meaning endorsing the policies of the American Democratic Party, but it also encompasses different ideologies on the left-wing. In a sense, it is a blanket term for the non-revolutionary left.

However, is liberalism truly a radical ideology? The answer is no. The progressive era was hardly “progressive” and certainly not radical, as many of the actions taken were done in order to preserve the wealthy elite and business owners. It was simply a matter of these groups to gain support from different classes. The regulations and interventions of the progressive era were not necessary for emancipation and progress but for saving capitalism from its own collapse. In these regards, the majority of prominent “progressive” Presidents were merely reactionaries painted in a dull tint of reformism; elitist, bourgeois reformers acting with ulterior motives made up large sections of the “movement,” rather than the working class people themselves.

Large state-aided corporations also were able to rise to power throughout the era as well, and in these regards, the progressive era was hardly an era of “radical leftism.” Leftists nonetheless support progressivism over the savage neo-liberalism of today, but it is key that we should realize the distinct differences between progressivism and socialism, and therefore must re-examine their history and theory. In this article, we will examine the major features of the “progressive era,” and offer criticism from a Marxist perspective to further show that Marxism does not in any sense equate to progressivism.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Despite the criticism among numerous hard rightists, FDR was not entirely progressive or radical for that matter, although anything seen as moving the “invisible hand” further away from the market was inherently “radical leftism” to the laissez-faire reactionaries of FDR’s era. At any rate, FDR was aware that reform itself is not strictly progressive, and that it is moreover a conservative approach. Unlike the laissez-faire supporters, FDR realized that capitalism had to be willing to allow some level of reforms, less the whole system collapse. Of course in these regards “progressives” such as FDR were more pragmatic than those who spent their time blaming issues solely on “statism,” as though the state is the cause of all problems in capitalist society.

In relation to his “progressive-conservative” views, FDR said the following in his speech at the Democratic Party in Syracuse, New York on September 29th, 1936: “Wise and prudent men – intelligent conservatives – have long known that in a changing world worthy institutions can be conserved only by adjusting them to the changing time. In the words of the great essayist, ‘The voice of great events is proclaiming to us: reform if you would preserve.’ I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal.” In other words, FDR is stating that through reforming, he is in actuality preserving the capitalist system. The entire statement was based on a paraphrased quote he had taken from conservative leaning politician, Thomas Babington, during his speech before the House of Commons on March 1, 1831.

Examining FDR in historical context, he had never even been that left on the political scale. If anything, he was a centrist who would occasionally travel from the left to the right where it suited him, only in moderation, much like Obama and other alleged leftists. It was only after a series of working class rebellions between 1934 and 1937 that FDR took more “progressive” stances. Whatever the label, FDR performed numerous actions that were more rightist in their nature than leftist. For example, during World War Two he handed over large amounts of power to the corporations, all of which were able to gain major profits from the newly-established foreign markets and spheres of influence. FDR is also notable for his inherent racism, or at least his paranoia of the Japanese. Thousands of Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps starting in 1942 with the passing of executive order 9066. During the years where this act was legalized, over 120,000 Japanese-Americans were imprisoned within the camps. Not only were Japanese-Americans sentenced to these camps, but so were over 3000 Italians and 11,000 Germans, including Jewish emigrants. Some of these prisoners remained imprisoned even after the war had ended.

But what of the New Deal? Surely socialists absolutely adore FDR for his New Deal policies, correct? Wrong. Given the millions dead from the Depression and the millions without food or homes, of course it was necessary for the New Deal to exist, but the problem was how it was executed. For example, the public works projects promoted through the New Deal did become helpful to a myriad of Americans in dire conditions, but working conditions on these projects were not exactly acceptable. More than 3 million laborers could be involved in a single project, out of a total of around 8.5 million workers, excluding prisoners. Not only this, but the lack of regulated labor and the poor pay added further insult to injury. A public worker could earn $30, and end up with a mere $5 at the end of the month through the high taxation. One could just as well argue that the New Deal was an attempt to quiet the masses who were in a state of discontent and chaos. FDR’s policies were often inspired by fascism rather than socialism or progressivism as well, as the goal was to silence class struggle. Woodrow Wilson

The notion that Wilson was a progressive is a rather ironic claim. If anything, Wilson was merely an idealistic fool and an advocate of capitalism in “progressive form,” again contrary to the laissez-faire form. It was Wilson’s pitiful occupation policies that desecrated Haiti in an act of imperialism. Imperialism does not equate to socialism. Between 1915 and 1934, the United States needed a location where they could acquire food exports. The government figured that Haiti had decent farmers and so during this time period, it brutally occupied Haiti, dissolving the Haitian parliaments in order to establish a new market. Military forces served as administrators in the provinces, corrupt representatives from the United States wielded the power over government decisions and the Haitian farmers were put under strict working conditions. Over 90% favored occupation of Haiti, but this majority was coming from US imperialists already occupying the land. This majority vote also made up only 5% of the population, with many Haitian citizens unable to vote.

As a result of the occupation, not only were Haitians worked under brutal conditions, but their economy was shattered. Today, Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and even the “philanthropy” of our government is not enough to make up for the numerous problems that have occurred in the area. Wilson also militarily intervened in other numerous Latin American countries, including Cuba and Mexico. In Nicaragua, Wilson’s administration decided the president of the country for themselves, much like in Haiti. In 1916 Wilson worked with the wealthy landowners of the Dominican Republic in order to further suppress rebellion. Wilson’s occupation lasted until 1924; eight years of imperial brutality. If a rightist is claiming that Wilson represented “leftist interests,” one needs only to look at his policies in Russia, where Bolshevism was on the rise, causing chaos and fear among the rightist populace of America. Wilson had his forces sent to Russia to aid the Czarist forces, and a civil war resulted in the end. Even when Wilson claimed he would withdraw his forces in 1920, many remained until as late as 1922.

Of course such brutal foreign policy would result in much criticism, so how did Wilson keep criticism to a minimal level? He silenced all criticism. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to display any signs of potential dissidence: “Disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” in relation to anything pro-American was absolutely intolerable. Sentences for such behavior were often as high as ten years. Some sentences could go as high as twenty years, as well as having a large fine reaching as high as $10,000. The Espionage Act of 1917 was also passed in an effort to reduce dissidence, making it illegal to interfere or protest against American military intervention or to pledge any level of support for America’s enemies. Given the similarities between these acts and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, it merely illustrates the cyclical nature of capitalism’s desperation to save itself and silence all criticism.

With Wilson, it is hard to see anything progressive about the man, contrary to the rightist claims. Wilson took little action against corporations and big business, little action against racism, only aided war where profitable and certainly took no action against harming the working class on an international level. When Wilson ran for president his slogan was “New Freedom,” which is mere irony to both ends of the political spectrum. However, it was this slogan that also wished to introduce “real” competition into the American marketplace—another trait of capitalism, not socialism. The attempts of bringing good ole’ healthy competition to America fell flat on their faces when the inherent monopolization of his presidency became apparent. Wilson’s idealism had a lot in common with contemporary neo-conservatism, not progressivism.

Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt was essentially one of the first progressive politicians to gain major influence in America. He did envision a society in which smaller business operated without such harmful interference from big corporations, but this view did not equate to socialism and enabled capitalism to thrive in America. It was merely the emphasis on petty-bourgeoisie rather than the proletarian working class. His jingoist nature proved to outweigh his “progressive” views. It was arguably Teddy who helped introduce America to true, more modernized imperialism. While the genocidal acts of the settlers and the Mexican-American war had already proven America’s status as imperialistic at the time, Teddy proved that America was capable of expanding even further overseas to acquire market power.

The Great White Fleet, for example, was essentially nothing but a show of power which promoted further American chauvinism. Theodore Roosevelt was merely a statist capitalist with imperialistic interests and nothing more despite progressive overtones. As for Teddy’s “Square Deal,” much of the same can be said about it as FDR’s “New Deal.” It was intended on silencing the masses rather than emancipation. In fact, part of the Square Deal act included the ability for the federal government to take control of public land. In other words, more privatization—a trait far from socialist policy.

When Roosevelt first came to the presidency, he showed more “promise” when compared to Wilson, for example. He was noted for collaborating with Uninoists such as the UMW, who had protested for higher wages and shorter hours. Teddy granted them their rights in the first years of his presidency. At congress, he made sure to attack those who supported large corporations in order to curb their influence. In 1906, Teddy passed the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. He also banned segregation of Japanese-American citizens in 1907, which was objectively another progressive act (although he did still call for tight control on immigration). However, by 1905 Roosevelt had already begun to display his imperialistic nature. Roosevelt ended the Monroe Doctrine, which enabled the US government to seize military intervention rights in foreign countries. In fact, in order to further suit his own interests, Teddy called for the Japanese to take Korea for themselves (ironically this would have adverse effects on FDR’s presidency). When it came down to it, Teddy ultimately wished to Americanize the entire world and everyone’s way of life.

“We must Americanize in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at relations between church and state. We welcome the German and the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such… He must revere only our flag, not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second.” Such chauvinistic attitudes are highly anti-Marxist, and therefore cannot be truly perceived as “progressive,” at least in the sense of bringing progress to the world. Given this American exceptionalist attitude taken by Teddy, it is no surprise he was also a racist; how can racism be progressive, even in its historical context? “I have not been able to think out any solution of the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that inasmuch as he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away.” Teddy was even a supporter of eugenics, claiming: “Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them.” This begs for the definition of “feeble-minded,” and leaves one assuming that Teddy could have only meant those who were “un-American” or foreigners.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that the progressive era was in itself a historical fallacy, a myth perpetrated by rightists to claim that socialistic policy has infiltrated America and spread its cancer. Real progressivism would promote safe, improved working conditions, labor standards, an emphasis on public programs, taxation and minimum wage for example. In comparison to socialism though, it is a petty-bourgeois reformist ideology, no matter how “radical” it may become. It is therefore ultimately a method of preserving the capitalist system by being more inherently “liberal” rather than conservative in its approach in doing so. If anything, socialists and Marxists would not consider any of the above figures as truly progressive. The most noteworthy American politician that can be viewed as progressive according to many Marxists is Abraham Lincoln, whom Marx wrote a letter to commending him for his push for the emancipation proclamation. However, even Lincoln wasn’t truly progressive enough. When it comes down to it, the real “progressivism” lies in the heart of the working class, and the real progress lies in socialism.

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

Dialectics & Marxist Philosophy

19 Aug

What does one gain from studying Marxist philosophy?

Marxist philosophy (1) is a harmonious system of man’s views of the surrounding world, the laws of its development and ways of cognising it. A study of philosophy, therefore, provides us with a coherent idea of the world and of it’s development, of man’s place in the world and whether he can cognise and transform it, why the life of society changes and how best to organize it, and so forth.

What is the practical significance of these general questions and how do they directly benefit man’s life and work?

The practical significance of Marxist philosophy is enormous. Being a component part of Marxism-Leninism, Marxist philosophy renders invaluable assistance to all progressive forces in their struggle for humanity’s better future by disclosing the more general laws of the development of nature, society and thinking, and showing the need and inevitability of socialist revolution and the triumph of socialism and communism.

Marxist philosophy offers a truly scientific explanation of nature and society and consequently is a powerful instrument of their revolutionary transformation.

Only the proletariat and its Party are concerned with acquiring a correct knowledge and carrying out a revolutionary transformation of the world. That is why dialectical materialism emerged and is developing as a theoretical, ideological weapon of the proletariat in its struggle against capitalism, for socialism and communism. The philosophy of Marxism is revolutionary in its very essence. Recognising neither immutable social systems nor eternal mainstays of private property, it theoretically proves that the doom of capitalism and the victory of the new, socialist, communist society are inevitable.

It is especially important to master Marxist philosophy in our epoch of radical social change and the transition from capitalism to communism. It helps Marxist parties to find their bearings in the very complex conditions of our time, make a scientific analysis of the actual situation and then define the most important tasks and find the most effective ways of attaining them.

“Should the Marxist political party in its examination of questions base itself not on dialectics and materialism, the result will be one-sidedness and subjectivism, stagnation of human thought, isolation from life and loss of ability to make the necessary analysis of things and phenomena, revisionist and dogmatist mistakes and mistakes in policy. Application of dialectical materialism in practical work and the education of the party functionaries and the broad masses in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism are urgent tasks of the communist and workers’ parties” (2).

Marxist philosophy is a powerful theoretical instrument for cognising and transforming the world, but only if applied creatively and with strict consideration of the concrete historical conditions in which its laws and principles operate. In order to master Marxist philosophy it is not enough to learn by rote its propositions and conclusions; it is necessary to grasp its essence and to learn to apply it in practice in solving concrete tasks of the revolutionary struggle for peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism. [...]

The struggle for the victory of communism envisages not only the creation of the material and technical basis and the moulding of communist social relations, but also the all-round and harmonious development of the human personality. But to be able to do this a member of society needs more than to be a specialist in his field. It is important to master the totality of human knowledge, and even more important, to learn to apply it. A person has to acquire a scientific world outlook in order that communist ideas combine organically with communist deeds in his behaviour, in his work and life. In contemporary conditions the acquisition by all Soviet people of a scientific world outlook on the basis of Marxism-Leninism as a harmonious system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views is a matter of primary importance.

The philosophy of Marxism helps the builders of communism to understand the course and prospects of world development and correctly grasp events taking place in the country itself and elsewhere in the world, and convinces them in the just nature of the revolutionary cause and the inevitability of the victory of socialism and communism throughout the world. It mobilises the people for the struggle against the reactionary imperialist ideology and the survivals of the past, helps to perceive and surmount the difficulties on the way to the successful building of communism and teaches how to work the communist way.

Marxist philosophy cultivates a broad, correct world outlook in a man and trains him to discern the importance of seemingly insignificant things. It stimulates thought, makes it more flexible and incisive and hostile to stagnation and routine, and imbues man with the valuable sense of the new. And this is most important, for in our age of unprecedented scientific and technical progress and the subjugation of the atom, in our age of electricity, automatic systems and space exploration it is impossible to do without an incisive, resourceful mind. [....]

Knowledge of Marxist philosophy is essential for progressive young people of all countries because it helps them to gain political maturity and cultivate integrity, staunchness and courage in the struggle against national and social oppression. Without these qualities it is impossible to build a bright communist future.

In a word, those who fight for national liberation and social emancipation, who build socialism and communism and seek the truth, those who want to probe the secrets of the Universe and, life ought to master the invincible Marxist-Leninist teaching and its life-asserting philosophy.

Life repudiates all sorts of nihilistic ideological conceptions invented in the West, according to which we are now witnessing either the general decline in the role and significance of philosophy and ideology in the system of scientific cognition and practical activity, or the automatic “removal” of all ideological problems and precepts by the very course of scientific and technical progress, the mathematisation of science and the introduction of cybernetics and modelling methods, or the “inability” of Marxist philosophy to meet the “challenge” of new successes, new problems of modern natural science, etc.

In actual fact the very nature of philosophical knowledge rules out such assessments because it is rooted in the requirements of social development itself and is designed to identify and develop eternal values and problems: the more common, universal conceptions of the world, of its past and future, the more general foundations and principles of life, cognisance and practical activity, the meaning of human existence, social progress, development of mankind, etc.

Philosophical knowledge is not a fruit of idle reflections of dilettantes, but a form of social consciousness which reflects the advances of scientific and social progress, the ideals and world outlook of different classes, social contradictions and conflicts in the given country and in the given epoch. That was why Marx called philosophy the “intellectual quintessence” of its time, “the living soul of culture” (3). [....]

Life shows that the mounting complexity and intensification of revolutionary transformations in the world, the acceleration of the scientific and technical progress and the increasing influence of its social consequences imperatively call for a philosophical rethinking of the fundamental problems and patterns of social development and scientific cognisance, and of the ideological orientation of man’s spiritual and practical activities.

1. ( From the Greek—philosophia meaning love or pursuit of wisdom (phil + sophia).

2. The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963,p.15.

3. Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the KolnischeZeitung”, in: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 195.

Source

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: , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers

%d bloggers like this: