Category Archives: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

U.S. Hands Off North Korea!

No To The Imperialist War Drive!

Resistance Editorial

The so-called “America First” budget put forward by Trump includes a 10% increase in military spending. This increases what is already the world’s largest military budget by $56 billion. The cost of this increase will be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable sections of U.S. society — children, seniors, and those suffering from illness — as the increases are offset with slashed social spending. Long-term vital programs like “Meals on Wheels” are in the crosshairs in favor of yet more spending on an already bloated military.

Trump has already engaged in military action from the failed raid in Yemen, which killed 30 civilians, to the drone strike on a Mosque in Aleppo, Syria, killing 46 worshipers. The administration claimed to have struck a meeting of al Qaida militants, an assertion that is contradicted by sources in Syria. U.S. troops are already on the ground acting as “advisers” in Syria — a program that was begun by Obama.

Trump rode to the White House on a wave of saber rattling, reaction, immigrant bashing, and racism. This war drive is coupled with an all out attack on democratic rights and programs for the relief of the poor at home — medicaid, school lunch programs, meals on wheels. More tax breaks to the rich guarantee that the cost will be borne by working class people, the poor and oppressed communities.

Tillerson’s threat toward North Korea

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled the end of U.S. “strategic patience” with North Korea, stating that a “preemptive strike” against North Korea is possible. An attack on North Korea is a high-risk scenario that raises the very real danger of a regional conflict involving China and North Korean retaliatory attacks on both South Korea and Japan. North Korea has the capability to strike back with conventional and nuclear weapons. North Korea’s heavy artillery could flatten South Korea with disastrous results.

Millions would perish from such an ill-conceived U.S. adventure.  A war with North Korea would create a refugee crisis, starvation, and billions of dollars in property destruction. The effect on world financial markets could be devastating. Trump’s bellicose threats towards China during the campaign, and since taking office, increase the possibility of China’s involvement as an ally of the North Koreans. For the time being, Beijing has indicated their willingness to cooperate with the U.S. on the question of the North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. However, tensions have been high, with China pressing its claims on islands in the South China Sea, and Trump’s missteps on Taiwan and the US’s “One China Policy” all helping make the region a powder keg.

From 1950-1953, the U.S. fought a bloody war in Korea as the first violent engagement of the Cold War between the USSR and the West. More than 33,000 U.S troops perished in the war as well as more than a half million combined combat and civilian deaths of South Koreans. North Korea suffered more than 200,000 killed in action and an additional 300,000 wounded. Chinese military losses were also high with more than 130,000 dead and 340,000 wounded. The Korean War was fought to a stalemate and there was never a peace accord between the involved parties. The combat death toll for all sides is estimated by some experts at more than 1.2 million. During the war, the South Korean regime murdered tens of thousands of suspected communist sympathizers and their families.

Mass Antiwar Movement Needed

During the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sections of the antiwar movement consciously de-mobilized themselves in order to provide cover for the Democrats. It remains to be seen whether the scattered antiwar forces will find their voice in time to mount opposition to a U.S. attack on North Korea. While Trump and Tillerson’s rhetoric has turned the region into a powderkeg, prominent Democrats have remained silent.

To stop the drive towards war a  united front mass action oriented movement is needed. The test for the U.S. left and antiwar movement is to create the broadest possible mobilizations against Trump’s grotesque militarism and aggression around the world, while demanding the funding of human needs at home.  

Going forward, we need to build a non-exclusionary, democratic movement that is independent from ruling class political parties. This is independent of positions about the character of North Korea. The first priority, regardless of attitude toward the Kim regime, is to prevent another imperialist war. That means turning the anti-Trump struggle into a fight to oppose war and re-orient the US economy to serve human need.

U.S. Hands Off North Korea!

Money for jobs, education and healthcare, not for war! 

Feed children and seniors, not the Pentagon!

Source

Advertisements

Bruce Cumings on the North Korean Economy

“My spirits brightened, however, when former Congressman Stephen Solarz, long interested in Korean affairs, found a ‘brilliant and breathtaking’ study by a CIA analyst and concluded it was for North Korea ‘what the Rosetta Stone was to ancient Egypt’. So rare and privileged was the author’s knowledge that it took him a decade to get the CIA to declassify the book. Helen-Louise Hunter was for two decades a ‘Far East Specialist’ in the CIA, which is where her first book appeared (if that is the right word) as a long internal memorandum. Here was the solution to another problem we hear a lot about from the Beltway pundits: ‘a country about which we knew virtually nothing’ (in Solarz’s words). That is, we have trouble penetrating and surveilling them: how scary!

Hunter’s work has some excellent information on arcane and difficult to research subjects like North Korean wage and price structures, the self-sufficient and decentralized neighborhood living practices that mostly eliminated the long lines for goods that characterized Soviet-style communism, and the decade of one’s young life that almost every North Korean male is required to devote to military service in this garrison state. She points out the many achievements of the North Korean system, in ways that would get anyone outside the CIA labeled a sympathizer – compassionate care for war orphans in particular and children in general, ‘radical change’ in the position of women (‘there are now more college-educated women than college-educated men’), genuinely free housing, preventive medicine on a national scale accomplished to a comparatively high standard, infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine, ‘no organized prostitution,’ and ‘the police are difficult, if not impossible, to bribe’. The author frequently acknowledges that the vast majority of Koreans do in fact revere Kim Il-Sung, even the defectors from the system whose information forms the core evidence for her book. According to Prince Sihanouk, a close friend of Kim’s who frequently stayed for months at a time in the North, ‘Kim ha[d] a relationship with his people that every other leader in the world would envy”; he described it as ‘much closer’ than his own with the Cambodian people (where he is both venerated and highly popular).

American cheerleaders for the South never tire of saying that its GNP is ten times larger than North Korea’s; certainly it is much larger, but if, say, the World Bank were to value goods and services in the North in terms of what the equivalents would cost in the United States, as it did for China after it opened up, the North’s GNP would mushroom overnight. In Hunter’s account of the DPRK when its economy was still reasonably good, about twenty years ago, she found that daily necessities were very low priced, luxuries vastly overpriced. Rents were so nominal that most housing was effectively free, as was health care, and ‘the government subsidizes the low prices of rice, sugar, and other food necessities, as well as student uniforms and work clothes.’ All homes in the country had electricity by 1968, far ahead of where the South was at the time. To take a measure close to home, she estimates that a husband and wife who were both university professors would be able to save about 50 percent of their monthly salaries. Rice and corn, the major staples, were rationed by the state, as were cooking oils, meat, soy sauce, bean curd, and kimch’i. Other things – fruits, vegetables, nuts, noodles, beer – could be purchased at low prices, with meats and luxury food overvalued. The general egalitarianism of the society was remarkable, in her view, even if the elite lived much better than the mass.”

 – Bruce Cumings, “North Korea: Another Country,” The New Press, New York, 2003, pp. 194-196.

DPRK: Death of Fidel Castro Ruz Is Great Loss to Korean People

The death of Fidel Castro Ruz, an outstanding leader of the Cuban revolution, is a great loss to not only the Cuban people but also the Korean people fighting on the same front against the imperialists.

The Korean people have highly respected Fidel Castro Ruz as a national hero of Cuba, outstanding leader of the Cuban people and a prominent anti-imperialist fighter.

He was a close friend of the Korean people and an eternal revolutionary comrade-in-arms who had always kept in his mind the comradely relations with President Kim Il Sung and leader Kim Jong Il and made all efforts to develop the friendly and cooperative relations between the parties, governments and peoples of the two countries and extended firm support and encouragement to Korea’s reunification and the cause of justice with invariable revolutionary principle and obligation.

He was an indomitable revolutionary fighter who defended the banner of socialism in the Western Hemisphere at a time when the red flags of socialism were lowered in different counties at the end of the 1980s and early in the 1990s and the U.S. imperialists escalated their moves to isolate and stifle Cuba.

During those days of hardship, the two countries stood firm in the same trench for socialism under the leadership of the great leaders and Fidel Castro Ruz, and the friendly and cooperative relations between the two parties, two governments and two peoples grew stronger.

Though he passed away, the precious feats he performed in developing the DPRK-Cuba friendship and the cause of socialism will be kept in the hearts of the two peoples and the progressives of the world forever.

The army and people of the DPRK will as ever invariably hold fast to the banner of socialism and get firmly united with the fraternal Cuban people and make all efforts to develop the friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries.

Ra Myong Song

The DPRK On Race

John Paul Cupp at the top of the Juche Tower, Pyongyang, North Korea, on an official trip by invitation of the North Korean government as head of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group in 2006

The following is an editorial entitled, “The Idea of a Multinational, Multiracial Society Means Destruction of the Korean Nation” that ran on April 27, 2006 in Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Above it is a press release published in the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) about the article and summing up its conclusions. To avoid accusations of mistranslation, the original article in Korean is linked below, as well as the KCNA release summing up the article in English.

Statements like this published in the state media of a supposedly “socialist” country in the 21st century should raise concerns for anti-revisionists around the world, especially since this is not the first time official DPRK press has made nationalist and racially chauvinist statements, as evidenced by a recent article calling Obama a “monkey” as well as “dirty fellow” and somebody who “does not even have the basic appearances of a human being,” with such passages as, “It would be perfect for Obama to live with a group of monkeys in the world’s largest African natural zoo and lick the breadcrumbs thrown by spectators,” which drew widespread condemnation.

The official ideology of the DPRK is Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, formerly just Kimilsungism, based on the Juche concept that officially supplanted Marxism-Leninism in 1972. An analysis of the features of Juche reveal that it is a brand of revisionism. Neo-Nazi white supremacists, racism and cultish behavior have also been extensively documented among pro-DPRK groups that promote Juche and Songun.

 – E.S.

Rodong Sinmun Censures Theory of “Multiracial Society”

Pyongyang, April 27 (KCNA) — A strange farce to hamstring the essential characters of the Korean nation and seek for “multiracial society” is now being held in south Korea. In this regard Rodong Sinmun today runs a signed commentary, which censures the farce as an unpardonable bid to negate the homogeneity of the nation, make south Korea multiracial and Americanize it. To deny the peculiarity and advantages of the homogeneous nation now that dominationism and colonialism are posing a threat to the destiny of weak nations is a treacherous act of weakening the spirit of the nation, the commentary says, and goes on: The south Korean pro-American traitorous forces advocating the theory of “multiracial society” are riffraffs who have not an iota of national soul, to say nothing of the elementary understanding of the view on the nation and social and historic development.

If the homogeneity of the nation is not kept, the nation and the destiny of individuals cannot be defended from the U.S. dominationist moves and the attempt of the Japanese reactionaries for invasion of Korea, which is revealed in their claim to Tok Islet, cannot be checked.

The theory of “multiracial society” is a poison and anti-reunification logic aimed to emasculate the basic idea in the era of independent reunification. The anti-national logic is advocated in south Korea, contrary to the aspiration of the fellow countrymen. This is ascribable to the criminal attempt of the pro-American elements including the Grand National Party to make the north and the south different in lineages, block the June 15 era of reunification and seek the permanent division of the nation and the manipulation of the U.S. behind the scene.

The commentary calls upon the people from all walks of life in south Korea to decisively reject the anti-national moves of the sycophantic traitorous forces to tarnish the lineage of the Korean nation and obliterate it, bereft of the Juche character and national character.

Source

The Idea of a Multinational, Multiracial Society Means Destruction of the Korean Nation

Recently, in South Korea, a strange game pursuing the weakening of the fundamental character of our race and making society “multiethnic and multiracial” is unfolding.

Those responsible for this commotion are spreading confounding rumors like South Korea is a “multiracial area” mixed with the blood of Americans and several other races, how we must “overcome closed ethnic nationalism,” and we must embrace “the inclusiveness and openness of a multiethnic nation” like the United States.

The words themselves take a knife to the feeling of our people, but even more serious is that this anti-national theory of “multiethnic, multiracial society” has already gone beyond the stage of discussion. Already, they’ve decided that from 2009, content related to “multiracial, multiethnic culture” would be included in elementary, middle and high school textbooks that have until now stressed that Koreans are the “descendents of Dangun,” “of one blood line” and “one race,” and to change the terms “families of international marriage” and “families of foreign laborers” to “multicultural families.” This is an outrage that makes it impossible to repress the rage of the people/race.

To start from the conclusion, the argument for “multiethnic, multiracial society” cried for by pro-American flunkeyists in South Korea is an unpardonable argument to obliterate the race by denying the homogeneity of the Korean race and to make an immigrant society out of South Korea, to make it a hodgepodge, to Americanize it.

The race (ethnic group) is a social unit of ethnic components formed historically and a community sharing the same fate, and said race exists because it has a character that distinguishes it from other races. Ethnic identity becomes an important weapon in personal and social development. Because of this, all races value their uniqueness and highlight their excellence, and by doing so give strength to awakening and unifying the components of the race. Today, with the wave of “globalization” inundating the world, nations have confronted it and insisted on their ethnic character and built walls to protect it; there is not one nation or race that has denied itself.

In a reality where domination and colonialism threatens the fates of weaker races, to deny the the uniqueness and excellence of our homogenous race is an act of treason preaching the spiritual disarmament of the race.

The pro-American traitors singing the arguments of “multiethnic, multiracial society” have not even a basic understanding of the race’s point of view or the historical development of society and are silly asses without even the slightest ethnic spirit.

Homogeneity, which no other race in the world has, is the pride of our race and becomes the source of the unity needed in the struggle for eternal development and prosperity. Because the homogeneity of the race is so precious, our people have sacrificed blood and lives to walk the long and difficult path of reunification, and now we are cultivating the June 15 era of reunification with all our patriotic fervor. If we cannot save the homogeneity of the race, we cannot protect the fate of either the race of the individual before American schemes for domination, nor can we block the schemes of the Japanese reactionaries to reinvade based on claims of sovereignty over the Dokdo islets. The anti-national character of the arguments for “multiethnic, multiracial society” is that it denies the race itself and entrusts the nation and race to the imperialists.

When people are calling for the entire people to unite their strength and reunify the Fatherland and raise up the majesty of the homogenous race, it’s a serious problem that there arguments to deny the race and obliterate the race have appeared in South Korea. Now is the era of independent unification to end 60 years of division between North and South and to establish the structural homogeneity of the race, and the trend of this age is “to handle things within the race” (uri minjok-ggiri). The argument for a “multiethnic, multiracial society” is a poison that weakens the basic ideology of this era and is anti-reunification logic. Anti-national arguments running counter to the direction of the people in South Korea is clearly the result of criminal schemes by pro-American groups, including the Grand National Party, and behind-the-scenes control by the United States to make the bloodlines of North and South different, block the June 15 era of reunification and make permanent the division of the Korean race.

The issue of mixed-race people being raised in South Korea is completely a product of U.S. military occupation of South Korea. How spiritless these fellows must be that not only do they not raise up the value of having the U.S. military withdraw to bring an end to this tragic reality, but instead are trying to make the problem part of society.

That arguments for a “multiethnic, multiracial society,” which make it impossible to repress ones racial shame and rage, are openly going around South Korea and there are moves to make them a reality shows how dangerous the criminal schemes of the United States to make the world unipolar are.

All sectors of the South Korean people must boldly reject the anti-national schemes of the flunkeyist traitors to toss aside our identity and racial character and even sully the bloodlines of our race and obliterate it. They must also raise up the values of putting the Korean race first and settling everything within our race and actively stand up in the patriotic struggle to protect the Korean race and bring about reunification.

Source

Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE): Stalin

pcmle_00002

Excerpts from a talk held in the Dominican Republic on the 50th anniversary of the death of Comrade Stalin, at the invitation of the Communist Party of Labour.

During his lifetime Comrade Stalin won the admiration and affection of the working class and all the peoples of the vast Soviet Union, as well as the respect and friendship of the workers of the five continents, the fervour and enthusiasm of the communists of all countries. Of course, he elicited the hatred of the reactionaries, imperialists and bourgeois who felt deeply hurt by the colossal achievements of the Soviet Union, by the great economic, cultural, technological and scientific feats of the workers and socialist intelligentsia, by the great and resounding triumphs of the revolution and socialism, of the communists.

In this plot against Stalin by which they fought communism, the Nazi propaganda stood out for its slander and persistence, which did not let one day pass without launching its dire diatribes.

Of course, this counter-revolutionary and anti-communist hatred also characterized Trotsky and his followers.

Shortly after Stalin’s death, the voices of the “communists” who had assumed the leadership of the Soviet Party and the State were added to the chorus of the reactionaries and anti-communists of all countries who had always reviled Stalin.

From then until our day, anti-Stalinism has been the recurring voice of all the reactionaries, of the ideologues of the bourgeoisie, of the Trotskyists, revisionists and opportunists of all shades.

By attacking Stalin, they are trying to tear down the extraordinary achievements of socialism in the Soviet Union and in what had been the socialist camp; they want to minimize and even ignore the great contributions of the Red Army and the Soviet peoples in the decisive struggle against Nazism, to denigrate the Communist Party and the socialist system as totalitarian, as the negation of freedom and democracy. By attacking Stalin they are aiming at Lenin, Marx and socialism. To denigrate Stalin as bloodthirsty and a bureaucrat means to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat and thereby deny the freedom of the workers and peoples, socialist democracy. To slander Stalin as being ignorant and mediocre is to refuse to recognize his great contributions to revolutionary theory, to Marxism-Leninism. To attack Stalin means to deny the necessity of the existence and struggle of the communist party, to transform it into a movement of free thinkers and anarcho-syndicalists, to remove its Leninist essence, democratic centralism.

The height of anti-Stalinism is to call Stalinists those who betrayed the revolution and socialism in the name of doing away with the “crimes of Stalin” and of making the Soviet Union a “democratic country”. The folly of the reactionaries and opportunists does not allow them to recognize that the confessed anti-Stalinists, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, destroyed brick by brick the great work of the Soviet working class and peoples, of the communists, of Lenin and Stalin.

The attacks on Stalin are of such magnitude that even a significant number of social fighters, leftists and revolutionaries have fallen victim to these slanders. Basically, they are sincere people, interested in social and national liberation, who do not know the personality and work of Stalin and therefore join the chorus of these distortions. There are also some petty-bourgeois revolutionaries who attack Stalin from supposedly “humanist” positions.

It is up to us communists to defend the revolutionary truth about Stalin, and it is our responsibility because we are his comrades, the ones who are continuing his work.

The Great October Socialist Revolution was one of the great events of humanity. The workers and peoples of the world’s largest country stood up, undertook a long revolutionary process, led by the Bolshevik Party, which led them to victory in October of 1917. This great feat of the workers and peasants, the soldiers and the intelligentsia was a complex process, full of twists and turns and advances and retreats.

The proletarian revolution that smashed the tsarist empire to pieces was inconceivable without the guidance of Marxism, which established itself as the emancipatory doctrine of the working class; without the efforts of Russian communists, mainly of Lenin by his creative application in the social, economic, cultural, historical and political conditions of old Russia; without the building, existence and struggle of the Bolshevik Party; without the decisive participation of the working class and the millions of poor peasants; without the social and political mobilization of the broad masses; without the existence and fighting of the Red Army; and without the important contribution of the international working class.

Several decades of strikes and street battles; the utilization of parliamentary struggle and the participation of the communists in the Duma; the ideological and political struggle against the bourgeoisie and the tsarist autocracy; the organization of the Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers; the great theoretical and political debate against opportunism within the party that led to the isolation of the Menshevik theses and proposals and to the formation of the Bolshevik Party governed by democratic centralism; the fierce battles against social chauvinism and social pacifism on an international scale; the profuse and fruitful propaganda activity of the communists; the fight to win ideological and political hegemony within the Soviets; the Revolution of 1905 and its lessons; the February Revolution of 1917, its results and consequences; the great armed insurrection of October; the Brest-Litovsk peace agreements; the revolutionary civil war; the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, these constitute the most salient features and characteristics of the struggle for power of the Russian communists, organized in the Bolshevik Party.

Stalin was born in Gori, a small town close to Tbilisi, in Georgia, on December 21, 1879. His father was a shoemaker, the son of serfs, and his mother, a servant, was also the daughter of serfs.

He joined into the ranks of the party in 1898, when he was 19 years old, and since that time his life, thoughts, dreams and his intellectual and physical effort were devoted to the cause of communism, to the fight for the revolution and socialism.

Until March of 1917 when he moved to Petrograd and joined the editorship of Pravda, Stalin had been and was a tireless organizer of trade unions and the party, of demonstrations and strikes, of newspapers and magazines, a student of Marxism and the author of various documents and proposals. He had been in prison and exile, at Party congresses and conferences. He was a fighter and leader of the revolution.

The revolutionary period that began with the February Revolution was the scene of great ideological and political confrontations against the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, but also against the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, and also within the Party. The whole process of winning the majority of the Soviets for the policy of the Bolsheviks had in Stalin a great leader and architect. The preparation of the insurrection, the technical and military contacts and preparations and also the debate within the leadership of the Bolshevik Party found in Stalin a protagonist of the highest order; he was a great comrade of Lenin in all aspects of political work.

Stalin was part of the first Soviet government as a People’s Commissar of Nationalities; he participated actively in the revolutionary civil war as a Commissar and Commander on various fronts and showed his military and political ability in forging and consolidating the young Soviet power and strengthening the Red Army. He was one of the most outstanding leaders of the party, the government and the army.

In 1921, by decision of the party and together with Lenin he participated actively in the foundation of the Third or Communist International, which would play a great role in the organization and leadership of the revolution on the international level.

A great task that the proletarian revolution took up was the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which meant concretely the application of the line of the Party with regard to the nationalities and peoples. The “prison-house of nations” that was the tsarist empire became a community of nations, nationalities and peoples, governed by socialism, which put forward the defence and development of the national cultures and their inclusion in the building of the new society.

Having taken up these responsibilities, his dedication and selflessness in their fulfilment and his theoretical ability made Stalin the General Secretary of the Party in 1922. When Lenin died in 1924, the Political Bureau of the Party designated Stalin as the main leader of the party.

The Communist Party (Bolshevik), under the leadership of Stalin, faithful to the Leninist legacy, pushed through the New Economic Policy (NEP) during the 1920s. Amidst great difficulties, relying on the mobilization of the working class and peasantry, defeating the blockade, sabotage and resistance of the defeated reactionary classes and the force of individual capitalism that emerged in the peasant economy, it succeeded in overcoming the disastrous material, economic and social situation that Russia had been in after the Civil War, with production reduced to 14% of the pre-war period, and which was seen in widespread famine and the profusion of diseases.

In this period a bitter ideological and political battle was being waged within the party between the Bolsheviks and the so-called “‘Left’ communists,” who wanted to “export the revolution” and place the weight of the economy on the peasantry, liquidating it as an ally of the proletariat.

In 1929, the NEP was concluded and the accelerated collectivization of the countryside was begun, the great battle against the kulaks who wanted to reverse the revolutionary process in the countryside.

In 1930, the process of large-scale industrialization was pushed forward with great material efforts and supported by the mobilization of the working class. It was a great feat that required large investments and therefore limited the possibilities for the well-being of the great masses of workers and peasants. Despite this, the revolutionary fervour and enthusiasm allowed for the fulfilment and even over-fulfilment of its goals.

In the West, this was the time of the Great Depression; in the country of the Soviets it was the time of the victorious construction of socialism. The Soviet Union became the second greatest economic and commercial power in the world, after the United States. For eleven years, between 1930 and 1940, the USSR had an average growth of industrial production of 16.5%.

A good part of socialist accumulation had to be invested in the defence and security of the Soviet Union, which had to deal with the arms race to which all the capitalist countries of Europe, the USA and Japan were committed.

For 1938-39, the danger of imperialist war hung over Europe and the world. The German Nazis, the Italian fascists and the Japanese reactionaries were moving quickly to form the Axis. The Western powers headed by the Anglo-French alliance worked feverishly to conclude a pact with Germany in order to encourage it to direct its attacks against the Soviet Union, in order to liquidate the communists, wear down the Germans and enter the war under better conditions. It was a devious and cunning diplomatic game that handed over the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia to the Germans.

The Soviet Union was a developing economic and military power, but its military capability was much weaker than that of Germany, France, England or the USA. It was surrounded by powerful enemies and needed material resources and time to prepare itself for the eventual war which was announced with cannons and aircraft.

The Soviet Union needed to combine international diplomacy and politics with its industrial development and military power. This circumstance forced the communists to devote a large quantity of material resources in this direction, but also to seek diplomatic alternatives that enabled its defence.

Several international meetings, endless proposals and projects were addressed to the chancelleries. The Soviet Union could not establish an alliance against Nazism since the main interest of the Western powers made the Soviet Union their target. In these circumstances and for its defence, in August 1939, the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact of “non-aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union” was signed.

This international treaty gave the Soviet Union precious time to push forward its military industry. Utilizing large material resources and the will of the peoples, in a short time it was able to build planes, tanks, cannons, weapons and ammunition in large quantities and simultaneously it could relocate its key industries located in European Russia to the East, behind the Urals.

World War II broke out in 1939. The Germans invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, the Balkans, France, Belgium and Netherlands and utilizing “blitzkrieg” tactics, the lightening war, in few weeks they destroyed the armies of those countries and imposed puppet governments.

When it came to the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Germans did not have the military capacity to carry out and win with the blitzkrieg; they ran into the resistance of the Red Army, the guerrillas and the great masses of workers and peasants who defended the socialist fatherland. The Red Army put up a fierce resistance and gave way to the Nazi troops, forcing them to penetrate into a vast territory, teeming with guerrillas who persistently harassed them. They could not take Leningrad much less Moscow. In Stalingrad a major battle was waged, street by street, house by house, man by man. The reds resisted and then took the initiative and defeated the German army. That was the beginning of the end of the fascist beast.

The Red Army launched the re-conquest of its territories occupied by the Nazis and advanced victoriously across the mountains and plains of Europe, contributing to the liberation of several of the countries of Eastern Europe, up to Berlin, which was taken on May 9, 1945.

This great victory of the Soviet Union was the fruit of the fortress of socialism, of the unity and will to action of the working class and peoples, of the valour of the Red Army, but it was also a consequence of the diplomatic, political and military genius of the General Staff and the leadership of the Soviet Party and Government, led by Stalin.

At the end of the war, the victory of the revolution took place in several countries of Europe, which established people’s democratic governments, and the victory of the revolution in other Asian countries. The Soviet Union emerged as a great economic and military power that won the affection and respect of workers and peoples of the world, of the patriots and democrats, of the revolutionaries and especially the communists. The Soviet Union, Stalin and the Communist Party were the great protagonists in the defeat of fascism.

The Great Patriotic War meant great human and material sacrifices for the Proletarian State. The victory achieved was built upon the great spiritual heritage of socialism that protected the workers and peoples of the USSR; it was made possible by the great patriotic sentiments with which the Communist Party was able to inspire the bodies and minds of the Soviet peoples, by the deep affection of the workers for Soviet power, by the brave and courageous contribution of the communists who put all their abilities and energy into the defence of socialism. The contribution of the Soviet Union in the Second World War was more than 20 million human beings, of which slightly more than 3 million were brave members of the Bolshevik Party. The Party gave over its best men to the war, it lost invaluable political and military cadres, but it also further tempered the Bolshevik steel, and at the end of the war it had gained more than 5 million new members.

At Yalta and Tehran, at the peace negotiations, the workers and peoples of the world had a great representative, Comrade Stalin, who knew, with wisdom, prudence and composure, how to restore the rights of the peoples and countries that had been victims of the war and fascism, how to contribute to the establishment of agreements and open the way to new levels of democracy and freedom in the world.

World War II was the prelude to the national liberation of dozens of countries on the five continents, who won their independence by breaking with the old colonial order. The Soviet Union led by Stalin was always the safe and reliable rear of this great liberation movement.

In the field of the revolution, the victories achieved in Albania and other countries of Eastern Europe, in China, Korea and Vietnam, gave rise to the formation of the powerful socialist camp. A quarter of the population living on a third of the Earth’s surface were building socialism and had in the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, an enlightening example and unreserved support. In the rest of the world, the working class, the peasantry, the youth and the progressive intelligentsia saw the socialist future of humanity with certainty and confidence.

On the other hand, the end of the Second World War established a new order within the capitalist sphere. The United States became the main world power and had hegemony over the capitalist countries.

There arose a new contradiction in the international sphere: one that opposed the old world of capital to the new world of socialism. The bourgeois ideologues and politicians called this the “cold war”, alluding to the antagonism of the dispute.

Once more the superiority of socialism became evident. In the Soviet Union, but also in the other countries of the socialist camp, the culture and well-being of the masses, science and technology, the social and material progress of the workers and peoples flourished. In 1949 the USSR was able to build the atomic bomb and in 1957 it launched the space race, taking the lead.

Neo-colonialism, a form of imperialist domination that emerged after the independence of the dependent nations and countries, always had a counterweight in the Soviet Union led by Stalin. The peoples of the former colonies always had a loyal friend.

Within a few years, from 1917 to the early years of the 1950s, the proletarians, led by the communists organized in the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, built the dreams of a new world, the world of socialism. They built the essentials, many things were lacking, some failed, but humanity never knew a broader and truer democracy, never before were men in their multitudes able to have material and social well-being, equality among their peers. This was proletarian democracy.

It was an epic of the workers and peoples, the realization in life of the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism, the gigantic effort of the communists, the serene and bold work of the leaders, Lenin and Stalin.

When we speak of Stalin we are referring to the leader, the organizer, the head, the comrade and friend, who was really one of the great builders of the new man, of the new humanity.

This understanding of Stalin cannot be conceived without discovering and learning about his extraordinary theoretical work.

From the beginning of his communist activity he correctly evaluated the role of theory in the process of organizing and making the revolution. He studied the Marxist materials that he had at hand, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, the works of Plekhanov, and soon he began to familiarize himself with Lenin, by his writings and directives, his valour as organizer and head of the communists, until he saw him in person at party events. From that time on they had a great friendship affirmed in militancy and the great commonality of opinions and concerns. Stalin was also a great reader of Russian literature. He was a man of vast culture, which grew daily throughout his life.

How can one not keep in mind in the training of communists in all countries his most outstanding works: Anarchism or Socialism?, Marxism and the National Question, On the Problem of Nationalities, The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, The Foundations of Leninism, Concerning Questions of Leninism, Trotskyism or Leninism?, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Marxism and Linguistics, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, the Reports to the Congresses of the Communist Party.

Stalin was a theoretician of the revolution, a Marxist who recreated and developed revolutionary theory in order to provide answers to the problems put forward by the revolution. He was not a theoretician who speculated with knowledge to try to generate ideas and proposals. No, his theoretical work addressed burning issues that had to do with the development of the class struggle, with the problems that the party, the trade unions, the state and the revolution were facing on an international scale.

The depth of his writings is not at odds with the simple form of making them understood. Stalin is rigorous in his theoretical analysis, his positions are valid; they provide a real guide to action, as he himself pointed out referring to Marxism, but also they are simple and easy to understand.

Stalin’s detractors insist on some issues that we should analyze. All of them: the confessed reactionaries of anti-communism, the Trotskyists, the revisionists and opportunists of all shades agree principally on the following charges: intellectual mediocrity, Lenin’s testament that supposedly condemned him, the building of socialism in a single country, forced collectivization, the bureaucratization of the party and state, the liquidation of the Bolshevik old guard, the great purges, his tyrannical and bloodthirsty character, forced industrialization, his incompetence in the war, the cult of personality.

With regard to Stalin’s intellectual mediocrity, the facts, history and its vicissitudes speak emphatically. The October Revolution, the building of socialism in a large country and for the first time in the history of mankind, his skill in leading the party, the working class and the peoples of the USSR in the great feat of building a new world would not have been possible with a mediocre leader who was poor intellectually. These diatribes fall under their own weight. Trotsky, who claimed to be a great theoretician and man of culture and was one of his detractors in this area, was defeated precisely, in theory and practice, by one who, according to him, was a mediocrity.

In regard to the so-called “Lenin Testament,” a lot of nonsense has been written, such as that Trotsky was the one anointed by Lenin to replace him as head of the Party, as if those notes of Lenin had been hidden by the Central Committee. We say that Lenin’s health was very shaky in those days in which he is supposed to have written the famous “testament”, his sensitivity was weakened by the complaints of his companion. However, Lenin had the revolutionary culture, the Bolshevik training to understand that he could not have written a testament, a last will; he also knew that one leader, whatever his rank, can only give his opinions, not orders, in the collective. For these reasons one must understand these notes of Lenin as opinions; moreover, they were out of the context of the everyday life of the leadership of the Party and State and in no way were they orders to be complied with without question. On the other hand, it is completely false that these notes were hidden from the Central Committee; the latter knew about and discussed them. The results were known; Stalin was chosen the Main Leader of the Bolshevik Party and that was a correct and wise decision. History has shown these facts irrefutably. The one supposedly anointed by Lenin as leader of the Party, Trotsky, was placed by life and the revolutionary struggle in the dustbin of the counter-revolution.

The Leninist thesis of the building of socialism in one country takes into account the uneven development of capitalism and as a consequence the various stages of the class struggle. That situation made it possible to break the chain of imperialism at its weakest link, old Russia. Stalin was the one who continued this line. Relying on the workers and peasants, on the great spiritual and materials reserves of the Soviet peoples he carried out the great feat, defended the revolution and defeated the detractors of this thesis. Those who raised the impossibility of building socialism in the Soviet Union as long as the revolution did not succeed in the capitalist countries of Europe and labelled the peasants as reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries were proven to be wrong. The USSR developed and so far there has been no revolution in any of the capitalist countries in Europe.

On the forced collectivization of the countryside, Stalin’s detractors claim that “he violated the will of the peasants, destroyed the agrarian economy and eliminated the social base of the revolution made up by the medium and rich peasants, the kulaks”. The facts are diametrically opposite. The necessary carrying out of the NEP in the countryside developed the rural bourgeoisie in a natural way and stripped millions of poor farmers of the land, depriving the population of cereals. Basing itself on Marxism-Leninism and taking social reality into account, the Party proposed to bring socialism to the countryside. Relying on the millions of poor peasants, it pushed forward a great social and political movement for the formation of cooperatives, the kolkhozes; this meant the expropriation of the kulaks, in some cases people’s tribunals and drastic sanctions. International reaction spoke of repression and massacres. In reality there was a socialist revolution in the countryside, the work of millions of poor peasants who assumed their role as the protagonists in the life of the country of the Soviets. And, as we know, a revolution unleashes the initiative and achievements of the masses, but also the anger of its enemies. As a result, agriculture and livestock flourished, the Soviet Union became the largest producer of wheat, the mechanization and the modernization of agriculture reached unprecedented levels, at the forefront on the international scale.

Stalin is continually blamed for the bureaucratization that was in reality growing in the party and State. Stalin was never in his life a bureaucrat. Quite the contrary, his dynamism was always expressed in direct contact with the base of the party and with the masses; he was one of the leaders of the Soviets before the revolution. His whole life was in action.

Bureaucracy is a social phenomenon, a degeneration that arises in the bourgeois administration (remember that a good part of the Bolshevik administration had to resort to old tsarist functionaries) that penetrated into the revolutionary ranks, into the party and State. Bureaucracy was really present in the life of the Socialist State; it affected many activists and leaders. In some cases the responsibilities of power were transformed into small or large privileges that were creating a caste of bureaucrats who undermined the functioning of the party and the state administration, which separated the party from the masses.

Stalin did not promote the bureaucracy, but in reality he did not have either the ability or the experience to eliminate it. Several offensives of an ideological character aimed at eliminating it took place, precisely under Stalin’s initiative. The political education, ideological struggle, the validity of democracy in the party, the party elections were expressions of the struggle of the communists against bureaucracy. They cannot be dismissed having been useless. They achieved results; among other things they allowed for the continuation of the social and material achievements of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the ideological, political and organizational cleansing of the party and State, the isolation and expulsion of several groups of opportunists and traitors. However, in fact, they were not able to eradicate the bureaucracy and opportunism. Various opportunists and traitors evaded the ideological struggle and hid. They would return later, after the death of Stalin.

It is clear that bureaucracy is an ideological illness which is persistently reborn and which must be fought relentlessly to the end. Stalin did not promote bureaucracy; rather he was one of its victims.

The accusation made against Stalin that he was a bloody dictator and despot and refers to the ideological cleansing, to the revolutionary repression of the counter-revolutionary outbreaks in the city and countryside, to the alleged liquidation of the Bolshevik old guard.

It is necessary to understand that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a wedding party in which everything is rosy. No, quite the contrary. A whole armed, economic campaign, a trade boycott, an ideological and political penetration by imperialism and the international bourgeoisie was orchestrated against the dictatorship of the proletariat. In opposition to the new power of the workers, from within society, the old ruling classes, overthrown by the revolution but not physically eliminated, repeatedly carried out acts of sabotage; they tried many times to organize rebellions and uprisings, using mercenaries and men and women of the people who were deceived; they based themselves on religion and the priests, on feudal traditions, on liberal elements in the administration and on some occasions they infiltrated their agents into the party and the Soviet State. Within the party itself, in the new State and in the Red Army, there appeared over and over again degenerate elements who made attacks on the dictatorship of the proletariat in theory and practice, who tried to divert the party, to assume its leadership, to organize coups d’état. Some of these elements had been, in the past, outstanding members and leaders of the party and the revolution and they tried, therefore, to take advantage of their positions to change the course of socialism.

The fight to preserve and defend the line of the Party, its ideological, political and organizational unity was bitter and persistent, because again and again, the counter-revolution grew stronger in its attacks and, during Stalin’s life, it was again and again defeated by the force of reason, by the firmness of the Bolsheviks, by the support of the base of the party and the army, by the support of the masses of workers and peasants.

In reality the Bolshevik old guard, those comrades who dreamt of and organized the Great October Revolution, were falling behind. Some fell in combat for the revolution, others were assassinated by the counterrevolution. Others paid the physical tribute of their lives. Some survived Stalin.

The old Bolsheviks, the veteran communists knew how to face their responsibilities, they learned how to solve problems and unknown issues as they arose, they were put at the head of the great feat of building socialism, and were called “old Bolsheviks” not because they were old, but because of their qualities, for their militant and permanent adherence to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, for their quality as communist cadres and fighters.

The fight against the opportunist factions within the Party and State were real battles that mobilized the party, all its members, they were a demonstration of the proletarian firmness of Stalin and his comrades in arms; they constituted one victory after another, that guaranteed the life of the Soviet State, the building of socialism and the continuation of the revolution.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin were the main chieftains of the counter-revolution, who were confronted and defeated, in theory and practice, with the material and political achievements by the political correctness of the party leadership, headed by Stalin.

The dark legend of the work camps, of the confinement, of psychiatric hospitals, of prisons overcrowded with workers and communists, of the mass executions and mass graves are nothing more than the infamous slander of the reactionaries and imperialism, of the Nazis and social democracy, of the Trotskyists and revisionists, of the opportunists. They cannot be proved by any records much less by the existence of concentration camps and mass graves. They fall under their own weight.

Much has been said about Stalin’s incompetence in leading the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality Stalin was not a soldier by training, he did not study in any academy nor could he claim mastery of the military arts, a thorough knowledge of weapons and military strategy and tactics. But it is clear that he was a proletarian revolutionary soldier who learned this art in the very course of the revolutionary civil war in the first years of Soviet power, that he was steeled as such in the difficult years of the building of socialism and that he played an outstanding role in the leadership of the Great Patriotic War, in the resistance against the Nazi invading hordes and in the great political and military offensive that drove the Red Army to take Berlin. No one has claimed that Stalin was a great Military Leader, all the revolutionaries recognize him as the leader of the Soviet proletariat and the peoples, as the political leader of the international proletariat, as a proletarian revolutionary, as a communist.

The accusations that Stalin promoted and used the whole gamut of praise and exaggerations that have been called the “cult of personality” for his prestige continue to be a part of the anti-communist arsenal.

In fact, Stalin daily received praise and recognition from his comrades and friends, from the workers and peasants who expressed them from their heart to express gratitude and recognition. There was also the praise of the opportunists who sought favours from him. The former demonstrations were sincere, a product of the generous spirit of the workers and people, the latter had a dual intention, based on facts; they tried to elevate Stalin above others, above the events and in this way to personally take advantage of this situation.

The cult of personality was in fact a defect of the first experience in the building of socialism. It began with good intentions, but finally it degenerated, it hurt Soviet power and Stalin himself. This is an incontestable fact. But to argue from there that Stalin himself encouraged these campaigns, that he became an egomaniac, a narcissist is a big lie.

Many pages and books can be written about Stalin. In fact there are thousands of publications about his life and work. There are those of his comrades and friends, but also those of his enemies and detractors. In fact the life of Stalin is the life of the first proletarian revolution itself. Stalin did not make the revolution to his measure; the revolution projected Stalin as one of its best sons and leaders.

Pablo Miranda
Ecuador, 2012

Source

Bruce Franklin’s Introduction to “The Essential Stalin”

franklin_h_bruce_w480

Please note the posting of this introduction to the book “The Essential Stalin” does not necessarily imply support of Franklin’s political line.

 — E.S.

I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who jailed and killed millions, betrayed the Russian revolution, sold out liberation struggles around the world, and ended up a solitary madman, hated and feared by the people of the Soviet Union and the world. Even today I have trouble saying the name “Stalin” without feeling a bit sinister.

But, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe. The people of China, Vietnam, Korea, and Albania consider Stalin one of the great heroes of modern history, a man who personally helped win their liberation.

This belief could be dismissed as the product of an equally effective brainwashing from the other side, except that the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union, who knew Stalin best, share this view. For almost two decades the Soviet rulers have systematically attempted to make the Soviet people accept the capitalist world’s view of Stalin, or at least to forget him. They expunged him from the history books, wiped out his memorials, and even removed his body from his tomb.

Yet, according to all accounts, the great majority of the Soviet people still revere the memory of Stalin, and bit by bit they have forced concessions. First it was granted that Stalin had been a great military leader and the main antifascist strategist of World War II. Then it was conceded that he had made important contributions to the material progress of the Soviet people. Now a recent Soviet film shows Stalin, several years before his death, as a calm, rational, wise leader.

But the rulers of the Soviet Union still try to keep the people actually from reading Stalin. When they took over, one of their first acts was to ban his writings. They stopped the publication of his collected works, of which thirteen volumes had already appeared, covering the period only through 1934. This has made it difficult throughout the world to obtain Stalin’s writings in the last two decades of his life. Recently the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, whose purpose, as stated by its founder, Herbert Hoover, is to demonstrate the evils of the doctrines of Karl Marx” completed the final volumes in Russian so that they would be available to Stanford’s team of émigré anti-Communists (In. preparing. this volume, I was able to use the Hoover collection of writings by and about Stalin only by risking jail, directly violating my banishment by court injunction from this Citadel of the Free World.)

The situation in the U.S. is not much different from that in the U.S.S.R. In fact the present volume represents the first time since 1955 that a major publishing house in either country has authorized the publication of Stalin’s works. U.S. capitalist publishers have printed only Stalin’s wartime diplomatic correspondence and occasional essays, usually much abridged, in anthologies. Meanwhile his enemies and critics are widely published. Since the early 1920s there have been basically two opposing lines claiming to represent Marxism-Leninism, one being Stalin’s and the other Trotsky’s. The works of Trotsky are readily available in many inexpensive editions. And hostile memoirs, such as those of Khrushchev and Svetlana Stalin, are actually serialized in popular magazines.

The suppression of Stalin’s writings spreads the notion that he did not write anything worth reading. Yet Stalin is clearly one of the three most important historical figures of our century, his thought and deeds still affecting our daily lives, considered by hundreds of millions today as one of the leading political theorists of any time, his very name a strongly emotional household word throughout the world. Anyone familiar with the development of Marxist-Leninist theory in the past half century knows that Stalin was not merely a man of action. Mao names him “the greatest genius of our time,” calls himself Stalin’s disciple, and argues that Stalin’ s theoretical works are still the core of world Communist revolutionary strategy.

Gaining access to Stalin’s works is not the hardest part of coming to terms with him. First we must recognize that there can be no “objective” or “neutral” appraisal of Stalin, any more than there can be of any major historical figure during the epochs of class struggle. From the point of view of some classes, George Washington was an arrogant scoundrel and traitor to his country, king, and God, a renegade who brought slaughter and chaos to a continent; Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of millions and the destruction of a civilized, cultured, harmonious society based on the biblically sanctioned relationship with the black descendants of Ham; Sitting Bull was a murderous savage who stood in the way of the progress of a superior civilization; Eldridge Cleaver, George and Jonathan Jackson, Ruchell Magee and Angela Davis are vicious murderers, while Harry Truman, Nelson Rockefeller, Mayor Daley, John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon are rational and patriotic men who use force only when necessary to protect the treasured values of the Free World.

Any historical figure must be evaluated from the interests of one class or another. Take J. Edgar Hoover, for example. Anti-Communists may disagree about his performance, but they start from the assumption that the better he did his job of preserving “law and order” as defined by our present rulers the better he was. We Communists, on the other hand, certainly would not think Hoover “better” if he had been more efficient in running the secret police and protecting capitalism. And so the opposite with Stalin, whose job was not to preserve capitalism but to destroy it, not to suppress communism but to advance it. The better he did his job, the worse he is likely to seem to all those who profit from this economic system and the more he will be appreciated by the victims of that system. The Stalin question is quite different for those who share his goals and for those, who oppose them. For the revolutionary people of the world it is literally a life and-death matter to have a scientific estimate of Stalin, because he was, after all, the principal leader of the world revolution for thirty crucial years.

I myself have seen Stalin from both sides. Deeply embedded in my consciousness and feelings was that Vision of Stalin as tyrant and butcher. This was part of my over-all view of communism as a slave system, an idea that I was taught in capitalist society. Communist society was not red but a dull-gray world. It was ruled by a secret clique of powerful men. Everybody else worked for these few and kept their mouths shut. Propaganda poured from all the media. The secret police were everywhere, tapping phones, following people on the street, making midnight raids. Anyone who spoke out would lose his job, get thrown in jail, or even get shot by the police. One of the main aims of the government was international aggression, starting wars to conquer other counties. When I began to discover that this entire vision point by point described my own society a number of questions arose in my mind.

For me, as for millions of others in the United States it was the Vietnamese who forced a change in perception. How could we fail to admire the Vietnamese people and to see Ho Chi Minh as one of the great heroes of our times? What stood out not about Ho was his vast love for the people and his dedication to serving them. (In 1965, before I became a Communist, I spoke at a rally soliciting blood for the Vietnamese victims of U.S. bombing. When I naively said that Ho was a nationalist above being a Communist and a human being above being a nationalist, I was pelted with garbage and, much to my surprise, called a “dirty Commie. But we were supposed to believe that Ho was a “tyrant and butcher.” Later, it dawned on me that Fidel Castro was also supposed to be a “tyrant and butcher” although earlier we had been portrayed as a freedom fighter against the Batista dictatorship. Still later, I began to study the Chinese revolution, and found in Mao’s theory and preaches the guide for my own thinking and action. But, again, we were Supposed to see Mao as a “tyrant and butcher” and also a “madman” the more I looked into it, the more I found that these “tyrants and butchers” – Ho, Fidel, and Mao – were all depicted servants of the people, inspired by a deep and self-sacrificing love for them. At some point, I began to wonder if perhaps even Stalin was not a “tyrant and butcher.”

With this thought came intense feelings that must resemble – what someone in a tribe experiences when violating a taboo. But if we want to understand the world we live in, we must face Stalin.

Joseph Stalin personifies a major aspect of three decades of twentieth-century history. If we seek answers to any of the crucial questions about the course of our century, at some point we find Stalin standing directly in our path. Is it possible for poor and working people to make a revolution and then wield political power? Can an undeveloped, backward nation whose people are illiterate, impoverished, diseased, starving, and lacking in all the skills and tools needed to develop their productive forces possibly achieve both material and cultural well-being? Can this be done under a condition of encirclement by hostile powers, greedy for conquest, far more advanced industrially and, militantly: and fanatical in their opposition to any people s revolutionary government? What price must be paid for the success of revolutionary development? Can national unity be achieved in a vast land inhabited by many peoples of diverse races, religions, culture, language, and levels of economic development?

Is it possible to attain international unity among the exploited and oppressed peoples of many different nations whose governments depend upon intense nationalism and the constant threat of war? Then, later, can the people of any modern highly industrialized society also have a high degree of freedom, or must the state be their enemy? Can any society flourish without some form of ruling elite?

These questions are all peculiarly modern, arising in the epoch of capitalism as it reaches its highest form, modern imperialism, and becoming critical in our own time, the era of global revolution. Each of these questions leads us inevitably to Stalin. In my opinion, it is not going too far to say that Stalin is the key figure of our era.

All the achievements and all the failures, all the strengths and all the weaknesses, of the Soviet revolution and indeed of the world revolution in the period 1922-53 are summed up in Stalin. This is not to say that he is personally responsible for all that was and was not accomplished, or that nobody else could have done what he did. We are not dealing with a “great man” theory of history. In fact, quite the opposite. If we are to understand Stalin at all, and evaluate him from the point of view of either of two major opposing classes, we must see him, like all historical figures, as a being created by his times and containing the contradictions of those times. .

Every idea of Stalin’s, as he would be the first to admit, came to him from his historical existence, which also fixed limits to the ideas available to him. He could study history in order to learn from the experience of the Paris Commune but he could not look into a crystal ball to benefit from the lessons of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. And the decisions he made also had fixed and determined limits on either side, as we shall see.

To appraise Stalin, the best way to begin is to compare the condition of the Soviet Union and the rest of the world at two times: when he came into leadership and when he died. Without such a comparison, it is impossible to measure what he may have contributed or taken away from human progress. If the condition of the Soviet people was much better when he died than when he took power, he cannot have made their lives worse. The worst that can be said is that they would have progressed more without him. The same is true for the world revolution. Was it set back during the decades of his leadership, or did it advance? Once we put the questions this way, the burden of proof falls on those who deny Stalin’s positive role as a revolutionary leader.

As World War I began, the Russian Empire consisted primarily of vast undeveloped lands inhabited by many different peoples speaking a variety of languages with a very low level of literacy, productivity, technology, and health. Feudal Social relations still prevailed throughout many of these lands. Czarist secret police, officially organized bands of military terrorists, and a vast bureaucracy were deployed to keep the hungry masses of workers and peasants in line.

The war brought these problems to a crisis. Millions went to their deaths wearing rags, with empty stomachs, often waiting for those in front of them to fall so they could have a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition. When the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, the entire vast empire, including the great cities of Russia itself, was in chaos.

Before the new government could begin to govern, it was Immediately set upon by the landlords, capitalists, and generals of the old regime, with all the forces they could buy and muster, together with combined military forces of Britain, France, Japan, and Poland, and additional military contingents from the U.S. and other capitalist countries. A vicious civil war raged for three years, from Siberia through European Russia, from the White Sea to the Ukraine. At the end of the Civil War, in 1920, agricultural output was less than half that of the prewar poverty-stricken countryside. Even worse was the situation in industry.

Many mines and factories had been destroyed. Transport had been torn up. Stocks of raw materials and semi finished products had been exhausted. The output of large-scale industry was about one seventh of what it had been before the war. And the fighting against foreign military intervention had to go on for two more years. Japanese and U.S. troops still held a portion of Siberia, including the key port city of Vladivostok, which was not recaptured until 1922.

Lenin suffered his first stroke in 1922. From this point on, Stalin, who was the General Secretary of the Central Committee, began to emerge as the principal leader of the Party. Stalin’s policies were being implemented at least as early as 1924, the year of Lenin’s death, and by 1927 the various opposing factions had been defeated and expelled from the Party. It is the period of the early and mid-1920s that we must compare to 1953.

The Soviet Union of the early 1920s was a land of deprivation. Hunger was everywhere, and actual mass famines swept across much of the countryside. Industrial production was extremely low, and the technological Level of industry was so backward that there seemed little possibility of mechanizing agriculture. Serious rebellions in the armed forces were breaking out, most notably at the Kronstadt garrison in 1921.

By 1924 large-scale peasant revolts were erupting, particularly in Georgia. There was virtually no electricity outside the large cities. Agriculture was based on the peasant holdings and medium-sized farms seized by rural capitalists (the kulaks) who forced the peasants back into wage Labor and tenant fanning. Health care was almost non-existent in much of the country. The technical knowledge and skills needed to develop modern industry, agriculture, health, and education were concentrated in the hands of a few, mostly opposed to socialism while the vast majority of the population were illiterate and could hardly think about education while barely managing to subsist. The Soviet Union was isolated in a world controlled by powerful capitalist countries physically surrounding it, setting up economic blockades, and officially refusing to recognize its existence while outdoing each other in their pledges to wipe out this Red menace.

The counterrevolution was riding high throughout Europe Great Britain, and even in the U.S.A., where the Red threat was used as an excuse to smash labor unions. Fascism was emerging in several parts of the capitalist world, particularly in Japan and in Italy, where Mussolini took dictatorial power in 1924. Most of the world consisted of colonies and neo-colonies of the European powers.

When Stalin died in 1953, the Soviet Union was the second greatest industrial, scientific, and military power in the world and showed clear signs of moving to overtake the U.S. in all these areas. This was despite the devastating losses it suffered while defeating the fascist powers of Germany, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The various peoples of the U.S.S.R. were unified. Starvation and illiteracy were unknown throughout the country. Agriculture was completely collectivized and extremely productive. Preventive health care was the finest in the world, and medical treatment of exceptionally high quality was available free to all citizens. Education at all levels was free. More books were published in the U.S.S.R. than in any other country. There was no unemployment.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, not only had the main fascist powers of 1922-45 been defeated, but the forces of revolution were on the rise everywhere. The Chinese Communist Party had just led one-fourth of the world’s population to victory over foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism and capitalism. Half of Korea was socialist, and the U.S.-British imperialist army, having rushed to intervene in the civil war under the banner of the United Nations  was on the defensive and hopelessly demoralized. In Vietnam, strong socialist power, which had already defeated Japanese Imperialism, was administering the final blows to the beaten army of the French empire. The monarchies and fascist military dictatorships of Eastern Europe had been destroyed by a combination of partisan forces, led by local Communists, and the Soviet Army; everywhere except for Greece there were now governments that supported the world revolution and at least claimed to be governments of the workers and peasants. The largest political party in both France and Italy was the Communist Party. The national liberation movement among the European colonies and neo-colonies was surging forward. Between 1946 and 1949 alone, at least nominal national independence was achieved by Burma, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Laos, Libya, Ceylon, Jordan, and the Philippines, countries comprising about one-third of the world’s population. The entire continent of Africa was stirring.

Everybody but the Trotskyites, and even some of them would have to admit that the situation for the Communist world revolution was incomparably advanced in 1953 over what it had been in the early or mid 1920s. Of course, that does not settle the Stalin question. We still have to ask whether Stalin contributed to this tremendous advance, or slowed it down or had negligible influence on it. And we must not duck the question as to whether Stalin’s theory and practice built such serious faults into revolutionary communism that its later failures, particularly in the Soviet Union, can be pinned on him.

So let us look through Stalin’s career focusing particularly on its most controversial aspects.

“Stalin” which means “steel-man,” was the code name for a Young Georgian revolutionary born as Joseph Visvarionovich Djugashvili in 1879 in the town of Gori. His class origins combine the main forces of the Russian revolution.

His father formerly a village cobbler of peasant background, became a’ worker in a shoe factory. His mother was the daughter of peasant serfs. So Stalin was no stranger to either workers or peasants, and being from Georgia, he had firsthand knowledge of how Czarist Russia oppressed the non-Russian peoples of its empire. .

While studying at the seminary for a career as a priest, he made his first contact with the Marxist underground at the age of fifteen, and at eighteen he formally joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, which was to evolve into the Communist Party. Shortly after joining the party in 1898, he became convinced that Lenin was the main theoretical leader of the revolution, particularly when Lenin’s newspaper Iskra began to appear in 1900. After being thrown out of his seminary, Stalin concentrated on organizing workers in the area of Tiflis, capital of Georgia, and the Georgian industrial City of Batumi. After one of his many arrests by the Czarist secret police, he began to correspond with Lenin from exile.

Escaping from Siberian exile in 1904, Stalin returned to organizing workers in the cities of Georgia, where mass strikes were beginning to assume a decidedly political and revolutionary character. Here he began to become one of the main spokesmen for Lenin’s theory, as we see in the first two selections in this volume. In December 1904 he led a huge strike of the Baku workers, which helped precipitate the abortive Russian revolution of 1905. During the revolution and after it was suppressed, Stalin was one of the main Bolshevik underground and military organizers, and was frequently arrested by the secret police. At the Prague Conference of 1912, in which the Bolsheviks completed the split with the Mensheviks and established themselves as a separate party, Stalin was elected in absentia to the Central Committee, a position he was to maintain for over four decades. Then, on the eve of World War I, he published what may properly be considered his first major contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory, Marxism and the National Question.

Prior to World War I, the various social-democratic parties of Europe were loosely united in the Second International.

All pledged themselves to international proletarian solidarity. But when the war broke out, the theory Stalin had developed in Marxism and the National Question proved to be crucial and correct. As Stalin had foreseen, every party that had compromised with bourgeois nationalism ended up leading the workers of its nation to support their “own” bourgeois rulers by going out to kill and be killed by the workers of the other nations. Lenin, Stalin, and the other Bolsheviks took a quite different position. They put forward the slogan “Turn the imperialist war into a civil war.” Alone of all the parties of the Second International, they came out for actual armed revolution.

In February 1917 the workers, peasants and soldiers of Russia, in alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie, overthrew the czarist autocracy, which had bled the country dry and brought it to ruin in a war fought to extend the empire. The liberal bourgeoisie established a new government. The next few months led to a key moment in history. Most of the parties that claimed to be revolutionary now took the position that the Russian proletariat was too weak and backward to assume political power. They advocated that the proletariat should support the new bourgeois government and enter a long period of capitalist development until someday in the future when they could begin to think about socialism. This view even penetrated the Bolsheviks. So when Stalin was released from his prison exile in March and the Central Committee brought him back to help lead the work in St. Petersburg, he found a heavy internal struggle. He took Lenin’s position, and, being placed in charge of the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda, was able to put it forward vigorously to the masses. When the Central Committee finally decided, in October, to lead the workers and soldiers of St. Petersburg to seize the Winter Palace and establish a proletarian government, it was over the violent objections of many of the aristocratic intellectuals who, much to their own surprise and discomfort had found themselves in an actual revolutionary situation. Two of them, Zinoviev and Kamenev, even went so far as to inform the bourgeois newspapers that the Bolsheviks had a secret plan to seize power. After the virtually bloodless seizure by the workers and soldiers took place, a third member of the Central Committee, Rykov, joined Zinoviev and Kamenev in a secret deal made with the bourgeois parties whereby the Bolsheviks would resign from power, the press would be returned to the bourgeoisie, and Lenin would be permanently barred from holding public office. (All this is described in John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, which was first published in 1919. I mention this because Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Rykov were three of the central figures of the purge trials of the 1930s, and it is they who have been portrayed as stanch Bolsheviks in such works as Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.)

During the Civil War, which followed the seizure of power, Stalin began to emerge as an important military leader.

Trotsky was nominally the head of the Red Army. Behaving, as he always did, in the primacy of technique, Trotsky took as one of his main tasks winning over the high officers of the former czarist army and turning them into the general command of the revolutionary army. The result was defeat after defeat for the Red forces, either through outright betrayal by their aristocratic officers or because these officers tried to apply military theories appropriate to a conscript or mercenary army to the leadership of a people’s army made up of workers and peasants. Stalin, on the other hand, understood the military situation from the point of view of the workers and peasants, and with a knowledge of their capabilities and limitations.

In 1919 Stalin was sent as a special plenipotentiary to the key Volga city of Tsaritsyn. His mission was simply to assure the delivery of food supplies from this entire region. What he found was a disastrous military situation, with the city not only surrounded by the White Army but heavily infiltrated by counterrevolutionary forces. He saw that the food supply could not be safeguarded unless the military and political situations were dealt with. He instituted an uncompromising purge of counterrevolutionary elements within both the officer corps and the political infrastructure, took personal command of the military forces over the heads of both the local authorities and Trotsky, and then proceeded to save the city, the region, and the food supply. Trotsky, furious, demanded his recall. As for the citizens of Tsaritsyn, their opinion became known six years later, when they renamed their city Stalingrad.

After this episode, rather than being recalled, Stalin was dispatched far and wide to every major front in the Civil War. In each and every place, he was able to win the immediate respect of the revolutionary people and to lead the way to military victory, even in the most desperate circumstances.

Certain qualities emerged more and more clearly, acknowledged by both friends and enemies. These were his enormous practicality and efficiency, his worker peasant outlook, and the unswerving way he proceeded to the heart of every problem. By the end of the war, Stalin was widely recognized as a man who knew how to run things, a quality sorely lacking among most of the aristocratic intellectuals who then saw themselves as great proletarian leaders. In April 1922 he was made General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. It was in this position that Stalin was quickly to become the de facto leader of the Party and the nation.

Stalin’s career up to this point is relatively uncontroversial in comparison with everything that follows. But nothing at all about Stalin is beyond controversy. Most of his biographers in the capitalist world minimize his revolutionary activities prior to 1922. At least two influential biographies, Boris Souvarine’s Stalin (1939) and Edward Ellis Smith’s The Young Stalin (1967), even argue that during most of this period Stalin was actually an agent for the czarist secret police. Trotsky’s mammoth biography Stalin (1940) not only belittles Stalin’s revolutionary activities but actually sees his life and “moral stature” predetermined by his racially defined genetic composition; after discussing whether or not Stalin had “an admixture of Mongolian blood,” Trotsky decides that in any case he was one perfect type of the national character of southern countries such as Georgia, where, “in addition to the so-called Southern type, which is characterized by a combination of lazy shiftlessness and explosive irascibility, one meets cold natures, in whom phlegm is combined with stubbornness and slyness.” The most influential biographer of all, Trotsky’s disciple Isaac Deutscher, is a bit more subtle, blaming Stalin’s crude and vicious character not on his race but on his low social class:

The revolutionaries from the upper classes (such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rakovsky, Radek, Lunacharsky, and Chicherin) came into the Socialist movement with inherited cultural traditions. They brought into the milieu of the revolution some of the values and qualities of their own milieu-not only knowledge, but also refinement of thought, speech, and manners. Indeed, their Socialist rebellion was itself the product of moral sensitiveness and intellectual refinement. These were precisely the qualities that life had not been kind enough to cultivate in Djugashvili [Stalin]. On the contrary, it had heaped enough physical and moral squalor in his path to blunt his sensitiveness and his taste. (Stalin, Political Biography, p. 26)

Although there are vastly different views of Stalin’s career up to this point, his activities are relatively less controversial, because they are relatively less important. Whatever Stalin’s contribution, there is still a good chance that even without him Lenin could have led the revolution and the Red forces would have won the Civil War. But, from this point on, there are at least two widely divergent, in fact wildly contradictory, versions of Stalin’s activities and their significance. Most readers of this book have heard only one side of this debate, the side of Trotsky and the capitalist world. I shall not pretend to make a “balanced presentation,” but instead give a summary of the unfamiliar other side of the argument.

Everyone, friend and foe alike, would agree that at the heart of the question of Stalin lies the theory and practice of “socialism in one country.” All of Stalin’s major ideological opponents in one way or another took issue with this theory.

Actually, the theory did not originate with Stalin but with Lenin. In 1915, in his article “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” Lenin argued that “the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.” He foresaw “a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle” internationally that could begin like this in one country: “After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world-the capitalist world-attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.”

Of course, at the end of World War I most Bolsheviks (and many capitalists) expected revolution to break out in many of the European capitalist countries. In fact, many of the returning soldiers did turn their guns around. A revolutionary government was established in Hungary and Slovakia.

Germany and Bulgaria for a while were covered by soviets of workers, peasants, and soldiers. But counterrevolution swept all these away.

Trotsky and his supporters continued to believe that the proletariat of Europe was ready to make socialist revolution.

They also believed that unless this happened, the proletariat would be unable to maintain power in the Soviet Union.

They belittled the role of the peasantry as an ally of the Russian proletariat and saw very little potential in the national liberation movements of the predominantly peasant countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Their so-called “Left opposition” put forward the theory, of “permanent revolution,” which pinned its hopes on an imminent uprising of the industrial proletariat of Europe. They saw the world revolution then spreading outward from these “civilized” countries to the “backward” regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Meanwhile there also developed what was later to be called the “Right opposition,” spearheaded by Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev. They were realistic enough to recognize that the revolutionary tide was definitely ebbing in Europe, but they concluded from this that the Soviet Union would have to be content to remain for a long time a basically agricultural country without pretending to be a proletarian socialist state.

Stalin was not about to give up on socialism in the Soviet Union simply because history was not turning out exactly the way theorists had wanted, with revolution winning out quickly in the most advanced capitalist countries. He saw that the Soviet revolution had indeed been able to maintain itself against very powerful enemies at home and abroad. Besides, the Soviet Union was a vast country whose rich natural resources gave it an enormous potential for industrial and social development. He stood for building socialism in this one country and turning it into an inspiration and base area for the oppressed classes and nations throughout the world. He believed that, helped by both the example and material support of a socialist Soviet Union, the tide of revolution would eventually begin rising again, and that, in turn, proletarian revolution in Europe and national liberation struggles in the rest of the world would eventually break the Soviet isolation.

There are two parts to the concept of socialism in one country. Emphasis is usually placed only on the part that says “one country.” Equally important is the idea that only socialism, and not communism, can be achieved prior to the time when the victory of the world revolution has been won. A communist society would have no classes, no money, no scarcity, and no state that is, no army, police force, prisons, and courts. There is no such society in the world, and no society claims to be Communist. A socialist society, according to Marxism-Leninism, is the transitional form on the road to communism. Classes and class struggle still exist, all the material needs of the people have not as yet been met, and there is indeed a state, a government of the working class known as the dictatorship of the proletariat (as opposed to the government of capitalist nations, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie).

Neither Lenin nor Stalin ever had any illusion that any single country, even one as vast and potentially rich as the Soviet Union, would ever be able to establish a stateless, classless society while capitalism still had power in the rest of the world. But Stalin, like Lenin, did believe that the Soviet Union could eliminate capitalism, industrialize, extend the power of the working class, and wipe out real material privation all during the period of capitalist encirclement.

To do this, Stalin held, the proletariat would have to rely on the peasantry. He rejected Trotsky’s scorn for the Russian peasants and saw them, rather than the European proletariat, as the only ally that could come to the immediate aid of the Russian workers.

When the Civil War ended, in 1921, with most of the Soviet Union in chaotic ruin, Lenin won a struggle against Trotsky within the Party to institute what was called the New Economic Policy (NEP), under which a limited amount of private enterprise based on trade was allowed to develop in both the cities and the countryside. NEP was successful in averting an immediate total catastrophe, but by 1925 it was becoming clear that this policy was also creating problems for the development of socialism. This brings us to the first great crux of the Stalin question.

We have been led to believe that in order to industrialize at any price; Stalin pursued a ruthless policy of forced collectivization, deliberately murdering several million peasants known as kulaks during the process. The truth is quite different.

When the Bolsheviks seized power, one of their first acts was to allow the poor peasants to seize the huge landed estates. The slogan was “Land to the tiller.” This, however, left most land in the form of tiny holdings, unsuited for large-scale agriculture, particularly the production of the vital grain crops. Under NEP, capitalism and a new form of landlordism began to flourish in the countryside. The class known as kulaks (literally “tight-fists”), consisting of usurers and other small capitalists including village merchants and rich peasants, were cornering the market in the available grain, grabbing more and more small holdings of land, and, through their debt holdings, forcing peasants back into tenant farming and wage labor. Somehow, the small peasant holdings had to be consolidated so that modern agriculture could begin. There were basically two ways this could take place: either through capitalist accumulation, as the kulaks were then doing, or through the development of large-scale socialist farms. If the latter, there was then a further choice: a rapid forced collectivization, or a more gradual process in which co-operative farms would emerge first, followed by collectives, and both would be on a voluntary basis, winning out by example and persuasion. What did Stalin choose?

Here, in his own words, is the policy he advocated and that was adopted at the Fifteenth Party Congress, in 1927:

What is the way out? The way out is to turn the small and scattered peasant farms into large united farms based on cultivation of the land in common, to go over to collective cultivation of the land on the basis of a new and higher technique.

The way out is to unite the small and dwarf peasant farms gradually but surely, not by pressure, but by example and persuasion, into large farms based on common, cooperative, collective cultivation of the land with the use of agricultural machines and tractors and scientific methods of intensive agriculture.

There is no other way out.

To implement this policy, the capitalist privileges allowed under NEP were revoked. This was known as the restriction of the kulaks. The kulaks, whose very existence as a class was thus menaced, struck back. They organized terrorist bands who attacked the co-operatives and collectives, burning down barns when they were filled with grain, devastating the fields, and even murdering Communist peasant leaders.

Even more serious than these raids, the kulaks held back their own large supplies of grain from the market in an effort to create hunger and chaos in the cities. The poor and middle peasants struck back. Virtual open civil war began to rage throughout the countryside. As the collective farm movement spread rapidly, pressure mounted among the poor and middle peasants to put an end to landlordism and usury in the countryside for good. In 1929 Stalin agreed that the time had come to eliminate the kulaks as a class. He led the fight to repeal the laws that allowed the renting of land and the hiring of labor, thus depriving the kulaks both of land and of hired workers. The ban on expropriation of the large private holdings was lifted, and the peasants promptly expropriated the kulak class. The expropriation of the rural capitalists in the late 1920s was just as decisive as the expropriation of the urban capitalists a decade earlier. Landlords and village usurers were eliminated as completely as private factory owners. It is undoubtedly true that in many areas there was needless violence and suffering. But this did not originate with Stalin. It was the hour of Russia’s peasant masses, who had been degraded and brutalized for centuries and who had countless blood debts to settle with their oppressors. Stalin may have unleashed their fury, but he was not the one who had caused it to build up for centuries. In fact it was Stalin who checked the excesses generated by the enthusiasm of the collective movement. In early 1930 he published in Pravda “Dizzy with Success,” reiterating that “the voluntary principle” of the collective farm movement must under no circumstances be violated and that anybody who engages in forced collectivization objectively aids the enemies of socialism. Furthermore, he argues, the correct form for the present time is the co-operative (known as the artel) , in which “the household plots (small vegetable gardens, small orchards), the dwelling houses, a part of the dairy cattle, small livestock, poultry, etc., are not socialized.”

Again, overzealous attempts to push beyond this objectively aid the enemy. The movement must be based on the needs and desires of the masses of peasants.

Stalin’s decision about the kulaks perfectly exemplifies the limits under which he operated. He could decide, as he did, to end the kulaks as a class by allowing the poor and middle peasants’ to expropriate their land. Or he could decide to let the kulaks continue withholding their grain from the starving peasants and workers, with whatever result. He might have continued bribing the kulaks. But it is highly doubtful, to say the least, that he had the option of persuading the kulaks into becoming good socialists.

There can be no question that, whatever may be said about its cost, Stalin’s policy in the countryside resulted in a vast, modern agricultural system, capable, for the first time in history, of feeding all the peoples of the Soviet lands. Gone were the famines that seemed as inevitable and were as vicious as those of China before the revolution or of India today.

Meanwhile, Stalin’s policy of massive industrialization was going full speed ahead. His great plan for a modern, highly industrialized Soviet Union has been so overwhelmingly successful that we forget that it was adopted only over the bitter opposition of most of the Party leaders, who thought it a utopian and therefore suicidal dream. Having overcome this opposition on both the right and “left,” Stalin in 1929 instituted the first five-year plan in the history of the world.

It was quickly over fulfilled. By the early 1930s the Soviet Union had clearly become both the inspiration and the main material base area for the world revolution. And it was soon will prove much more than a match for the next military onslaught from the capitalist powers, which Stalin had predicted and armed against.

This brings us to the second great crux of the Stalin question, the “left” criticism, originating with Trotsky and then widely disseminated by the theorists of what used to be called “the New Left.” This criticism holds that Stalin was just a nationalist who sold out revolution throughout the rest of the world. The debate ranges over all the key events of twentieth-century history and can be only touched on in an essay.

Stalin’s difference with Trotsky on the peasantry was not confined to the role of the peasantry within the Soviet Union.

Trotsky saw very little potential in the national liberation movements in those parts of the world that were still basically peasant societies. He argued that revolution would come first to the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and North America and would then spread to the “uncivilized” areas of the world. Stalin, on the other hand saw that the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa, and Latin America were key to the development of the world revolution because objectively they were leading the fight against imperialism.

We see this argument developed clearly as early as 1924, In “The Foundations of Leninism,” where he argues that “the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British ‘Labor’ movement is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origins and the proletarian title of the members of hat government, despite the fact that they are ‘for’ socialism. To most European Marxists, this was some kind of barbarian heresy. But Ho Chi Minh expressed the view of many Communists from the colonies in that same year, 1924, when he recognized that Stalin was the leader of the only Party that stood with the national liberation struggles and when he agreed with Stalin that the viewpoint of most other so-called Marxists on the national question was nothing short of “counterrevolutionary” (Ho Chi Minh Report on the National and Colonial Questions at the Fifth Congress of the Communist International).

The difference between Stalin’s line and Trotsky’s line and the falsification of what Stalin’s line was, can be seen most clearly on the question of the Chinese revolution. The typical “left” view prevalent today is represented in David Horowitz’s The Free World Colossus (1965), which asserts “Stalin’s continued blindness to the character and potential of the Chinese Revolution.” Using as his main source a Yugoslav biography of Tito, Horowitz blandly declares: “Even after the war, when it was clear to most observers that Chiang was finished, Stalin did not think much of the prospects of Chinese Communism” (p. Ill).

Mao’s opinion of Stalin is a little different:

Rallied around him, we constantly received advice from him, constantly drew ideological strength from his works…. It is common knowledge that Comrade Stalin ardently loved the Chinese people and considered that the forces of the Chinese revolution were immeasurable.

He displayed the greatest wisdom in matters pertaining to the Chinese revolution. . . . Sacredly preserving the memory of our great teacher Stalin, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people . . . will even more perseveringly study Stalin’s teaching …. (“A Great Friendship,” 1953)

It is possible that this statement can be viewed as a formal tribute made shortly after Stalin’s death and before it was safe to criticize Stalin within the international Communist movement. But years later, after the Russian attack on Stalin and after it was unsafe not to spit on Stalin’s memory, the Chinese still consistently maintained their position. In 1961, after listening to Khrushchev’s rabid denunciations of Stalin at the Twenty-second Party Congress, Chou En-lai ostentatiously laid a wreath on Stalin’s tomb. Khrushchev and his supporters then disinterred Stalin’s body, but the Chinese responded to this in 1963 by saying that Khrushchev “can never succeed in removing the great image of Stalin from the minds of the Soviet people and of the people throughout the world.” (“On the Question of Stalin”)

In fact, as his 1927 essay on China included in this collection shows, Stalin very early outlined the basic theory of the Chinese revolution. Trotsky attacks this theory, which he sneers at as “guerrilla adventure,” because it is not based on the cities as the revolutionary centers, because it relies on class allies of the proletariat, particularly the peasantry, and because it is primarily anti-feudal and anti-imperialist rather than focused primarily against Chinese capitalism.

After 1927, when the first liberated base areas were established in the countryside, Trotsky claimed that this revolution could no longer be seen as proletarian but as a mere peasant rebellion, and soon he began to refer to its guiding theory as the Stalin-Mao line. To this day, Trotskyites around the world deride the Chinese revolution as a mere “Stalinist bureaucracy.” The Chinese themselves do acknowledge that at certain points Stalin gave some incorrect tactical advice, but they are quick to add that he always recognized and corrected these errors and was self-critical about them. They are very firm in their belief that they could not have made their revolution without his general theory, his over-all leadership of the world revolutionary movement, and the firm rear area and base of material support he provided. Thus the only really valid major criticism comes from anti-Communists, because without Stalin, at least according to the Chinese, the Communists would not have won.

Stalin’s role in the Spanish Civil War likewise comes under fire from the “left.” Again taking their cue from Trotsky and such professional anti-Communist ideologues as George Orwell, many “socialists” claim that Stalin sold out the Loyalists. A similar criticism is made about Stalin’s policies in relation to the Greek partisans in the late 1940s, which we will discuss later. According to these “left” criticisms, Stalin didn’t “care” about either of these struggles, because of his preoccupation with internal development and “Great Russian power.” The simple fact of the matter is that in both cases Stalin was the only national leader anyplace in the world to support the popular forces, and he did this in the face of stubborn opposition within his own camp and the dangers of military attack from the leading aggressive powers in the world (Germany and Italy in the late 1930s, the U.S. ten years later).

Because the U.S.S.R., following Stalin’s policies, had become a modem industrial nation by the mid-1930s, it was able to ship to the Spanish Loyalists Soviet tanks and planes that were every bit as advanced as the Nazi models. Because the U.S.S.R. was the leader of the world revolutionary forces, Communists from many nations were able to organize the International Brigades, which went to resist Mussolini’s fascist divisions and the crack Nazi forces, such as the Condor Legion, that were invading the Spanish Republic. The capitalist powers, alarmed by this international support for the Loyalists, planned joint action to stop it. In March 1937, warships of Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain began jointly policing the Spanish coast. Acting on a British initiative, these same countries formed a bloc in late 1937 to isolate the Soviet Union by implementing a policy they called “non-intervention,” which Lloyd George, as leader of the British Opposition, labeled a clear policy of support for the fascists. Mussolini supported the British plan and called for a’ campaign “to drive Bolshevism from Europe.” Stalin’s own foreign ministry, which was still dominated by aristocrats masquerading as proletarian revolutionaries, sided with the capitalist powers. The New York Times of October 29, 1937, describes how the “unyielding” Stalin, representing “Russian stubbornness,” refused to go along: “A struggle has been going on all this week between Joseph Stalin and Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinoff,” who wished to accept the British plan. Stalin stuck to his guns, and the Soviet Union refused to grant Franco international status as a combatant, insisting that it had every right in the world to continue aiding the duly elected government of Spain, which it did until the bitter end.

The Spanish Civil War was just one part of the world-wide imperialist aims of the Axis powers. Japan was pushing ahead in its conquest of Asia. Japanese forces overran Manchuria in 1931; only nine years after the Red Army had driven them out of Siberia, and then invaded China on a full-scale.

Ethiopia fell to Italy in 1936. A few months later, Germany and Japan signed an anti-Comintern pact, which was joined by Italy in 1937. In 1938, Germany invaded Austria. Hitler, who had come to power on a promise to rid Germany and the world of the Red menace, was now almost prepared to launch his decisive strike against the Soviet Union.

The other major capitalist powers surveyed the scene with mixed feelings. On one hand, they would have liked nothing better than to see the Communist threat ended once and for all, particularly with the dirty work being done by the fascist nations. On the other hand, they had to recognize that fascism was then the ideology of the have-not imperialists, upstarts whose global aims included a challenge to the hegemony of France, Britain, and the United States. Should they move now to check these expansionists’ aims or should they let them develop unchecked, hoping that they would move against the Soviet Union rather than Western Europe and the European colonies in Asia and Africa?

In 1938 they found the answer, a better course than either of these two alternatives. They would appease Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. This would not only dissuade the Nazis from attacking their fellow capitalists to the west, but it would also remove the last physical barriers to the east, the mountains of the Czech Sudetenland. All logic indicated to them that they had thus gently but firmly turned the Nazis eastward, and even given them a little shove in that direction. Now all they had to do was to wait, and, after the fascist powers and the Soviet Union had devastated each other, they might even be able to pick up the pieces. So they hailed the Munich agreement of September 30, 1938, as the guarantee of “Peace in our time”-for them.

Stalin had offered to defend Czechoslovakia militarily against the Nazis if anyone of the European capitalist countries would unite with the Soviet Union in this effort. The British and the French had evaded what they considered this trap, refusing to allow the Soviet Union even to participate at Munich. They now stepped back and waited, self-satisfied, to watch the Reds destroyed. It seemed they didn’t have long to wait. Within a few months, Germany seized all of Czechoslovakia, giving some pieces of the fallen republic to its allies Poland and Hungary.

By mid-March 1939 the Nazis had occupied Bohemia and Moravia, the Hungarians had seized Carpatho-Ukraine, and Germany had formally annexed Memel. At the end of that month, Madrid fell and all of Spain surrendered to the fascists. On May 7, Germany and Italy announced a formal military and political alliance. The stage was set for the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Four days later, on May 11, 1939, the first attack came.

The crack Japanese army that had invaded Manchuria struck Into the Soviet Union. The Soviet-Japanese war of 1939 is conveniently omitted from our history books, but this war, together with the Anglo-French collaboration with the Nazis and fascists in the west, form the context for another of Stalin’s great “crimes,” the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of August 1939. Stalin recognized that the main aim of the Axis was to destroy the Soviet Union, and that the other capitalist nations were conniving with this scheme. He also knew that sooner or later the main Axis attack would come on the U.S.S.R.’s western front. Meanwhile, Soviet forces were being diverted to the east, to fend off the Japanese invaders. The non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, which horrified and disillusioned Communist sympathizers, particularly intellectuals, in the capitalist nations, was actually one of the most brilliant strategic moves of Stalin’s life, and perhaps of diplomatic  history. From the Soviet point of view it accomplished five things:

(1) it brought needed time to prepare for the Nazi attack, which was thus delayed two years;


(2) it allowed the Red Army to concentrate on smashing the Japanese invasion, without having to fight on two fronts; they decisively defeated the Japanese within three months;


(3) it allowed the Soviet Union to retake the sections of White Russia and the Ukraine that had been invaded by Poland during the Russian Civil War and were presently occupied by the Polish military dictatorship; this meant that the forthcoming Nazi invasion would have to pass through a much larger area defended by the Red Army;


(4) it also allowed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which also had been part of Russia before the Civil War, to become part of the U.S.S.R. as Soviet Republics; this meant that the forthcoming Nazi attack could not immediately outflank Leningrad;


(5) most important of all, it destroyed the Anglo-French strategy of encouraging a war between the Axis powers and the Soviet Union while they enjoyed neutrality; World War II was to begin as a war between the Axis powers and the other capitalist nations, and the Soviet Union, if forced into it, was not going to have to fight alone against the combined fascist powers. The worldwide defeat of the fascist Axis was in part a product of Stalin’s diplomatic strategy, as well as his later military strategy.

But before we get to that, we have to go back in time to the events for which Stalin has been most damned-the purge, trials. Most readers of this book have been taught that the major defendants in these trials were innocent, and that here we see most clearly Stalin’s vicious cruelty and paranoia.

This is certainly not the place to sift through all the evidence and retry the major defendants, but we must recognize that there is a directly contradictory view of the trials and that there is plenty of evidence to support that view.

It is almost undeniable that many of the best-known defendants had indeed organized clandestine groups whose aim was to overthrow the existing government. It is also a fact that Kirov, one of the leaders of that government, was murdered by a secret group on December 1, 1934. And it is almost beyond dispute that there were systematic, very widespread, and partly successful attempts, involving party officials, to sabotage the development of Soviet industry. Anyone who doubts this should read an article entitled “Red Wreckers in Russia” in the Saturday Evening Post, January 1, 1938, in which John Littlepage, an anti-Communist American engineer, describes in detail what he saw of this sabotage while he was working in the Soviet Union. In fact, Littlepage gives this judgment:

For ten years I have worked alongside some of the many recently shot, imprisoned or exiled in Russia as wreckers. Some of my friends have asked me whether or not I believe these men and women are guilty as charged. I have not hesitated a moment in replying that I believe most of them are guilty.

To those who hold the orthodox U.S. view of the purge trials, perhaps the most startling account is the book Mission to Moscow, by Joseph E. Davies, U. S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1938. Davies is a vigorous defender of capitalism and a former head of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. An experienced trial lawyer, he points out that, “I had myself prosecuted and defended men charged with crime in many cases.” He personally attended the purge trials on a regular basis. Most of his accounts and judgments are contained in official secret correspondence to the State Department; the sole purpose of these dispatches was to provide realistic an assessment as possible of what was actually going on. His summary judgment in his confidential report to the Secretary of State on March 17, 1938, is:

….. it is my opinion so far as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes under Soviet law, among those charged in the indictment, were established by the proof and beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of guilty of treason and the adjudication of the punishment provided by Soviet criminal statutes. The opinion of those diplomats who attended the trial most regularly was general that the case had established the fact that there was a formidable political opposition and an exceedingly serious plot, which explained to the diplomats man! of the hitherto unexplained developments of the last six months in the Soviet Union. The only difference of opinion that seemed to exist was the degree to which the plot had been implemented by different defendants and the degree to which the conspiracy had become centralized. (po 272 )

Davies himself admits to being puzzled and confused at the time because of the vast scope of the conspiracy and its concentration high into the Soviet government. It is only later, after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, in the summer of 1941, that Davies feels he understands what he actually occurred.

Thinking over these things, there came a flash in my mind of a possible new significance to some of the things that happened in Russia when I was there.

None of us in Russia in 1937 and 1938 were thinking in terms of “Fifth Column” activities. The phrase was not current. It is comparatively recent that we have found in our language phrases descriptive of Nazi technique such as “Fifth Column” and “internal aggression.”…

As I ruminated over this situation, I suddenly saw the picture as I should have seen it at the time. The story had been told in the so-called treason or purge trials of 1937 and 1938 which I had attended and listened to. In reexamining the record of these cases and also what I had written at the time from this new angle, I found that practically every device of German Fifth Columnist activity, as we now know it, was disclosed and laid bare by the confessions and testimony elicited at these trials of self-confessed “Quislings” in Russia.

It was clear that the Soviet government believed that these activities existed, was thoroughly alarmed, and had proceeded to crush them vigorously. By 1941, when the German invasion came, they had wiped out any Fifth Column which had been organized.

All of these trials, purges, and liquidations, which seemed so violent at the time and shocked the world, are now quite clearly a part of a vigorous and determined effort of the Stalin government to protect itself from not only revolution from within but from attack from without. They went to work thoroughly to clean up and clean out all treasonable elements within the country. All doubts were resolved in favor of the government. (p. 280)

In 1956, at the Twentieth Party Congress, when Khrushchev launched his famous attack on Stalin, he dredged up all the denunciations of the purge trials circulated for two decades by the Trotskyite and capitalist press. He called Stalin a “murderer,” a “criminal,” a “bandit,” a “despot,” etc.

He asserted the innocence of many who had been imprisoned, exiled, or shot during the purge trials. But in doing so, he conveniently forgot two things: what he had said at the time about those trials, and what Stalin had said. On June 6, 1937, to the Fifth Party Conference of Moscow Province, Khrushchev had declared:

Our Party will mercilessly crush the band of traitors and betrayers, and wipe out all the Trotskyist-Right dregs. . . .We shall totally annihilate the enemies-to the last man and scatter their ashes to the winds.

On June 8, 1938, at the Fourth Party Conference of Kiev province, Khrushchev avowed:

We have annihilated a considerable number of enemies, but still not all. Therefore, it is necessary to keep our eyes open. We should bear firmly in mind the words of Comrade Stalin, that as long as capitalist encirclement exists, spies and saboteurs will be smuggled into our country.

Earlier, at a mass rally in Moscow, in January 1937, Khrushchev had condemned all those who had attacked Stalin in these words: “In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, They lifted it against all of us, against the working class and the working people”

As for Stalin himself, on the other hand, he had publicly admitted, not in 1956, but at least as early as 1939, that innocent people had been convicted and punished in the purge:

It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected.” (Report to the Eighteenth Congress.)

That is one reason why many of those tried and convicted in the last trials were high officials from the secret police, the very people guilty of forcing false confessions.

There are certainly good grounds for criticizing both the conduct and the extent of the purge. But that criticism must begin by facing the facts that an anti-Soviet conspiracy did exist within the Party, that it had some ties with the Nazis, who were indeed preparing to invade the country, and that one result of the purge was that the ‘Soviet Union was the only country in all of Europe that, when invaded by the Nazis, did not have an active Fifth Column. It must also recognize that capitalism has since been restored in the Soviet Union, on the initiative of leading members of the Party bureaucracy, and so it is hardly fantastical or merely paranoid to think that such a thing was possible. The key question about the purges is whether there was a better way to prevent either a Nazi victory or the restoration of capitalism. And the answer to that question probably lies in the Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966-67. Instead of relying on courts and police exiles and executions, the Chinese mobilized hundreds of ‘millions of people to exposé and defeat the emerging Party bureaucracy that was quietly restoring capitalism and actively collaborating with the great imperialist power to the north. But while doing this, they carefully studied Stalin, both for his achievements and for what he was unable to do. For Stalin himself had seen as early as 1928 the need to mobilize mass criticism from below to overcome the rapidly developing Soviet bureaucracy. It is also possible that the two goals the purges tuned to meet were mutually exclusive. That is, the emergency measures necessary to secure the country against foreign invasion may actually have helped the bureaucracy to consolidate its power.

In any event, when the Nazis and their allies did invade they met the most united and fierce resistance encountered by the fascist forces anyplace in the world. Everywhere the people were dedicated to socialism. Even in the Ukraine where the Nazis tried to foment old grievances and anti-Russian nationalism, they never dared meddle with the collective farms. In fact, Stalin’s military strategy in World War II like his strategy during the Russian Civil War was based firmly on the loyalty of the masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers.

Everybody, except for Khrushchev and his friends, who in 1956 tried to paint Stalin as a military incompetent and meddler, recognizes him as a great strategist. ‘

Nazi military strategy was based on the blitzkrieg (lightning war). Spearheaded by highly mobile armor, their way paved by massive air assaults, the Nazi army would break through any static line at a single point, and then spread out rapidly behind that line, cutting off its supplies and then encircling the troops at the front. On April 9, 1940, the Nazis, vastly outnumbered, opened their assault on the combined forces of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Great Britain. By June 4, virtually the last of these fighting forces had been evacuated in panic from Dunkirk and each of the continental countries lay under a fascist power, the victim of blitzkrieg combined with internal betrayal. Having secured his entire western front, and then with air power alone having put the great maritime power Britain into a purely defensive position, Hitler could now move his crack armies and his entire air force into position to annihilate the Soviet Union.

The first step was to consolidate Axis control in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania were already fascist allies. Italy had overrun Albania. By early April 1941 Greece and Yugoslavia were occupied. Crete was seized in May. On June 22, the greatest invasion of all time was hurled at the Soviet heartland.

One hundred seventy-nine German divisions, twenty-two Romanian divisions, fourteen Finnish divisions, thirteen Hungarian divisions, ten Italian divisions, one Slovak division, and one Spanish division, a total of well over three million troops, the best armed and most experienced in the world, attacked along a 2,000-mile front, aiming their spearheads directly at Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. Instead of holding a line, the Red Army beat an orderly retreat, giving up space for time. Behind them they left nothing but scorched earth and bands of guerrilla fighters, constantly harassing the lengthening fascist supply lines. Before the invaders reached industrial centers such as Kharkov and Smolensk, the workers of these cities disassembled their machines and carried them beyond the Ural Mountains, where production of advanced Soviet tanks, planes, and artillery was to continue throughout the war.

The main blow was aimed directly at the capital, Moscow, whose outskirts were reached by late fall. Almost all the government offices had been evacuated to the east. But Stalin remained in the capital, where he assumed personal command of the war. On December 2, 1941, the Nazis were stopped in the suburbs of Moscow. On December 6, Stalin ordered the first major counterattack to occur in World War II. The following day, Japan, which had wisely decided against renewing their invasion of the Soviet Union, attacked Pearl Harbor.

From December until May the Red Army moved forward, using a strategy devised by Stalin. Instead of confronting the elite Nazi corps head on, the Red forces would divide into smaller units and then move to cut off the fascist supply lines, thus encircling and capturing the spearheads of the blitzkrieg.

This was the ideal counterstrategy, but it depended on a high level of political loyalty, consciousness, and independence on the part of these small units. No capitalist army could implement this strategy. By the end of May 1942 Moscow was safe and the fascist forces had given ground in the Ukraine.

In the early summer, the Nazi forces, heavily reinforced, moved to seize Stalingrad and the Caucasus, thus cutting the Soviet Union in two. The greatest and perhaps the most decisive battle in history was now to take place. The siege of Stalingrad lasted from August 1942 until February 1943. As early as September, the Nazi forces, which were almost as large as the entire U.S. force at its peak in Vietnam, penetrated the city and were stopped only by house-to-house fighting.

But unknown to the Germans, because Soviet security was perfect, they were actually in a vast trap, personally designed by Stalin: A gigantic pincers movement had begun as soon as the fascist forces reached the city. In late November the two Soviet forces met and the trap snapped shut. From this trap 330,000 elite Nazi troops were never to emerge. In February 1943 the remnants, about 100,000 troops, surrendered.

The back of Nazi military power had been broken. The Red Army now moved onto a vast offensive which was not to stop before it had liberated all of Eastern and Central Europe and seized Berlin, the capital of the Nazi empire, in the spring of 1945.

It was the Soviet Union that had beaten the fascist army. The second front, which Great Britain and the U.S. had promised as early as 1942, was not to materialize until June 14, after it was clear that the Nazis had already been decisively defeated. In fact, the Anglo-American invasion was aimed more at stopping communism than defeating fascism. (This invasion took place during the same period that the British Army “liberated” Greece, which had already been liberated by the Communist-led Resistance.) For under Communist leadership, underground resistance movements, based primarily on the working class, had developed throughout Europe. Because the Communists, both from the Soviet Union and within the other European nations, were the leaders of the entire anti-fascist struggle, by the end of the war they had by far the largest parties in all the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, as well as Italy and France, where the fascists’ power had been broken more by internal resistance than by the much-heralded Allied invasion. In fact, it is likely that if the Anglo-American forces had not invaded and occupied Italy and France, within a relatively short time the Communists would have been in power in both countries.

As soon as victory in Germany was assured, in May 1945, much of the Soviet Army began to make the 5,000-mile journey to face the Japanese Army. At Potsdam, July 17 to August 2, Stalin formally agreed to begin combat operations against Japan by August 8. On August 6, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan, in what is now widely considered the opening shot of the so-called “Cold War” against the U.S.S.R. On August 8, the Red Army engaged the main Japanese force, which was occupying Manchuria. The Soviet Army swept forward, capturing Manchuria, the southern half of Sakhalin Island, and the Kuriles, and liberating, by agreement, the northern half of Korea. Except for the Chinese Communist battles with the Japanese, these Soviet victories were probably the largest land engagements in the entire war against Japan.

The Soviet Union had also suffered tremendously while taking the brunt of the fascist onslaught. Between twenty and twenty-five million Soviet citizens gave their lives in defense of their country and socialism. The industrial heartland lay in ruins. The richest agricultural regions had been devastated.

In addition to the seizure of many cities and the destruction of much of Moscow and Stalingrad, there was the desperate condition of Leningrad, which had withstood a massive, two-year Nazi siege.

Once again, the Soviet Union was to perform economic miracles. Between 1945 and 1950 they were to rebuild not only everything destroyed in the war, but vast new industries and agricultural resources. And all this was conducted under the threat of a new attack by the capitalist powers, led by the nuclear blackmail of the U.S., which opened up a worldwide “Cold War” against communism.

Spearheaded by British and rearmed Japanese troops, the French restored their empire in Indochina. U.S. troops occupied the southern half of Korea and established military bases throughout the Pacific. Europe itself became a vast base area for the rapidly expanding U.S. empire, which, despite its very minimal role in the war (or perhaps because of it), was to gain the greatest profit from it. One European showdown against the popular forces occurred in Greece.

Here we meet another “left” criticism of Stalin, similar to that made about his role in Spain but even further removed from the facts of the matter. As in the rest of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the Communists had led and armed the heroic Greek underground and partisan fighters. In 1944 the British sent an expeditionary force commanded by General Scobie to land in Greece, ostensibly to aid in the disarming of the defeated Nazi and Italian troops. As unsuspecting as the comrades in Vietnam and Korea who were to be likewise ‘assisted’, the Greek partisans were slaughtered by their British allies who used tanks and planes in an all-out offensive, which ended in February 1945 with the establishment of a right-wing dictatorship under a restored monarchy. The British even rearmed and used the defeated Nazi “Security Battalions.” After partially recovering from this treachery, the partisan forces rebuilt then guerrilla apparatus and prepared to resist the combined forces of Greek fascism and Anglo-American imperialism. By late 1948 full-scale civil war raged, with the right-wing forces backed up by the intervention of U.S. planes, artillery, and troops. The Greek resistance had its back broken by another betrayal not at all by Stalin but by Tito, who closed the Yugoslav borders to the Soviet military supplies that were already hard put to reach the landlocked popular forces. This was one of the two main reasons why Stalin, together with the Chinese, led the successful fight to have the Yugoslav “Communist” Party officially thrown out of the international Communist movement.

Stalin understood very early the danger to the world revolution posed by Tito’s ideology, which served as a Trojan horse for U.S. Imperialism. He also saw that Tito’s revisionist ideas, including the development of a new bureaucratic ruling elite, were making serious headway inside the Soviet Union. In 1950, the miraculous postwar reconstruction was virtually complete, and the victorious Chinese revolution had decisively broken through the global anti-Communist encirclement and suppression campaign. At this point Stalin began to turn his attention to the most serious threat to the world revolution, the bureaucratic-technocratic class that had not only emerged inside the Soviet Union but had begun to pose a serious challenge to the leadership of the working class. In the last few years of his life, Joseph Stalin, whom the present rulers of the U.S.S.R. would like to paint as a mad recluse, began to open up a vigorous cultural offensive against the power of this new elite. “Marxism and Linguistics” and “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” are milestones in this offensive, major theoretical works aimed at the new bourgeois authorities beginning to dominate various areas of Soviet thought.

In “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.,” published a few months before his death and intended to serve as a basis for discussion in the Nineteenth Party Congress of 1952, Stalin seeks to measure scientifically how far the Soviet Union had come in the development of socialism and how far it had to go to achieve communism. He criticizes two extreme tendencies in Soviet political economy: mechanical determinism and voluntarism. He sets this criticism within an international context where, he explains, the sharpening of contradictions among the capitalist nations is inevitable.

Stalin points out that those who think that objective laws, whether of socialist or capitalist political economy, can be abolished by will are dreamers. But he reserves his real scorn for those who make the opposite error, the technocrats who assert that socialism is merely a mechanical achievement of a certain level of technology and productivity, forgetting both the needs and the power of the people. He shows that when these technocrats cause “the disappearance of man as the aim of socialist production,” they arrive at the triumph of bourgeois ideology. These proved to be prophetic words.

In his final public speech, made to that Nineteenth Party Congress in 1952, Stalin explains a correct revolutionary line for the parties that have not yet led their revolutions. The victories of the world revolution have constricted the capitalist world, causing the decay of the imperialist powers. Therefore the bourgeoisie of the Western democracies inherit the banners of the defeated fascist powers, with whom they establish a world-wide alliance while turning to fascism at home and the would-be bourgeoisie of the neocolonial nations become merely their puppets. Communists then become the main defenders of the freedoms and progressive principles established by the bourgeoisie when they were a revolutionary class and defended by them until the era of their decay. Communists will lead the majority of people in their respective nations only when they raise and defend the very banners thrown overboard by the bourgeoisie-national independence and democratic freedoms. It is no Surprise that these final words of Stalin have been known only to the Cold War “experts” and have been expunged throughout the Soviet Union and the nations of Eastern Europe.

A few months after this speech, Stalin died. Very abruptly, the tide of revolution was temporarily reversed. Stalin’s death came in early March 1953. By that July, the new leaders of the Soviet Union forced the Korean people to accept a division of their nation and a permanent occupation of the southern half by US forces. A year later, they forced the victorious Viet Minh liberation army, which had thoroughly defeated the French despite massive U.S. aid, to withdraw from the entire southern half of that country, while the U.S. proclaimed that its faithful puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, was now president of the fictitious nation of South Vietnam. When the Chinese resisted their global sellouts of the revolution, these new Soviet leaders first tried to destroy the Chinese economy, then tried to overthrow the government from within and when that failed, actually began aimed incursions by Russian troops under a policy of nuclear blackmail copied from the U.S. In Indonesia, the Soviet Union poured ammunition and spare parts into the right-wing military forces while they were massacring half a million Communists, workers, and peasants.

And so on, around the world. Meanwhile, internally, they restored capitalism as rapidly as they could. By the mid-1960s, unemployment had appeared in the Soviet Union for the first time since the first Five Year Plan. By the end of the 1960s, deals had been made with German, Italian, and Japanese capitalism for the exploitation of Soviet labor and vast Soviet resources.

From an anti-Communist point of view, Stalin was certainly one of the great villains of history. While he lived, the Red forces consolidated their power in one country and then led what seemed to be an irresistible world-wide revolutionary upsurge. By the time he died, near hysteria reigned in the citadels of capitalism. In Washington, frenzied witch hunts tried to ferret out the Red menace that was supposedly about to seize control of the last great bastion of capitalism. All this changed, for the time being, after Stalin’s death, when the counterrevolutionary forces were able to seize control even within the Soviet Union.

From a Communist point of view, Stalin was certainly one of the greatest of revolutionary leaders. But still we must ask why it was that the Soviet Union could fall so quickly to a new capitalist class. For Communists, it is as vital to understand Stalin’s weaknesses and errors as it is to understand his historic achievements.

Stalin’s main theoretical and practical error lay in underestimating the bourgeois forces within the superstructure of Soviet society. It is ridiculous to pose the problem the way we customarily hear it posed: that the seeds of capitalist restoration were sown under Stalin. This assumes that the Soviet garden was a Communist paradise, totally free of weeds, which then somehow dropped in from the skies. Socialism, as Stalin saw more keenly than anybody before, is merely a transitional stage on the way to communism. It begins with the conquest of political power by the working class, but that is only a bare beginning. Next comes the much more difficult task of establishing socialist economic forms, including a high level of productivity based on collective labor. Most difficult of all is the cultural revolution, in which socialist ideas and attitudes, based on collective labor and the political power of the working people, overthrow the bourgeois world view, based on competition, ambition, and the quest for personal profit and power and portraying “human nature” as corrupt, vicious, and selfish, that is, as the mirror image of bourgeois man.

Stalin succeeded brilliantly in carrying through the political and economic revolutions. That he failed in consolidating the Cultural Revolution under the existing internal and external conditions can hardly be blamed entirely on him. He certainly saw the need for it, particularly when the time seemed most ripe to make it a primary goal, in the 1950s. But it must be admitted that he underestimated the threat posed by the new intelligentsia, as we see most strikingly in the “Report to the Eighteenth Party Congress,” where he unstintingly praises them and denies that they could constitute a new social class.

This error in theory led to an error in practice in which, despite his earlier calls for organizing mass criticism from below, he tended to rely on one section of the bureaucracy to check or defeat another. He was unwilling to unleash a real mass movement like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and, as a result, the masses were made increasingly less capable of carrying out such a gigantic task. All this is easy to say in hindsight, now that we have the advantage of having witnessed the Chinese success, which may prove to be the most important single event in human history. But who would have had the audacity to recommend such a course in the face of the Nazi threat of the late 1930s or the U.S. threat after World War II, when the Soviet Union lay in ruins? In 1967, when the Chinese Cultural Revolution was at its height and the country was apparently in chaos, many revolutionaries around the world were dismayed. Certainly, they acknowledged, China had to have a cultural revolution. But not at that moment, when the Vietnamese absolutely needed that firm rear base area and when U.S. imperialism was apparently looking for any opening to smash China. And so it must have looked to Stalin, who postponed the Soviet Cultural Revolution until it was too late.

It is true that socialism in the Soviet Union has been reversed. But Stalin must be held primarily responsible not for its failure to achieve communism but rather for its getting as far along the road as it did. It went much further than the “left” and the right Opposition, the capitalists, and almost everybody in the world thought possible. It went far enough to pass the baton to a fresher runner, the workers and peasants of China, who, studying and emulating Stalin, have already gone even further, as we are beginning to see.

This Day in History: When Kim Il Sung Took Power

koreanworkersparty-690x360

BY BRANDON K. GAUTHIER, OCTOBER 9, 2012

October 10 marks the anniversary of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), which guides the Korean people to always emerge victorious. – Korean Central News Agency[i]

 Celebrated annually, authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) refer to October 10 as “Party Foundation Day.”  The Great Leader, Pyongyang contends, created the Workers’ Party of Korea on that day in 1945.  To commemorate the anniversary in years since, floral tributes are laid at statues of Kim Il Sung throughout the country; dancing parties are held in his honor; and Koreans north of the DMZ belt out revolutionary ditties, like: “Let’s Sing of Our Pride in Being under the Guidance of the General,” in joyful remembrance.[ii]

Though this date remains one of many important ones in the nascent beginnings of the DPRK, the Workers’ Party of North Korea wasn’t created until August 1946.[iii]  Instead, from October 10-13, 1945, Korean communists held a major conference[iv]—called: “The Conference of Korean Communist Party Members and Enthusiasts in the Five Northwestern Provinces”—as a first effort towards creating an organization independent from the newly reformed Korean Communist Party (KCP) in Seoul.[v]  The KCP had initially dispatched Hyon Chun-hyok, a prominent communist originally from Pyongyang, to create a subordinate bureau of the party in northern Korea.  Hyon, however, was murdered while riding shotgun (poor choice of words?) in a truck on September 28.[vi]  Curiously, Cho Man-sik, a widely recognized Christian nationalist leader, was left unharmed in the seat next to him.[vii]

During the October conference that followed, Kim Il Sung emerged as a political force for the first time.  On the thirteenth, the fourth and final day of that event, he played a leading role in the formation of the “North Korea Branch Bureau of the KCP”—a body that would quickly become autonomous from the party center in Seoul.  And while Kim was not initially elected chairman of the new bureau, in a little over two months he would find himself atop the organization.[viii]  The previous chairman, Kim Yong-bom, “died later during a simple operation on a stomach tumor.”[ix]

The Great Leader himself had only just returned to Korea from the Soviet Union.  Wearing the uniform of a Soviet army major—or was it a captain’s—Kim reentered his homeland on a Soviet ship, the Pugachev, at the port of Wonsan on September 19, 1945.  He and sixty partisan loyalists had at first attempted to return across Manchuria but, instead, travelled by ship from Vladivostok after learning that Soviet forces had destroyed the bridge across the Yalu River in Sinuiju.[x]

Clad in a foreign uniform, it might have seemed an ignominious return, but a few facts are important to note about the fresh-faced Kim Il Sung that disembarked on the east coast of Korea at only 33 years of age: he was a seasoned guerilla fighter; he had heroically endured hardships and risked his life in the struggle against the Japanese in Manchuria.[xi]

In fact, by the time Kim Il Sung was just 17 years old in that region, Japanese authorities had already imprisoned him for a short time for subversive activities.  Within two years of his release from jail, Kim had adopted the nom de guerre, Il Sung—bidding farewell to his given name, Song-Ju—and squeezed a rifle trigger in combat against a patrol of Japan’s “Manchukuo” puppet government.[xii]  His memoirs, so often filled with hagiographic nonsense, recall that all-important first moment with penetrating nostalgia: ‘I was so tense and excited that I could feel my heart beating.’[xiii]

Years later in early 1941, when Kim Il Sung and a handful of guerillas crossed into the Soviet Union to the west of Vladivostok, it was out of sheer desperation.  The Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army, an organization formed by the Chinese Communist Party, which Kim served in as only one of many Korean officers, was thoroughly decimated by strident Japanese manhunts.  Only after the death of his “superior and mentor,” Wei Zhengmin—a man who used to make him naengmyon (delicious buckwheat noodles served in a cold broth)—is it said that the future North Korean leader accepted the necessity of fleeing to the Soviet Union.[xiv]  There, he received an appointment as an officer in the Soviet Union’s 88th International Division, restored his health, and fathered two sons, Kim Jong-il and the ill-fated Kim Pyong-il, with his new wife: Kim Chong-suk.

And so, returning to Korea in September 1945, Kim Il Sung must have felt entitled to play some important role in the future of his country.  Having gained the good graces of the Soviet authorities, he wasted no time going about it.  On October 14, 1945, the day after he helped establish the North Korea Branch Bureau, Kim was introduced to the Korean people at a Soviet-held rally—entitled a “‘reception for the triumphant return of General Kim Il Sung.’”[xv]  In front of approximately 70,000 people, the widely known nationalist Christian leader, Cho Man-sik, introduced the future President of the DPRK.[xvi]  As the guerilla fighter—turned Soviet army major—turned Korean liberator extraordinaire—took the stage, a row of Soviet officers literally backed him.  Many in the crowd were already familiar with his daring exploits.[xvii]

Yet, as he spoke, dismay surged among the listeners: who was this deceptively fresh-faced man?  Was this individual really the famed guerilla that survived so many encounters with the Japanese?  How could this young man hope to claim leadership over thousands of others that had also resisted the Japanese occupiers?

So yes—Kim Il Sung had an image problem in those first consequential days after October 10, 1945.  But it didn’t matter very long.  As the Soviet propaganda machine geared up behind him, Kim proved extraordinarily adept at utilizing his Soviet-backing and political wiliness to forestall and outmaneuver other rival factions.  By June 1949 when the Workers’ Party of Korea, as we know it, finally emerged in the years after the October conference, Kim Il Sung was the undisputed leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.[xviii]


NOTES

[i] “Founder of WPK,” Korean Central News Agency (Hereafter KCNA), October 10, 2011. Articles from the Korean Central News Agency can be accessed at: http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

[ii] See: “Floral Tribute Paid,” KCNA, October 10, 2011. “Dancing Parties Celebrate WPK Anniversary,” KCNA, October 10, 2011.

[iii] Charles Armstrong, The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 58 & n. 91, 66.  The Workers’ Party of North Korea was established from August 28-30, 1946 after the northern branch of the Korean Communist Party and the New People’s Party joined together.

[iv] The conference overlapped with a meeting of delegates from Interim People’s Committees in Pyongyang from October 8-10, 1945.  People’s Committees, created on the initiative of Koreans at the Provincial, County, City, and Township levels, were local and regional governments established after the departure of the Japanese.  See: Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. 1 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), 391-395.

[v] Ibid.  The Korean Communist Party was founded in April 1925 by Pak Hon-yong but withered away as a formal organization in the late 1920s and early 1930s as a result of Japanese persecution and internal infighting.  After the defeat of Japan in August 1945, the party was quickly reformed under the leadership of Pak.  See: Dae-Sook Suh, Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 69.

[vi] Ibid., 69-70. Hyon Chun-hyok and Cho Man-sik had just met with Soviet Major General Andrei A. Romanenko, the leader of the Soviet civil administration in northern Korea.

[vii] As Dae-Sook Suh states, “…it is unlikely that he [Kim Il Sung] was involved in the plot to eliminate Hyon…Political assassination was common in both North and South Korea shortly after the liberation,” Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader, 70.

[viii] Some scholars, such as Chin O. Chung, do not accept that Kim Il Sung was not elected chairman of the branch in October.  For a succinct discussion of this issue: see: Jacques L. Fuqua, Jr., Nuclear Endgame: The Need for Engagement With North Korea(Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007), 174 n. 14.

[ix] Dae-Sook Suh, Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader, 71.  Other than the odd circumstances surrounding Kim Yong-bom’s death, no evidence exists that he was assassinated.

[x] Bradley K. Martin, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004). 51. Dae-Sook Suh, Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader, 50.

[xi] Dae-Sook Suh goes into great detail about Kim’s guerilla past to discern fact from fiction, see: The North Korean Leader, 15-57.

[xii] Bradley K. Martin, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader, 29-32. Dae-Sook Suh, The North Korean Leader, 6-8.

[xiii] Kim Il Sung, With the Century, Vol. 2 (Pyongyang: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1992), 324-326. Quoted and cited in Martin, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader, 31-32.

[xiv] Dae-Sook Suh, The North Korean Leader, 47.

[xv] Quoted in Martin, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader, 52.

[xvi] Cho later refused to accept a Soviet trusteeship of northern Korea and was placed under house arrest on January 5, 1946.  He was eventually executed in October 1950 as DPRK troops evacuated Pyongyang during the Korean War.  See: Armstrong, The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950, 120-123.

[xvii] Robert Scalapino and Chong-Sik Lee, Communism in Korea, Vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 324-325, 338. Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. 1, 397-403. Martin, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader, 52. A firsthand account of the speech from O Yong-jin’s “An Eye Witness Report”—cited by Scalapino & Lee, Cumings, and Martin—states that Kim had “‘a haircut like a Chinese waiter’” and spoke in “‘a monotonous, plain, and duck-like voice’”; the speech caused “‘an electrifying sense of distrust, disappointment, discontent, and anger.’”  Bruce Cumings, however, rejects the integrity of this “anticommunist account,” stating: “I heard similar accounts from Koreans in the south who claimed to have attended the same meeting; there is no way to verify such impressions…These things belong in gossip columns.” See: The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. 1, 557, endnote 62.

[xviii] With Kim Il Sung as chairman, the Workers’ Party of Korea was formed in a merger between the North Korean Workers’ Party and the South Korean Workers’ Party on June 30, 1949….

Source

White Power and apocalyptic cults: Pro-DPRK Americans revealed

sutter-with-cult-god-690x360

Jason Sutter, a former pro-North Korean support group ringleader, now a self-proclaimed hindu priest, in an illustration created by NK News for this article

American homegrown terrorist groups are the chosen favorites of Pyongyang

BY NATE THAYER , MAY 6, 2013

WASHINGTON D.C. – In September 2003, John Paul Cupp, the 22 year old son of a fundamentalist Christian preacher from Indiana received a message from the government of North Korea.

“Upon the authorization of the Central Committee” it read, Pyongyang “extends militant greetings to you who extend warm support and solidarity to the Songun policy of our respected Marshal Kim Jong Il, treasure sword of our nation.”

The “formation of the Songun Politics Study Group USA has been reported to our Central Committee and, through it, to the Workers Party of Korea….Now your organization has been introduced to the entire Korean nation in the south and the north We are very pleased to have a revolutionary organization and comrades like you in the land of the United States, the bulwark of imperialism and determined to further the relationship with you in depth,”

Rodong Sinmun, the official voice of the ruling Korean Worker’s Party (KWP), reported the news on September 11, the two year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.

The message from Pyongyang promised to send further information “by DHL” to the address of “Comrade John Paul Cupp.” What North Korea didn’t mention was at the time was John Paul Cupp had no address because he was homeless and living in a tent under a highway in Portland, Oregon.

“My father is a loser. He lives in Lynn Haven, Florida,” wrote Cupp on an online family genealogy thread in October 1999. “I moved to Portland to join the communist party and get my poetry published. I am 19 years old.”

By the time Cupp vowed his loyalty to Pyongyang and was made Chairman of the newly created Songun Politics Study Group USA, his evolving political ideology embraced white supremacy, pro Islamic Jihadists, virulent anti-Semitism, and launching domestic terrorism to achieve the armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

John Paul Cupp (c) in trench coat when he was homeless living in Portland Oregon in the early 2000’s when he became the chief U.S representative of the Pyongyang sanctioned group of U.S. supporters of North Korea. North Korean media heralded Cupp as a “prominent U.S. public figure.”

John Paul Cupp (c) in trench coat when he was homeless living in Portland Oregon in the early 2000’s when he became the chief U.S representative of the Pyongyang sanctioned group of U.S. supporters of North Korea. North Korean media heralded Cupp as a “prominent U.S. public figure.”

In recent years, the North Korean government has joined in alliance and found common cause with American citizens from the violent armed fringes of both the political far right and left who are members of registered U.S. domestic terrorist organizations, have been convicted for violent racial attacks, claimed to have  sent Anthrax chemical warfare agents to the President of the United States, been sentenced to mental institutions for threatening to assassinate sitting U.S. presidents, and been imprisoned for plotting terrorist attacks on U.S soil.

“Comrade Kim Il Sung and Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il are the two greatest human beings in the entire history of the world”

Several have made official visits to North Korea as the invited guests of the Pyongyang government.

The American political activists of the pro North Korean political organizations created by Pyongyang in the U.S.  include leaders of armed white power groups accused of trying to spark violent race wars, ; Americans fighting for the creation of a U.S. state populated exclusively  by white people; supporters of the extermination of the Jewish race; who applaud the 9/11 and Oklahoma City terrorist attacks; and others who hold as their ideological mentors the religious suicide cult leader Jim Jones, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, and the assassins of three U.S. presidents and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

John Paul Cupp with SKS rifle in 2009 with confederate flag in the background. Photo taken in 2009 while he was advocating white supremacy and head of the official U.S. Songun Politics Study Group

John Paul Cupp with SKS rifle in 2009 with confederate flag in the background. Photo taken in 2009 while he was advocating white supremacy and head of the official U.S. Songun Politics Study Group

But according to North Korean official propaganda, these American citizens and the Pyongyang government they view as their ideological mentors agree on one thing: The Kim family dynastic leadership are the greatest political thinkers of our times.

“My personal opinion,” John Paul Cupp said in a 2007 interview, “is that great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il are the two greatest human beings in the entire history of the world. For us, it would be impossible to even wake up in the morning should we lose the ability to cherish them.”

Within months of creating the pro-Pyongyang group, Cupp was regularly featured in North Korean propaganda as a ”prominent U.S. public figure,” who was the leader of a broad U.S. movement with deep loyalty to the Kim family’s global political vision.

John Paul Cupp at the top of the Juche Tower, Pyongyang, North Korea, on an official trip by invitation of the North Korean government as head of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group in 2006

John Paul Cupp at the top of the Juche Tower, Pyongyang, North Korea, on an official trip by invitation of the North Korean government as head of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group in 2006

FROM WHITE SUPREMACIST TO ISLAMIC CONVERT

While serving as the Chairman of the Songun Politics Study Group USA, recognized by Pyongyang as their primary U.S. support group, and several other political front groups created in North Korea but portrayed as homegrown U.S. mass political movements, Cupp’s political platform included anti-Semitic laced rhetoric (“hey anyone, actually killing Jews is to be supported in so far as they are killing  Jews”) to racism (“I fully invite every member of an Islamic or Third World country that US imperialism wants to bomb to join us in a cross burning and Jena-rope-the-goat/President event to show how much we love scabs and tools of the Jews and imperialist finance capital”) to support for “Aryan hero Lee Harvey Oswald” and the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

In a post on a white supremacy website titled “A Call for White Resistance” Cupp wrote “One of the things that was brought to my attention while I was visiting North Korea is that during the course of the anti-Japanese struggle the masses began scattered and wanting, then non-violently resisting, and then resisting with ‘terrorism’ and what we call ‘lone wolf actions’ today,” he wrote.

“When looking at our White European-American nation, one finds a people who have not lost their desire to fight the enemy oppressor and who are willing to take matters into their own hands.”

Cupp cited a list of American “Lone Wolves” to be emulated which included the far-right White Supremacist who committed the most deadly domestic terrorist act in U.S. history when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, a White Supremacist group who stockpiled weapons and explosives then went on a murderous campaign of assassination against blacks, and the assassins of Presidents Kennedy, Lincoln and McKinley as well as Martin Luther King.

But that didn’t stop the North Korean government from appointing him the head of the officially sanctioned political organization of U.S. citizens supporting the government of North Korea. Nor did it inhibit Pyongyang prominently depicting the then 22 year old American in state media dozens of time in the following years as a “prominent U.S. Public Figure” and inviting him on official government sponsored visits to the DPRK.

A photograph of John Paul Cupp, Chairman of the U.S Songun Politics Study Group taken at the demilitarized zone on the border with South Korea from the North Korean side. Photo is with a North Korean military officer in the neutral zone during a 2007 trip Cupp made to North Korea as an official guest of Pyongyang

A photograph of John Paul Cupp, Chairman of the U.S Songun Politics Study Group taken at the demilitarized zone on the border with South Korea from the North Korean side. Photo is with a North Korean military officer in the neutral zone during a 2007 trip Cupp made to North Korea as an official guest of Pyongyang

For many North Koreans, the only source of information on developments outside the DPRK is the strictly controlled government media and many therefore believe that the world masses are ardent supporters of Kim Il Sung’s Juche political ideology.

On April 15, 2004 (Kim Il Sung’s birthday), Cupp sent a poem to Pyongyang expressing his fealty to Kim Il Sung and Juche which was promptly republished by North Korean media.

“Marshal Kim Jong Il is the most outstanding revolutionary leader of our era. His Songun army-centered stance, against the fascist scum goons of the White House, cannot be called anything short of genius, extreme bravery, defiant, principled, and even scholarly,” Cupp wrote. “Marshal Kim Jong Il has clearly shown that the gun is the revolution. He clarified that the gun is the faithful and uncompromising companion of the revolutionary. This gun-based approach is correct in every single way.”

In October 2004, the KCNA heralded Cupp as praising the wife of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and mother of then leader Kim Jong Il which spoke of “a revolutionary comrade-in-arms most loyal to President Kim Il Sung and gave birth to leader Kim Jong Il.”

Another KCNA dispatch the following month published an article by Cupp titled “What a great man Comrade Kim Jong Il is” which read “Then there are questions as to why do intellectuals respect and revere General Kim Jong Il so deeply,”

“He [Cupp] explained in the article that Kim Jong Il is the most prominent leader in the present era just as President Kim Il Sung was. Though the socialist movement suffered setbacks in different countries, the brilliant and august name of Kim Jong Il serves as a symbol of the militant and invincible defender of the world, he stressed,” wrote KCNA.

Cupp remained head of the U.S. Songun Study Group for the next seven years during which he travelled to Pyongyang as an official guest of the North Korean government. Simultaneously, he forged alliances with other American White Power extremist groups who shared his fidelity to Pyongyang, created other political front groups espousing armed revolution to create a racially pure state, and joined with apocalyptic fringe religious sects espousing suicide bombers as a tactic for achieving religious and political goals.

In an article Cupp wrote while serving as head of the U.S. Songun Study Group , he said “Imagine a racial communist super-State comprising all of Europe and Russia and stretching across the reclaimed Siberian Land Bridge Project into White North America and includes Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Argentina in its project. Bloodline shall supersede geographical boundaries [this will be] the total victory of White Power over the conspiracy for our genocide, more than just racialism, but true socialism, and the rebirth of the neighborhood and family again.”

“The best models existing today are those of North Korea and the Iraqi Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party”

“Long live the White race!,” the article concluded, “Long live the communist revolution! Let us vow to die in the trenches of combat before ever even considering the thought of surrendering our European-American Nation!”

In December 2009, Cupp penned a piece in which he wrote “White Power, when correctly defined, ultimately wants both separation from and death to America. Indeed, ‘White Power, Death to America!’ … the best models existing today, and worthy of careful study, admiration, and solidarity by our people are those of North Korea and the Iraqi Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party.”

In February 2010, Cupp created another organization called “Aryan Athiests.” The next month, he formally converted to Islam and changed his name to Wahid Yayah Cupp.

By 2011, his erratic behavior and a myriad of infighting among other American contenders for the official endorsement of Pyongyang caused Cupp to be eased out as top leader of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group.

The road travelled by pro-North Korean American citizens since 2003 has been similarly strewn with controversy, intrigue, and buffoonery. During the last decade, other politically-active Americans were also going through important transitions on their way to joining John Paul Cupp as staunch supporters of Pyongyang and their brand of government.

JOSHUA CALEB SUTTER: PREACHER’S SON, NEO-NAZI, FEDERAL PRISONER

Joshua Caleb Sutter has one of the more colorful resumes in fringe American politics. Also the son of a fundamentalist Christian preacher, David Sutter, a well-known South Carolina white supremacist leader, Joshua Sutter was primed for the world of extremist politics from a young age.

He began dabbling in white racist politics as a teenager and rose rapidly through the ranks to become a national leader of the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist neo-Nazi group which advocated the armed overthrow of the U.S. government in order to impose a whites-only racially pure state in its place.

Joshua Sutter , former Aryan Nations white supremacist leader and leader of the Rural People’s Party in his guise of Hindu priest, Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri at the Hindu New Bihar Mandir temple located on Sutter’s rural South Carolina property. (Photo: newbiharmandir.org)

Joshua Sutter , former Aryan Nations white supremacist leader and leader of the Rural People’s Party in his guise of Hindu priest, Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri at the Hindu New Bihar Mandir temple located on Sutter’s rural South Carolina property. (Photo: newbiharmandir.org)

Sutter lived at the headquarters compound of the Aryan Nations in Pennsylvania until his arrest by undercover federal agents in February 2003 for purchasing illegal automatic pistols with their serial numbers scraped off, and possession of silencers in a foiled plot to launch bomb attacks in a domestic U.S. terror campaign.

At the time, Sutter was also a preacher for the Church of the Sons of Yaweh, a white supremacist “Christian Identity” church with links to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

“Roses are red, violets are blue – for every dead Arab, another dead jew!”

After the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center bombings in New York, Sutter assumed the title of the Aryan Nations “Minister for Islamic Liaison”, tasked with building alliances with international Islamic jihadist groups.  Sutter caught the attention of federal authorities in 2002 after he released a “message of solidarity and support” to Saddam Hussein after Sept. 11 predicting that “the evil regime of the United States … shall be utterly wiped off the face of the earth.”

Among other aliases, Sutter used the name Wulfran Hall, High Counsel of Aryan Nations, while living at the rural Pennsylvania Aryan Nations headquarters owned by Sutter’s mentor, Aryan Nation’s head August Kreis.

On the Aryan Nations website, after leading a large White Supremacist, anti-Semitic rally in Washington D.C., Sutter wrote: “Skinheads, Aryan Nations and Identity, National Alliance, Creators all marching side by side with one enemy in mind – the jew,” citing as a “poignant example” the slogan of the demonstration: “Roses are red, violets are blue – for every dead Arab, another dead jew!” Calling whites “the true chosen race”, Sutter wrote ‘Yes, oh yes… and it shall be much worse this time. Jew – all of your planning, scheming and attempts and preparedness shall not save you from that fateful day, for no man knows the hour….But a little bird told a friend of a friend of a friend who told me that it “shan’t be too far off”…”

Joshua Caleb Stutter, former leader of the Rural People’s Party, selling racist knick knacks (L) and posing in front of a Nazi flag (R)

Joshua Caleb Stutter, former leader of the Rural People’s Party, selling racist knick knacks (L) and posing in front of a Nazi flag (R)

Sutter was arrested in February 2003 for purchasing gun silencers and an automatic pistol with its serial numbers scratched off from an undercover federal agent. The arrest was part of a sting operation which foiled attempts by Sutter’s White Supremacist extremist comrade to use explosives and weapons to blow up abortion clinics and kill political opponents.

Sentenced to two years, Sutter was released from a Georgia federal prison on Nov. 9, 2004 and moved back to his hometown in rural Lexington County, South Carolina.

THE RURAL PEOPLE’S PARTY AND THE JIM JONES JUCHE CARAVAN

That is when Sutter began a twisted web of sharp u-turns in his ideas, veering off to remote side roads of political ideology, and formed a new underground political organization–the Rural People’s Party (RPP)–which embraced both Kim Il Sung’s Juche ideology and that of Jim Jones as its twin political mentors.

In documents compiled by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University (which has an extensive archive of the Jim Jones People’s Temple organization), a member of the Rural People’s Party submitted a biography of the history of the party. Documents and other evidence obtained by NK News show that  the author of the RPP biography was Joshua Sutter and the article was sent from Joshua Sutter’s property in South Carolina.

“The Rural People’s Party (RPP) was officially ratified into existence in 2004 when our founder was released from federal prison after serving a sentence on weapons charges,” the document says, revealing details which mirror the biography of Joshua Sutter.“Other comrades on the outside had already scouted out and purchased a rural location for the founding of a commune,” said the RPP document.

A plaque presented by the Rural People’s Party and Songun Politics Study Group to Kim Jong Il on Kim Il Sung’s birthday

A plaque presented by the Rural People’s Party and Songun Politics Study Group to Kim Jong Il on Kim Il Sung’s birthday

According to Lexington County title records, on Aug 19 2003, David and Laura Sutter, Joshua’s parents, purchased 3.61 acres of land and a mobile home on 480 Sherwood Drive for $75,000 –the same location of the headquarters of the Rural People’s Party, according to multiple documents obtained by NK News during this investigation.

A photograph on the official RPP website shows a single wide mobile home with a North Korean flag flying on a flagpole in a wooded area and is captioned: “ Central People’s Commune of the Rural People’s Party: Militant Juche Songun and Jim Jones thought Communism North America.”

But Sutter didn’t abandon his far right, extremist white supremacist politics when he was released from the penitentiary at the end of 2004.

The singe wide mobile home in Lexington County, South Carolina that served as the headquarters of the RPP. A North Korean flag flies in the foreground, and large cloth portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, obtained from the North Korean government, decorate the entrance.

The single wide mobile home in Lexington County, South Carolina that served as the headquarters of the RPP. A North Korean flag flies in the foreground, and large cloth portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, obtained from the North Korean government, decorate the entrance.

Upon release from prison, Sutter began working at the Southern Patriot Shop, a White Supremacist retail outlet managed by Sutter’s father, Pentecostal preacher David Sutter. The shop sells racist paraphernalia and is owned by the League of the South, an established hate group.

While it was on the date of his release from federal prison that Sutter founded the Rural People’s Party—it was also in the following months that, Sutter using alias’s including Wulfran Hall, actively resumed his leadership role in the white supremacist terror organization Aryan Nations.”We can become more than simple domesticated pawns in the games of jewish commerce. We spit upon the false sanctity of the ‘flag’ – of whatever country,” wrote Sutter in February 2005 on the Aryan Nations website. “We spit upon the erroneous sanctity of the cross – and all the meaningless relics of organized religion which is but another way to enslave us and control us, to keep us from realizing the potential that we possess as a race.”

Audio recording of “Forbidden Knowledge” by Joshua Stutter, during which he outlines his extremist political beliefs. Source: Archive.org

Sutter also provided an approved list of books which he positively reviewed. They included “A Practical Guide to The Strategy and Tactics of Revolution” which demonstrates four ways to “undermine/overthrow/disrupt/de-stabilize the present anti-Aryan System, and thus create or provoke a revolutionary situation”.

The book lists four methods for revolution: “(1) assassination of individuals; (2) terror bombing (including targets where civilian casualties are probable); (3) sabotage of the infrastructure of the System – such things as roads, communications, television transmitters, airports, railways, power stations, food supplies, businesses, shops, financial institutions and so on; (4) terror campaigns directed at our enemies – indiscriminate or otherwise.”

Mobile trailer home which serves as headquarters for the RPP, the pro North Korean political group started by white supremacist Joshua Sutter

Mobile trailer home which serves as headquarters for the RPP, the pro North Korean political group started by white supremacist Joshua Sutter

Also, Sutter provided helpful tips and instructions on killing perceived enemies. “The best types of soft target in this respect are: (1) enemies of Aryan freedom” and “politicians who have spoken-out against Aryan groups or who have done things harmful to our race and our freedom (such as supporting some new anti-Aryan law or encouraging race-mixing). On the practical level, the organization must collect intelligence on suitable targets, acquire suitable weapons and prepare statements for after the action. Individual covert cells can then be supplied with a list of targets, and armed with suitable weapons.” Instruction for terrorist attacks and sparking a race war are also detailed by Sutter.

By April 2005, the Aryan Nations leader and Sutter’s mentor, August Kreis, moved the group’s national headquarters to a doublewide trailer in Lexington County to be near Sutter. On April 9 2005 Aryan Nations leader Kreiss bought a .732 acre piece of land, with a mobile home, at 160 Maplewood drive, Lexington SC for $18,000.

But the following month, Louisiana based Aryan Nations leader and preacher of the White Supremacist hate church Sons Of Yaweh Morris Gulett wrote from the Louisiana West Monroe Correction Center on May 12, 2005 accusing Joshua Sutter of being an undercover government informer. “Brother Charles Thornton from Alabama and myself are in federal custody here in Louisiana charged with Conspiracy to Commit Armed Bank Robbery. We were set up by one of the church’s oldest members, Joshua Caleb Sutter.”

“Let me say that this entire debacle was an FBI set up from the very beginning. There would be no alleged crimes, were it not for an FBI informant/agent provocateur, one Joshua Caleb Sutter, a now former member of the Church of the Sons of YHVH/Legion of Saints.”

Interior of mobile home used by the RPP as the headquarters of the Songun Policy Study Group (USA)

Interior of mobile home used by the RPP as the headquarters of the Songun Policy Study Group (USA)

Within days, Kriess removed a photo of Sutter posing in a black turban and face mask, and articles he wrote from the Aryan Nations Web site, and Sutter went underground. The following years, Joshua Sutter focused on supporting the government and Juche ideology of North Korea using a variety of aliases

KEVIN WALSH AND ZIAD SHAKER AL-JISHI: THE WHITE NATIONALIST AND THE PALESTINIAN AMERICAN

It was also in 2004 that Kevin Walsh, an articulate virulent white nationalist and anti-Semite both began an alliance with Cupp and was arrested himself for threatening to assassinate by gun then U.S. president George W. Bush.

“Police in Phoenix cautiously approached Walsh, a registered handgun owner. Guns drawn, Walsh responded by drawing his own”

“John Paul Cupp and I were political collaborators discontinuously from 2004 to 2010” said Walsh in a series of email interviews.  In 2004 “I was arrested and was incarcerated until 2006.”

Police in Phoenix cautiously approached Walsh, a registered handgun owner. Guns drawn, Walsh responded by drawing his own. The standoff ended without violence, but an Arizona judge declared that Walsh must have been insane and committed him involuntarily to a mental institution for 180 days.

He was released two years later, whereupon he resumed his political alliance with John Paul Cupp, based on their shared support of the North Korean vision for how to politically organize a government.

Walsh joined another organization which was run by Cupp—the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZI). Together, the two created the European-American Socialist People’s Front (EASPF).

Photo of hammer and sickle flag inside the RPP headquarters in rural Lexington County South Carolina

Photo of hammer and sickle flag inside the RPP headquarters in rural Lexington County South Carolina

A synthesis of White Nationalism and Marxism-Leninism “EASPF is essentially a national communist or racial communist organization,” wrote Cupp on a Yahoo! Group message. “I have been to North Korea and am deeply in love with them.”

Cupp wrote that the North Korean Juche ideology supported “biological and cultural distinctiveness” and were “not nihilistic towards the realities of bloodline in the creation of national identities of people the way Western leftists are.”

Kevin Walsh was more direct in his assessment of the two outfits. “NACAZAI and EASPF were only websites. We didn’t have any kind of mass following or street organization. We would write essays and solicit support, but no support came,” Walsh told NK News in an email interview.

“Jewish power and American imperialism are the source of great misery for the Arab people and the rest of the world, and they must be smashed”

All of Walsh’s emails end with a quote from an April 2006 Rodong Sinmun article: “The south Korean pro-American traitorous forces advocating the theory of ‘multiracial society’ are riffraff who have not an iota of national soul, to say nothing of the elementary understanding of the view on the nation and social and historic development.”

NACAZI was run by Cupp and a Palestinian American by the name of Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, who also held the title of deputy chairman of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group. Ziad has made numerous trips to Pyongyang on the invitation of the North Korean government over the last decade.

“Jewish power and American imperialism are the source of great misery for the Arab people and the rest of the world, and they must be smashed. We have made great progress in the last decades for the revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle both in the DPRK and Iraq. We at NACAZAI from our geographic position have tried to contribute to this just and worthy effort to rid the world of Jewish power and American imperialism,” said Ziad, in an interview published on the now defunct NACAZI website.

In an October 2006 letter to Kim Jong Il, Ziad said “For the last several years, I have been active in supporting the DPRK, because of my firm convictions in support of socialism and against imperialism and Zionism. The Korean revolution, through my numerous conversations and recent August visit, has demonstrated to me that it is not only genuine in its efforts, but further-more, the most advanced outpost for anti-imperialism in the world today.”

The letter concluded: “While you long for Korean unity, I long for Arab unity. Like the Korean people under your care, my Arab people long for unification and independence. The lessons you have propagated against flunkeyism, by calling for preserving the Juche and national character of the revolution and synthesizing the people’s cultural and historical identity simultaneously with the anti-imperialist class struggle under the banner of ‘nationalist in form and socialist in content’, is nothing short of genuineness creatively putting its pulse on the needs and desires of the great masses of periphery.”In recent years, North Korean state media has heralded Ziad’s visits to Pyongyang and his messages of support to the Kim family dynasty numerous times.

ZIAD, CUPP, SUTTER AND THE JUCHE CARAVAN

In December 2007, Ziad and Cupp travelled to meet Joshua Caleb Sutter at his rural mobile home in the woods of South Carolina, and formed a political alliance.

“A successful Songun Conference was held outside of Lexington, South Carolina at the Rural Peoples Party’s Central Commune […] Participants included the US Songun Group, the RPP, and the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism,” wrote Cupp in a December 2007 message to political supporters.

While the cast of characters and organizations in the U.S. supporting Pyongyang increased, so did the tension between the extremist leaders with varying political agendas fighting for control over the small  U.S. Juche organization officially sanctioned by Pyongyang.

The U.S. Songun Politics Study Group’s official North Korean government contact was through a known front group for North Korean intelligence agencies, the Committee for Cultural and Foreign Relations, charged with garnering foreign support for the government, and their offices and contacts are located in Pyongyang. For the U.S. political activists and groups, a man using the name Zo Il Min was their primary North Korean contact.

“Cupp told me that Zo Il Min is from southern Korea but had moved to the DPRK and that he has a cable connection to an e-mail address in Japan to do Songun work internationally,” said Walsh in a series of email interviews with NK News from his Arizona home over recent months. “I don’t know if that is true and whether the Juche study group really is sanctioned by the DPRK government. Given the sort of people they’ve been tolerating in positions of leadership recently, I certainly hope not.”

“The first time the RPP and John Paul Cupp crossed paths was in July 2007, when the RPP released a message of support for Pol Pot”

During the late 2007 meeting in the South Carolina woods with former Aryan Nations leader Joshua Caleb Sutter, the leader of the  Rural People’s Party, both Cupp and Ziad quickly found common political ground with the White Supremacist-turned Pyongyang disciple.

“In 2008 Cupp and Ziad had become involved with the Rural People’s Party and had actually travelled to South Carolina to meet their leader, known as David Woods. Cupp would later say that Woods was a pseudonym for Josh Sutter and that Sutter had been arrested for some offense and had become a government agent” said Walsh. “Cupp and Ziad had initially thought Woods/Sutter and the RPP were sincere,” Walsh told NK News.

Jillian Hoy—or “comrade Morrison” of the pro North Korean Rural people’s party holding a Korean trade magazine sent to them by the Pyongyang government in 2008. The photo is from inside the mobile home in rural South Carolina that served as headquarters for the RPP.

Jillian Hoy—or “comrade Morrison” of the pro North Korean Rural people’s party holding a Korean trade magazine sent to them by the Pyongyang government in 2008. The photo is from inside the mobile home in rural South Carolina that served as headquarters for the RPP.

The first time the RPP and John Paul Cupp crossed paths was in July 2007, when the RPP released a message of support for Pol Pot, the former leader of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge movement, on a pro-Khmer Rouge website. 1.8 million people died during Pol Pot’s 3 years and 8 months in power in the 1970s.

Sutter sent a message. “We stand in firm solidarity with the Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot and as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization have held steadfast in defense, study, assimilation into party line and, by our work in establishing the Central People’s Commune, advancing toward practical implementation of Pol Potism. Please find as follows some links to photographs taken at the CPC, a place which all who uphold the glorious line of the CPK are most graciously welcome.”

The message contained photographs of the Khmer Rouge flag flying over a vinyl-sided mobile home in a rural setting – the Central People’s Commune of the Rural People’s Party. In photographs published elsewhere, the same trailer and property later show pictures of the North Korean flag and large portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on the exterior of the small building.

John Paul Cupp wrote back a month later “On the Occasion of CPK Foundation Day” to the RPP: “It takes a lot of courage and guts to defend Democratic Kampuchea and Comrade Pol Pot in the U.S. I congratulate the RPP on this statement.”

After the December 2007 meeting in South Carolina between Joshua Sutter, the RPP, John Paul Cupp and Ziad, the group of extremist leaders decided to join forces. Joshua Caleb Sutter, Jillian Hoy (an RPP committee member), James Porrazzo (another White Supremacist leader), and others affiliated with the RPP were all present.

Literature and propaganda material also sent by the North Korean government to the Rural People’s Party (RPP)

Literature and propaganda material also sent by the North Korean government to the Rural People’s Party (RPP)

On February 9, 2008, a joint statement was released in celebration of Kim Jong Il’s birthday, announcing “The Songun Politics Study Group (USA)… are pleased to announce the formation of the US Preparatory Committee for the Celebration of February 16th and Red Sun’s Day.”

“The Committee will be chaired by John Paul Cupp and Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, Chairman of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI) will be the Vice Chairman,” the statement said. Included in the release was an RPP Statement, a letter to Kim Jong Il from John Paul Cupp and a similar letter from Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, Chairman of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI).”

“Weapons-grade anthrax isn’t something some redneck can make on the weekend in his tool shed”

The meeting between the unlikely grouping of white power extremists, Palestinian Americans and a formerly homeless person produced several new elements in the nexus between Pyongyang and their American citizen comrades.

“Cupp did tell me that Woods/Sutter had been talking about having been involved with sending anthrax to the White House,” Walsh told NK News.

“Ziad had said something similar. I said, ‘I seriously doubt that he had anything to do with that.  He doesn’t have the technical know-how to make weapons-grade anthrax. I have two university degrees, and I don’t have that technical knowledge. Weapons-grade anthrax isn’t something some redneck can make on the weekend in his tool shed. It takes a great deal of medical and biological expertise and expensive laboratory equipment. It’s not a do-it-yourself project for revolutionaries.’”

Picture of Pol Pot on the wall inside mobile home on secluded South Carolina property of the Rural People’s Party (RPP) headquarters

Picture of Pol Pot on the wall inside mobile home on secluded South Carolina property of the Rural People’s Party (RPP) headquarters

Walsh said if Sutter and Ziad were correctly recalling the conversations, “then it would seem that Woods/Sutter is some kind of government provocateur trying to entrap people by inciting them to use harmless powder that he claims is weapons-grade anthrax.”

Walsh added that North Korea had no control over the white nationalist group, European American Socialist People’s Front (EASPF), which he and Cupp ran, “because I had veto power over everything there, and I originated a lot of the ideas, and no one in Korea told me to do anything.  I suspect the Rural People’s Party is run by the FBI, so if the DPRK is having anything to do with them, it’s probably not a good idea for them.”

In the South Carolina backwoods on April 15, 2008, Kim Il Sung’s Birthday, the RPP changed its official constitution to formally pledge loyalty to Pyongyang and their Juche ideology, giving equal status to both Kim Il Sung and Jim Jones. , officially adopting Juche as its “guiding ideology” and announcing a new “officially authorized” website which posted North Korean official propaganda “provided to the RPP by the Pyongyang Mission of the Anti-Imperialist National Democratic Front of South Korea (AINDF).”

The RPP also posted a picture of RPP Central Committee member Jillian Hoy holding an inscribed plaque sent to “KPA Supreme Commander Kim Jong Il on the occasion of the birth of his father Kim Il Sung” which was captioned: “RPP Central Committee member holds plaque for KIM JONG IL presented on behalf of RPP and the Songun Politics Study Group (USA).”

The RPP copied the official policy of the North Korean Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation  by using a different, bolder and larger font and type style for the North Korean leader’s name.

THE PLOT THICKENS, THE GROUP UNRAVELS

But like any good melodrama script, the new alliance also produced a subtext of love, betrayal, and treachery.

And so began what would be a rapidly unraveling political alliance of U.S. North Korea supporters as  the U.S. Songun Study Group and the RPP ushered in a tumultuous period worthy of a bizarre soap opera script.

“The rivalry was to get tenser, including an exchange of death threats and an alleged assassination attempt.”

During early 2008, John Paul Cupp fell in love and became engaged to Jillian Hoy, but that relationship would implode within months amongst accusations of it having been a politically motivated “honey trap” whereby Hoy was accused of attempting to poison Cupp in an alleged RPP bid to take over control of the officially recognized U.S. Songun Study Group.

By the summer of 2008, the RPP, having established their own direct connection to Pyongyang, cut all ties with Cupp. The rivalry was to get tenser, including an exchange of death threats and an alleged assassination attempt.

“Cupp was involved in a sexual relationship with one of the female members and had told me on the telephone that they were to be married. In July 2008, Cupp became severely ill with chronic appendicitis and some kind of lung infection and had to be hospitalized,” Walsh recalled in an email to NK News.

“He wanted to talk to his ‘fiancée,’ and I e-mailed the RPP on his behalf but got no response.  When he was released from hospital, she still didn’t respond.  It was then that Cupp came to the conclusion that it was all some kind of set-up.”

Jillian Hoy—who used the name “Comrade Morrison” in her role with the RPP—was in fact Joshua Sutter’s girlfriend—and soon to be wife.

The RPP “contact[ed] the then Songun Politics Study Group USA in 2007 and had very cordial relations with them,” wrote Jason Adams-Tonis in December 2011, the head of the Songun Politics Study Group by that time. Jillian Hoy “became the fiancée of the then chairman John Paul Cupp” but in June 2008 the RPP “cut off all ties, unprovoked, with us. Cupp believes his illness was caused by being poisoned by Jillian” and Adams-Tonis charged the “whole RPP action was designed as a government attempt to seize control over the Study Group.”

Jason Adams-Tonis added “with Cupp dead, Woods [Joshua Sutter] would have become the study group leader and thus have an inside connection to the DPRK leadership.”

“[Sutter] later boasted to me that Jillian was in fact his own girlfriend and that he had indeed poisoned Cupp,” wrote Adams-Tonis, quoting Sutter as saying Cupp was “insane” and the Study Group “deserved” a better leader.

“In personal conversations I had with the RPP leader, who utilized the pseudonym Woods, Woods told me that he had been a member of Aryan Nations before his ‘conversion’ to communism and that he feared retribution by Aryan Nations for his defection,” according an online post by Adams-Tonis in December 2011.

He wrote that Sutter, in “statements to me and also to other comrades”, tried to recruit them as loyalists to seize control “in his unsuccessful 2007-8 attempt to take over the group.”

Cupp had a lengthy hospitalization in July of 2008, but emerged seemingly even more radical in his political beliefs.

“The content of [Cupp’s] political manifestos were extreme enough to draw the pointed but gentle rebuke of Pyongyang directly.”

In August of 2008, Cupp wrote numerous public screeds extolling the mass killing of all Jews, support for suicide bombers, Saddam Hussein, Sirhan Sirhan (the assassin of Robert Kennedy), and various calls for  a new government to replace the U.S. authorities with  a nation populated by an Aryan race.

CUPP DRAWS PYONGYANG’S DISSAPPROVAL

Cupp posted many of these screeds on the official North Korean U.S. Songun Politics Study Group which was disseminating propaganda sent by and on the instruction of Pyongyang.

The content of his political manifestos were extreme enough to draw the pointed but gentle rebuke of Pyongyang directly.

In an email from North Korea to Cupp on September 15, 2008, Pyongyang wrote instructing Cupp  to pull non DPRK provided political propaganda from the U.S. Songun Study Group’s website and refrain from posting DPRK material on Cupp’s incendiary white supremacist anti-Semitic web pages.

“Dear comrade CUPP,” the North Korean message began “We would like to make a comradely suggestion to you on the matter of publishing the great Juche and Songun-related photos and articles, great leaders’ works, etc, on the internet. Could you please publish those materials exclusively on the US Songun website and the US Solidarity webpage and not post non-DPRK materials on this, and not post those Juche-Songun and DPRK photos and articles on your?”

“That’s only for the sake of the dignity and prestige of our great leaders and the DPRK. We hope you who sincerely and ardently follow and revere the great leaders could understand what we mean and soon rearrange the materials on the internet, please. We’re waiting for your reply in this connection and the good news of your better health. With our sincere and comradely regards, Zo Il Min, Representative of the Pyongyang Mission of the AINDF, September 15, Juche 97 (2008), Pyongyang, DPRK.”

On September 15, Juche 97 (2008) John Paul Cupp replied to Pyongyang requesting him to tone down his virulent extremist politics.

“I will most certainly, as always, comply with the dictate given to me, and all these articles will be removed and I will comply with the request by this by Sunday… I do believe in…fulfilling the tasks assigned to me. I never ever even remotely wanted to disparage the DPRK in any way, shape, or form… what brought about this concern? Did someone complain? Am I in trouble?  I wish to tell you that I have never stopped in my reverence to the DPRK leadership.”

“the DPRK has known we support Saddam, hollowcause revisionism, reject ‘Israel’ and detest Jews for several years now and sided with us privately on most of that”

But Cupp reacted to  the rebuke with alarm to his U.S. comrades . A September 16, 2008 email from Cupp to a half dozen members of the U.S. Songun Study Group with the subject “HUGE EMERGENCY NEWS” said: “I need you to promise me you aren’t going to contact the DPRK […] Someone is fucking with us, and whining up the ass to the DPRK, and crying to them about three things: A. My open support for European-American nationalism (which they probably went and told Zo Il Min I was a KKK lynching or something), our position against the Jews (but they’ve known that for like 6 years!) and our support for armed struggle to bring down the American regime”

“I mean I told them I laughed my ass off at Sept 11 and they chuckled,” Cupp said.

Cupp concluded “We are the most open and honest about not bowing to the Jews and hating America and supporting all international and national violence or other means to stop them….this is a major security issue attempting to wreck our ties to the DPRK (and the DPRK has known we support Saddam, hollowcause revisionism, reject ‘Israel’ and detest Jews for several years now and sided with us privately on most of that).”

His erstwhile comrade, Kevin Walsh, told Cupp that he would have told Pyongyang differently.

“Quite frankly if Zo Il Minh had come to me with such a request, I’d have told him to fuck off. No one is going to stop my expressing support for the DPRK, not even the DPRK leadership itself.  NACAZAI is an independent anti-imperialist organization, not an agent of any foreign government, no matter how progressive.  The Korean Revolution is worthy of defense, even if the leadership no longer think so.”

“You don’t get to vote in DPRK elections,” Walsh wrote to Cupp, “So you don’t have any obligation to go along with DPRK decisions. You are not an agent of a foreign government, and for the sake of your legal status, it is for the best that things stay that way.”

Cupp did not take North Korea’s advice.

Immediately after the rebuke to Cupp from the North Korean government, Cupp posted a virulent message on the Aryan Nations website in support of a White Supremacist U.S. terrorist, David Lane, who had been sentenced to death  and executed after his arrest for a spree of racial and terrorist violence in 2001. Cupp wrote Lane “rests with our martyrs and ancestors for all of eternity” and said it was “time for raising the White Power battle cry….David Lane is a symbol of our struggle for liberation by any means necessary.“Lane recognized that America is the enemy of White people and the world.  He taught us to love the White woman with all our hearts, and to defend her in with the same fanaticism of Timothy McVeigh… and Palestinian human bombs….On the day when a great army of Aryan guerrillas answers the call, we will honor him through victory and martyrdom. White Power, build the People’s War!

FROM JUCHE CARAVAN TO HINDU TEMPLE: A NEW GOD IN LEXINGTON COUNTY

On November 18, 2008 Joshua Sutter and Jillian Hoy (aka Comrade Morrison and Cupp’s erstwhile ex-fiancé) married at a South Carolina Apostolic Pentecostal church “on the anniversary of the People’s Temple martyrdom” to the tune of the song “Hold On, Brother” from the People’s Temple album “He’s Able”, and “Marching to Zion” used for the movie Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones, according to Lexington County, South Carolina probate Court records.

Jillian Hoy, wife of white power leader, pro North Korea advocate, and Jim Jones supporter Joshua Caleb Sutter. Here Hoy, who bills herself a Hindu priestess Jayalalita Devi Dasi, is pictured at the rural South Carolina property where the Hindu temple New Bihar Mandir is located which worships the deity Kali, the “Goddess of Destruction” is located

Jillian Hoy, wife of white power leader, pro North Korea advocate, and Jim Jones supporter Joshua Caleb Sutter. Here Hoy, who bills herself a Hindu priestess Jayalalita Devi Dasi, is pictured at the rural South Carolina property where the Hindu temple New Bihar Mandir is located which worships the deity Kali, the “Goddess of Destruction” is located

By 2009, both the RPP and the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group vied for control over the officially-sanctioned U.S. support group for North Korea. In doing so, both groups veered farther into extremist white supremacist and apocalyptic religious politics.

“In 2009, leaders of the clandestine U.S. White Power movement created another religious organization—a Hindu sect worshipping an apocalyptic Hindu Deity, Kali”

“The RPP continues to work within religious circles in line with the example given to us by Jim Jones and Peoples Temple,” said the RPP in a November 2009 biography written for the University of California at San Diego Center for Religious Studies,

Also in  2009, Joshua Sutter, Jillian Hoy, and other leaders of the clandestine U.S. White Power movement created another religious organization—a Hindu sect worshipping an apocalyptic Hindu Deity, Kali.

Taking on the aliases of a Hindu priest and priestess, Sutter and Hoy established the New Bihar Mandir Temple at the same rural South Carolinian location  as  the Rural People’s Party  headquarters and where the U.S. Songun Study Group represented by Cupp and the Palestinian American activist Ziad secretly travelled months earlier to formalize their political alliance.

Sutter adopted an additional new identity of a Hindu Hare Krishna priest calling himself Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika Mandir. Sutter’s bride, Jillian Hoy, took on the name Jayalalita devi dasi, and billed herself as a Hindu priestess.

While ostensibly clandestine in its formation using aliases and other tactics to obfuscate who was in fact behind the new Hindu temple, the New Bihar Mandir Hindu Temple used the same mailing address and phone numbers used for the RPP. Public recruitment notices in local newspapers and in new age circles listed the physical address as that of the Sutter owned property and Joshua Sutter was given as the contact person to call for directions to worship services.

New Bihar Mandir’s Myspace page, created in 2009, says “A new god has come to rural Lexington County, South Carolina: Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika.” Adding “Lord Kalki will appear as the “Killer Avatar” to cleanse the earth as the pivotal factor in a worldwide annihilation, from which, like a phoenix arising from the ashes, will come a new Golden Age (or ‘Satya-yuga.’)”

The New Bihar Mandir proclaimed “Lord Kalki is our commander, ultimate master and final authority life after life.” According to ancient Hindu scriptures, history is divided into four epochs: now is the ‘Kali Yug’, the Age of Kali, an epoch of darkness and disintegration…New Bihar Mandir, a worldwide movement of devotees and temples, is beginning to bring this prophecy into fruition.”

Map showing location of the “New Bihar Mandir Hindu Temple” – a religious cult ran by the same people who once operated a pro-North Korean organization from the same location. Map: Google.

‘Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika Mandir’ and ‘Jayalalita devi dasi’ both list their marriage dates on My Space as November 18, 2008, the same date listed on Sutter and Hoy’s marriage license in Lexington County probate court records. In keeping with their affinity for violent apocalyptic religious sects with a political agenda, The New Bihar Mandir Temple heavily promotes Velupillai Pirabhakaran, the head of the Sri Lankan LTTE ‘Tamil Tigers’ armed guerrilla group, who was a devoted follower of the same Kali sect of Hindu and responsible for creating suicide squads of teenage girls dispatched to explode deadly terrorist bombings and assassinate political leaders, including the May 21, 1991 killing of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, home to India’s Tamils.

“New Bihar Mandir of Lexington, South Carolina has as its foremost mission providing the facilities for persons in our area hitherto unfamiliar with ancient Vedic wisdom to engage in this bhakti-yoga (devotional yoga) and commune personally with Lord Kalki and Goddess Kali,” reads the New Bihar Mandir MySpace profile.

Photo of weapons and other offering to the Hindu Goddess kali at Joshua Sutters rural South Carolina property. Titled “Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri , New Bihar Mandir, United States”, the photo is taken from the official New Bihar mandir temple website and posted in 2009

Photo of weapons and other offering to the Hindu Goddess kali at Joshua Sutters rural South Carolina property. Titled “Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri , New Bihar Mandir, United States”, the photo is taken from the official New Bihar mandir temple website and posted in 2009

The New Bihar Mandir Temple Face book page, used the slogans “Where Worlds Collide” and “I have become death, the destroyer of worlds “and invites the public to “Contact us to learn how to get involved in NBM.”

The previous year Sutter had professed loyalty to the Hare Krishna sect of Hinduism. “In retrospect I can see just how much my life has been enriched by your work,” Sutter wrote in a letter to the head of a North Carolina-based Hare Krishna temple.

“[My wife] is now having some of the happiest times I have seen her have since our marriage because of the enriching potency of Krishna consciousness,”

“[We] covertly inserted ourselves into various religious organizations in the rural Lexington County area”

By 2010, in addition to proclaiming loyalty to Pyongyang and their Juche ideology Sutter and the RPP simultaneously asserted their devotion to white racist Christian Identity churches; the Jim Jones religious cult; a Hindu apocalyptic sect worshipping “the Goddess of Destruction”; a mostly black South Carolina fundamentalist Pentecostal church, and the more mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect – all within a matter of several years.

A biography of the RPP published by the University of San Diego in 2010, and written by Sutter, explains the reasoning behind the discordant affiliations.

The many shades of Jillian Hoy: (L) Jillian Hoy in a photo  taken during a pilgrimage to visit the former church headquarters of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple in Los Angeles, (C) Hoy holds an RPP plaque devoted to Kim Jong Il and poses for a photo (R) Hoy in her guise as a Hindu preistess

The many shades of Jillian Hoy: (L) Jillian Hoy in a photo taken during a pilgrimage to visit the former church headquarters of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple in Los Angeles, (C) Hoy holds an RPP plaque devoted to Kim Jong Il and poses for a photo (R) Hoy in her guise as a Hindu preistess

During 2008, the Rural People’s Party “covertly inserted ourselves into various religious organizations in the rural Lexington County area,” wrote Sutter for the archives of Jim Jones’s People’s Temple. “Many communists might look upon our activity…as suspect, due to what – in our opinion – is a naive belief… that all political activity must by default primarily be “above-ground.” These same people seem to forget that Joseph Stalin began his political activity at Tiflis Theological Seminary as a seminarian, and that Kim Il Sung organized many pre-revolutionary anti-imperialist activities while an accomplished organist at his parents’ Presbyterian church in Korea….at the peak of the RPP’s involvement in local Pentecostal and Apostolic circles, two members of our organization were married in a ceremony at a local Apostolic church on November 18th, the anniversary of the Peoples Temple martyrdom.”

THE NEW BIHARD MANDIR WHITE SUPREMACY CONNECTION

The members of the  New Bihar Mandir temple include a veritable who’s who  of North American white power activists. They include a ‘Minister Black’ identified as ‘Works at New Bihar Mandir’ and a former white power activist; James Porrazzo the former leader of the American Front, once the largest white power neo Nazi group in the U.S.; ‘Emily Putney, Porrazzo’s girlfriend in Massachusetts and convicted of an anti-Semitic assault and hate crime on an elderly Jewish man in 2010; ‘Jayalalita Devi Dasi of Lexington, South Carolina’ who is Jillian Hoy of the Rural People’s Party and Joshua Sutter’s wife; ‘Rex Morgan’ a white power activist with a history of involvement in Satanic cults; and Chris Hayes a long time white supremacist activist with the American Front.

“The Aryan is white and noble in contradistinction to the black and ignoble.”

The group all using numerous aliases.  are affiliated with white supremacist groups, Satanic cults, and underground political groups who call for the violent armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

On James Porrazzo’s web site “OPENREVOLT” he posted an article “NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA” on August 22, 2011 which begins: “We assume, quite justifiably, I think, that the Bhagavad-Gita sets forth Aryan philosophy. The Aryan is white and noble in contradistinction to the black and ignoble. This book then, if Aryan, must give us a noble system of philosophy and ethics.”

The article concludes with: “This post is dedicated to his Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupada, my anonymous Krishna Conscious Spiritual Advisor (you know who you are) and my brothers and sisters at New Bihar Mandir.”

Jillian Hoy at hare Krishna ceremony at hare Krishna temple retreat in North Carolina in 2009

Jillian Hoy at hare Krishna ceremony at hare Krishna temple retreat in North Carolina in 2009

On July 4, 2012, on the white separatist web site run by Porrazzo “American Front”, there is a graphic labeled as the artwork of New Bihar Mandir dedicated to the military unit of suicide bombers of the Sri Lankan LTTE, listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., the EU and others.

ENTER JASON ADAMS-TONIS AND THE ‘FBI INFORMANT’

In late 2009, John Paul Cupp and Kevin Walsh got into a confrontation with Joshua Sutter and James Porrazzo of the Rural People’s Party over a young recruit by the name of Jason Adams-Tonis.

A New York University college student from New Jersey, Tonis had contacted the RPP earlier in 2009 interested in working with U.S. supporters of North Korea. Tonis was unaware about the ongoing clash between the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group, and was taken aback by the RPP private denunciation of the Songun Study Group, and contacted them.

“Someone has told me that your leader, Woods, was formerly a member of a white gang. He and few others did something, got caught by the cops, and Woods snitched to avoid going to jail.”

Tonis then contacted Cupp at the U.S. Songun Study Group who denounced the RPP to Tonis as possible government informants.  On August 25th, Cupp wrote to Walsh, saying that Tonis told him he had “contacted the RPP some time back and they claimed to be the real representatives of the AINDF in the US! I made clear to him that they only time the AINDF ever contacted them was at my suggestion to which I take enormous self criticism.”

Tonis wrote to the RPP head Joshua Sutter afterwards on October 31. “Someone has told me that your leader, Woods, was formerly a member of a white gang. He and few others did something, got caught by the cops, and Woods snitched to avoid going to jail.”

“This person believes that Woods founded the RPP as an FBI/CIA or other government attempt to infiltrate the American Songun movement and the DPRK. Care to comment on the allegations?” Tonis wrote. “I wish you would be more open with me, a Communist party is supposed to be a family but how can we ever become a family when you don’t even tell me your names?”

“All you do is keep secret, said Tonis, “Secrecy is important for some kinds of political work, but how can you even build a party if we don’t even know each other’s names?”

The message was not well received.

Sutter replied back, saying “Consider all friendships between us as ended. This email is being forwarded to the Special Dictatorship Group intelligence apparatus of the party as facsimile copy. Please return any and all materials the party has sent you to the party post office box. Should you choose not to reciprocate in the requested manner, we will take other measures”

On November 3, Tonis emailed Cupp in panic. With the subject line I think the RPP is coming after me, Tonis wrote “ooh my god…I just got an email from the RPP, they’re making some sort of threat against me, what should I do?”

John Paul Cupp responded Tonis regarding the conflict in an email, saying “Okay so it looks like we are going to wind up getting stuck with an ugly fight with the RPP, maybe even literally.”

“Woods went nuts and is basically threatening to kill Jason in not so many words….I think he is afraid the RPP is going to send some ZOG agent to kill him and his family,” wrote Cupp.

“We cannot promise they aren’t crazy enough to try killing him”

Cupp decided to “avoid confrontations that needlessly waste literally years of our time or get people killed and locked up” and opted to warn Joshua Sutter that he would publicly identify him by his real name and his white supremacist past unless he backed off.

Cupp wrote that he told Tonis “we cannot promise they aren’t crazy enough to try killing him” and that “I have already told him about my lung stories and true or not he is sure I was poisoned so he will listen.”

“We [could] avoid these people and not waste years fighting with them,” Cupp concluded, “but if we do, we fight them ruthlessly. I also genuinely think one of two things, either a) Jason is some sort of agent or tool or b) his life is in serious danger. Woods is crazy enough that if he feels all is lost, to just drive up to such said address and kill him. He really is that nuts. He’d do that to me, also.”

“I am concerned that lots of well meaning sort of national communistic types, both White and Black are going to contact the RPP in the next few years looking for options ‘outside the box’ and could wind up dead or seriously harmed,” Cupp said. “At some point we need to eliminate the RPP, likely for now we see if it can implode. If it doesn’t we make clear who they are out in the open and destroy them, but first get inside their allies so these people know who they are dealing with.”

Cupp’s 2010 conversion to Islam did not ring true with Kevin Walsh, who broke all ties with Cupp and resigned from both Nacazai and the EASP. “In March 2010, Cupp made a public and obviously false conversion to Islam on Face book three weeks after posting on a Face book group that he had himself founded called “Aryan Atheists,” Walsh said.

Cupp was eased out of the leadership of the Pyongyang-recognized U.S. Songun Politics Study Group, and was replaced by Jason Adams-Tonis by February 2011.

In a statement posted in December 2011, the Study Group said: “In February 2011, John Paul Cupp’s mentally ill state and devolution reached a point whereby he totally abandoned Juche and communism. Jason-Adam Tonis was left to take over leadership of the group and try to rebuild it.”

Jason-Adam Tonis “decided to lead it in a strictly orthodox Juche-Songun framework, away from racism and all those who supported racist ideas. Jason-Adam Tonis since 2009 had always opposed John Paul Cupp’s white nationalist line but his attempts to lead Cupp back to the orthodox Juche camp always ended in failure due to Cupp’s increasing mental illness.”

“Mr. Tonis was at that same time campaigning for ‘Prime Minister’ of a Japanese based political organization called the Manchukuo Temporary Government.”

TONIS: A TEMPORARY PRIME MINISTER OF A TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT

The transition, however, was far from smooth and Jason-Adam Tonis’s promotion in February 2011 hardly brought a semblance of harmony to the U.S.-North Korea political movement.

In fact. Mr. Tonis was at that same time campaigning for “Prime Minister” of a Japanese based political organization called the Manchukuo Temporary Government. The Official Website of the Manchukuo Temporary Government states on May 28, 2011 “Mr. Jason Adam Tonis was elected as the new Prime Minister.”

The state of Manchukuo existed as a puppet state of Imperial Japan between September 1932 and the 1945 Russian invasion, and was the site of some of the worst atrocities committed by the Japanese military and is a symbol of Japanese imperialism and aggression to many Asians.

“The sovereign rights and ruling right was handed to the Temporary Administrator Mr. Jason Adam Tonis,” announced the Manchukuo Temporary Government in April 2011.

Their manifesto includes the statement: “We put emphasize in watching the Korean peninsula’s relation. If the two Korea are at war with each other [sic]. We will no doubly declare war on North Korea to fight the totalitarian Kim regime and liberate the North people [sic].”

JAMES PORRAZZO: THE PRO-NORTH KOREAN WHITE SUPREMACIST

An increasingly prominent figure among U.S. citizens supporting North Korea in recent years is James Porrazzo.

Porrazzo became a key figure in pro Pyongyang activist circles in America when he was released from prison in 2007 or 2008 after a stint for selling illegal growth hormones used by athletes to increase strength.

He was also former head of the largest white supremacist group in the United States, the American Front.

Founded in 1987, the American Front was affiliated with racist groups such as the White Aryan Resistance, and gained publicity for breaking U.S. chat show host Geraldo Rivera’s nose live on his television show. Starting out as a White Supremacist skinhead group targeting blacks and Jews, it soon went through numerous internal power struggles and ideological programs.

“In 1998, Porrazzo was arrested for assault against an anti-racist activist in Springfield, Missouri, given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to give up racist politics”

American Front members committed numerous violent racial hate crimes in the 1990s. In 1991, police offers searching a Beaverton, Oregon residence found a “hit list” of Portland police officers. In 1993, in California and Washington states a series of bombings targeting blacks, gays and Jews were attributed to the American Front. The U.S. Attorney in Washington State said the American Front were part of a larger conspiracy to incite a race war.

Their motto was to “Secure National Freedom and Social Justice for White people in North America.”

In 1996 James Porrazzo took control of the group, and moved to Arkansas where he professed an ideology known as “Third Positionism” – an amalgam of far right racial politics and leftist communist economic policies which had its roots with the European fascist right.

In 1998, Porrazzo was arrested for assault against an anti-racist activist in Springfield, Missouri, given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to give up racist politics.

“By the early 2000s,” the anti-racist Anti-Defamation League wrote, “Porrazzo had largely run the group into the ground and it was Porrazzo’s approach to Islamists which seems to have been the final cause of his undoing.” The group promoted not only Hamas and Hezbollah, but even Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. After 9/11, that kind of promotion “inspired some heavy state harassment and severely limited our ability to safely expand or organize,” Porrazzo said.

Porrazzo advocated “socialist revolution in a racialist context,” explaining “We propose a workable, realistic alternative, and that is Separatism! White autonomy, Black autonomy, Brown autonomy and death to the current twisted system…. The only other obvious route would be an eventual winner take all race war: I don’t think anyone with any sense would want that… ”

After the September 11 terrorist attack, Porrazzo disappeared from public activism. The American Front was taken over by another virulent white racist, David Lynch, who was murdered by an assassin on March 2, 2011.

A man, possibly Porrazzo, at the RPP headquarters, now a temple.

A man, possibly Porrazzo, at the RPP headquarters, now a temple.

Like many of U.S. citizens supporting North Korea, Porrazzo goes to great lengths to hide his real identity and obfuscate his real political agenda by using a myriad of pseudonyms and front groups. In doing so, he and his confederates continued to try to lure potential supporters to their true political beliefs.

A careful dissection of their complex web of front religious cults, White Supremacist groups, and neo Nazi front organizations all lead back to the same core group of people and extremist political objectives.

“In 2008, Porrazzo, a long time member of the U.S. based Hare Krishna Hindu sect, joined forces with Joshua Sutter in the RPP.”

In a March 2013 interview with Polish National Socialist organization XPortal, Porrazzo explained “The American Front  took “what we could from left-wing sources” but a “very influential” ideology was what was called “ ‘occult fascists’, this on top of the foundation of our having been America’s first national ‘Skinhead’ organization” and “very importantly from Gaddafi‘s Green Book.”

“One of the areas we studied heavily was the Islamic resistance movements towards the Globalists. This study would backfire on American Front when Sept 11th occurred” which resulted in “heavy state harassment and severely limited our ability to safely expand or organize. By 2002 we voted to put American Front into a ‘tactical hibernation’ until we felt the situation was better suited for us to act openly.”

In 2008, Porrazzo, a long time member of the U.S. based Hare Krishna Hindu sect, joined forces with Joshua Sutter in the RPP. He was also was a leader in the 2009 formation of the New Bihar Mandir temple.

In a series of August 2011 email communications between a group of radical anti-racists, one American Front member, Kent McLellan, broke with Porrazzo and detailed his political activities.

I’m done with American Front,” wrote McLellen. “James Porrazzo, former leader of American Front…is a convicted GHB peddler, as well as actual contributor to Libya, (in fact in 2003 Libya tried to give him $3 million but was denied by the US government) […] He also [believes] in Hindu/Satanism/Allah.”

Kent McLellen, at the time was an avowed white supremacist who had spent time in prison for racial hate crimes.

TYLER MOSES AND THE UNITED JUCHE FRONT OF NORTH AMERICA

On November 17, 2011 the United Juche Front of North America was created by someone using the name Tyler Moses.

Tyler Moses was an alias used by Joshua Sutter in 2002 while serving as the “Pennsylvania state coordinator” for the white racist terror group Aryan Nation shortly prior to his arrest for buying illegal weaponry from an undercover federal law enforcement agent in a plot to launch a bombing campaign in the U.S.

“The sole mission of The United Juche Front of North America is to disseminate information related to the practical application of Songun and Juche based ideologies on the American continent,” the organization’s manifesto read.

“We recognize as Americans that support of the DPRK is seen as a hostile act and are acting in accordance [with] the engagement of operating behind enemy lines.”

Just as David Woods was the alias used by Sutter as head of the Rural People’s Party, Tyler Moses was the alias he used to coordinate a White Power march on Washington D.C.

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

In his time as leader of Aryan nations Sutter also used his real name and other aliases, including the name Wulfran Hall. In his incarnation as a Hindu priest for the New Bihar Mandir temple he assumed the name Shree Shree Kalika-Kalki. In other covert communications with outsiders, he used the name Stephen Browne.

But numerous South Carolina, online, and other records show that all these identities are, in fact, Joshua Sutter. They share birthdates, marriage dates, telephone numbers, and addresses.

THE BID FOR PYONGYANG RECOGNITION

In December 2011, in an apparent attempt to seize control over the organization and become the only official organization supporting North Korea in the U.S., Joshua Sutter and James Porrazzo, used the RPP, New Resistance and another pro-Pyongyang group created using pseudonyms to attack the Pyongyang-recognized leadership of the North American Juche-Songun Ideas Study Group.

“The Juche movement in North America has been hampered in its development because of the study group’s former chairman John Paul Cupp’s deviationism from Kim Il Sungist Thought”

“A few weeks ago, a man using the name Tyler Moses formed a group calling itself the Juche Front this man was also an Aryan Nations figure and he claimed also to be a Hare Krishna and member of New Bihar Mandir, as part of our group’s routine background check for applying member candidates, we discovered the identity of New Bihar Mandir’s leader Shree Shree Kalika-Kalki Mandir was actually Sutter,” wrote the North American Juche Songun Study Group in December 2011.

The statement continued: “Over the past several years, the Juche movement in North America has been hampered in its development because of the study group’s former chairman John Paul Cupp’s deviationism from Kim Il Sungist Thought and his flirtations with anti-communist philosophies such as white nationalism.”

Cupp’s deviations “led him to bring many dangerous and suspect people into the group; two of these individuals were Joshua Caleb Sutter and James Porrazzo,” the statement said, referring to the former leader of the Aryan Nations and the former head of the American Front.

the fault for these matters rests solely upon John Paul Cupp and his adoption of a pro-white nationalist line; had he not done so James Porrazzo and Joshua Sutter would never once have ever been considered for a moment to be validly qualified to be members of this study group, from now on we will pursue a more vigilant anti-racist, anti-white nationalist policy.

The statement concluded “The North American Juche-Songun Ideas Study Group repeats and reaffirms our warning to all comrades and friends of the DPRK and Juche to avoid James Porrazzo and his New Resistance group.”

Porrazzo and Sutter lashed back, creating another front group, the Swords of Songun and went public with attacks on Tonis the same month.

Swords of Songun was a newly created pro-North Korean web page that posted propaganda it had obtained from the North Korean government describing itself as the journal of “Juche Truth, a North American National Revolutionary think-tank focusing on the study of Juche and Songun.”

But its sole posting was a vitriolic screed against Tonis titled “A warning to all Revolutionary friends of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Juche Thought: This silver spoon fed NYC metro-sexual exposed.” contending “Tonis’s true beliefs as the Manchukuo group is obsessively pro-Japan and anti-China, anti-communist (Tonis professes to be pro-Stalin and Mao to some he is spying on), anti-”racist” (Tonis also advocates racial separatism to others he spies on) and most disturbingly militantly anti-DPRK.”

Swords of Songun spewed venom at Tonis saying “He tongues the toes of the Japanese along with his Manchu reactionary cohorts as if they were his 55 year old tranny possible police contact / boy-girlfriend’s – then he attacks the Japanese attempting to curry favor and trust with the DPRK!” and threatened Tonis with death.

“Tonis went too far when he tried to infiltrate the New Resistance. In addition to whatever harm he has caused to the DPRK through his weekly contacts with DPRK representatives… turbulence was ignited between Juche Front and NR”

“After the Revolution he will answer for his crimes.”

New Resistance is a clandestine front organization controlled by James Porrazzo, and other veteran hard-core members of extreme right wing white supremacists that had their origins in the Aryan Nations and American Front of the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

The Swords of Songun website, aside from posting long sections of official North Korean propaganda detailing Juche ideology and praising the Kim dynasty, attacked the U.S. Songun Study Group and its leadership.”Jason-Adam Tonis…has repeatedly tried to drive a wedge between New Resistance and other revolutionaries  in North America and the Eurasian Movement led by Comrade Alexander Dugin. This will not continue. New Resistance urges all revolutionary organizations to break communication with Tonis and his fake Juche honey trap’s pig work.”

After the Revolution,” the article warned, “he will answer for his crimes.”

But the dissension within the U.S. group, not to mention the extreme racist and white supremacist public views of its top leaders, did not stop the North Korean government from heralding the U.S. figures in their official media.

On December 19, 2011 Kim Jong Il died.

One week later, the official North Korean state media said in an article headlined “Organizations of Foreign Countries Mourn Demise of Kim Jong Il” said that “Different organizations of the world sent letters… on Dec. 19 and 20, expressing profound condolences over the demise of leader Kim Jong Il.”

“They included,” the article said, “the North American Group for Study of the Juche, Songun Idea in the U.S. and the North American Committee against Zionism and Imperialism.”

EPILOUGE

The 2011 split amongst U.S. Juche supporters did not usher in a new harmony.

The U.S. Juche Study Group became wary of infiltrators. “Advocates of a global melting pot  may not find this the group for them. While parallels can be drawn between the Great Leaders’ ideas and those of third positionists, they are notoriously filled with police officers, would-be-terrorists and a whole host of other shady folks and we ask that if you’re a member of any of these types of groups, stay away from us.”

The most prominent advocate of third positionism, James Porrazzo, explained his political strategy in March 2013.

“We took from left-wing sources” and the “very influential ideology of ‘occult fascists’,” calling American Front “America’s first national ‘Skinhead’ organization.”

“We studied heavily the Islamic resistance movements” which “backfired on American Front when Sept 11th occurred” with “heavy state harassment severely limiting our ability to expand. By 2002 we voted to put American Front into ‘tactical hibernation’.”

In 2009, Porrazzo sabotaged rival “bandit groupings, disrupted it and reestablished American Front as a National Revolutionary movement.”

In March 2011, American Front leader David Lynch was assassinated and Porrazzo attempted to seize power. Law enforcement infiltrated the group and uncovered a muder plot against to Porrazzo by rivals “conspiring with (white power group) Combat 18.”

Porrazzo recruited American Front members to his New Resistance group promoting North Korea, racial separatism, and the overthrow of the U.S. government.

In May 2012, 14 American Front members were arrested plotting “race war” and charged with stockpiling weapons, paramilitary training using automatic weapons, and murders of political enemies.

Porrazzo’s rival’s sidelined, he disbanded the group and its website, directing to links  to New Resistance. FBI documents show Porrazzo  threatening challengers to  his leadership.

“We “cleared the slate” continuing our revolutionary efforts under a new banner…and New Resistance was born. Anyone claiming to be American Front is a renegade,” Porrazzo said in March 2013.

On March 16, 2013, the far right Russian Defense League named Porrazzo its “Ambassador” to the U.S.

May of 2012 also saw  renewed  infighting within the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group.

Despite Jason-Adam Tonis’s claim of  moving away from racist politics after taking over from the Muslim convert John Paul Cupp, private emails obtained by NK News show Tonis denigrating rival U.S. DPRK sympathizers as “all Jews or else fags.”

“Have you ever heard of a group called the American Front ? Sutter/Woods is now working with them,” Tonis wrote white supremacist Kevin Walsh. “I’ve made received “death threats…because I believe bloodline is the main determinant of nationality as Kim Jong Il postulated” adding “comrade Woods aka Joshua Sutter came back under a new alias and tried to steal control of the group by accusing me of being a CIA agent.”

Walsh replied “The WWP are a bunch of Jews” and “I can’t believe any thinking person would take “Woods” seriously. My advice is to cut off all relations with anyone who wants to work with Woods.  Those who want to work with him are either government agents or too fucking stupid to be of any use to you.”

However Walsh soon discovered Tonis’ claims of renouncing white supremacy. Walsh–a committed racial separatist and anti Semite–objected.

“I maintain that white nationalism is the correct interpretation of Juche for the European-American community and is in no way incompatible with communism.  The  Korean people in the north keep their blood pure, and so should the European-American people,” Walsh wrote. “Tonis didn’t have a problem with this in 2009. Whatever the ultimate cause of Cupp breaking with Tonis, it was not white nationalism. I support solidarity with the Korean people against imperialism, but I don’t knowingly work with liars, hypocrites,  fraudsters, and traitors. If the Korean people want to work with such people, more the fool they.”

Tonis replied to Walsh with a violent threat. “The Juche party is based on absolute unity around the Leader. As leader of the US study group I demand you submit to me and follow my orders. If not then, the next time I’m in Arizona, I’ll gladly crack your skull open.”

“I must make self-criticism for wasting too much time and been too patient with hypocrites and cowards. I am making an implied criticism of the Koreans for having such flakes as Cupp represent them in North America, but in their defense, they probably didn’t have a whole lot of volunteers come forward and couldn’t be terribly choosy. In any case, I wish the Korean people well, but I will sever all relations with this particular group.”

John Paul Cupp did not reply to messages seeking comment. Using the name Walid Cupp, he said. “I support the Korean [stance] against American Imperialism, but I have been a practicing Muslim for a few years now and no longer am directly involved.”

Jason-Adam Tonis responded to NK News interview requests for an saying “I’ve not been in good health lately and have been unable to reach a computer. Of course I would love and am always ready to talk about the DPRK and Americans such as myself who are supporters of it.” He did not  respond to further questions in a subsequent emails. Neither Joshua Sutter or James Porrazzo responded to messages left for them.

Source

Biography of Bill Bland

bland

Biography

Bland, William “Bill” (1916-2001)

Bill Bland was born in the North of England, into a middle class home. He spent his politically formative years in the army of New Zealand, where he was active in the Communist Party as an educator. He returned to Britain in the post-war years as an ophthalmic optician. In the 1950’s Bland witnessed the Communist Party of Great Britain embracing the “Peaceful Road to Socialism”, and Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin. Bland believed these “revisionist” stances were incorrect and anti-Marxist-Leninist.

Bland therefore became a member of several anti-revisionist formations in Britain. He soon joined forces with Mike Baker in the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain (MLOB). Shortly thereafter, the ‘Cultural Revolution’ occured in China, and prompted by a barrage of questions, Bland undertook a systematic study of Mao. He found that he could not agree with Mao’s theory of the ‘New Democratic State’; and penned within months, the first refutation of Mao from the point of view of a pro-Stalin supporter. At that time, the MLOB rapidly dwindled in size as many members retained affection of Mao. This was to be the first of Bland’s many un-popular analyses in the pro-Stalin wing of the Communist movement.

Bland spent the rest of his life trying to answer the question: “How had revisionism become ascendant?”

Bland came to the conclusion that Stalin had been in a minority position in the Politburo, surrounded by hidden revisionists too clever to openly attack Marxism-Leninism; further, they had straight-jacketed Stalin by means of erecting the “Cult of Personality,” which was then used as a weapon against him. Bland felt that Yezhov had subverted the secret services, who had been replaced at Stalin’s behest by Beria. Bland pointed for example, to the release of many thousands of wrongly imprisoned Bolsheviks. Bland then argued that by the 18th Party Congress Stalin had been excluded from the highest echelons of the party decision making apparatus, and had counter-attacked with his pamphlet “Economic Problems of the USSR.”

Stalin’s essay was a seminal attack on Nikolai Vosnosensky, who was linked to Khrushchev. Cosequently argued Bland, the later economic changes re-establishing capitalism in the USSR had been fought to a standstill by Stalin. Bland therefore argued a special significance for Stalin’s last work. As Bland saw it, once Stalin was dead, the capitalist “reforms” of Vosnosensky were enacted by Khrushchev and his successors. He formulated these views in articles that culminated in the book ‘Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR’, published in 1981.

Following his analysis of Maoism as ‘left revisionism’, Bland began to question his own long-standing support for the then pro-Chinese Party of Labour of Albania, but concluded that the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania remained socialist. Before the 20th party Congress of the CPSU, Bland had founded the Albanian Society of Britain, at the invitation of the PSRA. Despite now being officially ostracized by Albania, Bland continued his work running the Albanian Society, and organizing an enormous education on this isolated solitary socialist country. In those years, he became an acknowledged authority on all things Albanian. He published an English-Albanian dictionary and he fielded any manner of queries upon arcane features of Albanian life, history, music, foods, geography, customs and mores etc.

While China was supported by the Albanian party, some of the Maoist parties had run an explicit party front Albania Society, resisting Bland’s call for one single, united front Albania Society, regardless of ‘narrow’ party affiliation. Following Hoxha’s open attack on Mao, some of these Societies split and some died. Their remaining members were correctly advised by the foreign Liaison committee of the PSRA, to join with Bland’s organisation to form one United Front of support for the PSRA. But they launched attempts to remove Bland’s leadership, charging that an emphasis on all aspects of life – such as music etc – was “anti-Marxist-Leninist,” and “insufficiently political,” and that Bland should be removed. The membership rejected this attempt to remove Bland. The Society continued till the revisionist take-over of the PSRA by Ramiz Alia, at which point Bland resigned from the Albania Society.

It was primarily differences over Bland’s analysis of Albania as Socialist that precipitated the split in the MLOB in 1975, following which, the Communist League came into existence. The Communist League from its inception always supported the Peoples Socialist Republic of Albania as a solitary socialist state. Those that stayed with the MLOB, including Mike Baker and his supporters, rejected that position.

One specific aspect of modern revisionism, to which Bland paid close attention, was the subversion of the second stage of socialist revolution, into a static national democratic deviations. For Bland, this represented a distortion from the Marxist-Leninist theory of the nation. Into these categories, Bland placed the pseudo-‘socialist’ revolutions of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Tanzania. He argued that all of these had ignored Lenin’s injunction not to build a ‘Chinese Wall’ between the first (national democratic) stage of revolution and the second (socialist) stage. Bland also argued that other, phenomena such as the “Black Nation” in the USA, “Black Racism” and “Scottish, Welsh and Cornish Nationalism”, in Britain, represented national deviations away from socialist revolution.

These views led him to challenge fundamental Stalinist premises: If the Soviet Union had been permeated by a class war involving the highest echelons of the Party, was the Comintern any different?

Bland puzzled over several related matters: Why had the Comintern performed so many about-turns on key questions such as the nature of the United Front? Was Stalin really ‘in control’ of the Comintern? Why had the Peoples Front governments been supported beyond any credible point by European communist parties, especially in France, in assisting a fascist take-over? And why did the ultra-left rejections of a united front of the late 1920’s swing suddenly into ultra-right distortions of a correct United Front policy? Etc.

Bland argued that the first ultra-left deviations in the Comintern, in the period from about 1924 to 1928 had allowed fascism to take power in Germany. In the same period, under the cover of this ultra-leftism, Manuilsky and Kussinen had destroyed the Indian revolution by sabotaging Stalin’s line of the Workers and Peasants parties. Bland thought that the second right deviations, from about 1930 onwards had prevented the masses of Europe taking power under Communist Party direction.

Bland now further argued that Stalin had not been in a leadership position in the Comintern since around 1924; as follows: Initially Zinoviev had exercised the leadership, and thereafter Bukharin. When both were exposed as “revisionists” they were purged from further influencing the Comintern. Both were later shot. Thereafter Dimitrov, Otto Kuusinen, and Dimitri Manuilskii exercised the Comintern leadership. Bland argued they had perverted a correct implementation of Marxism-Leninism. Dimitrov had been sprung from the German Fascist prisons thanks to a rather dubious, and surprising “leniency” of the German fascists. “Why?”, asked Bland, replying that a pact had been struck; as shown when Dimitrov went on to subvert United Front tactics into the right deviation of supporting “Popular Front” governments beyond Marxist-Leninist principles of the correct United Front tactics.

It was for these reasons, argued Bland, that the Comintern was dissolved by Stalin. Stalin then created the Cominform under a completely different leadership, led by his most trusted lieutenants such as Zhdanov. It must be remembered, said Bland, that it was the Cominform that had exposed the Western Communist parties plans for implementing right deviationist policies, and the Titoites for allying with the USA. During this latter historic confrontation Stalin overtly supported Albania and Hoxha against Tito.

Apart from his theoretical works, Bland wrote a number of plays, directed two films, and created a ballet. A life-long intense love of the arts – especially cinema and the theatre – led him to re-affirm the principles of Socialist Realist Art. He wrote widely on theatre and film, and on the history of theatre.

In Britain he led the Communist League to urge the principled unity of all Marxist-Leninist forces, hence Bland’s role in the early stages of the National Committee for A Marxist-Leninist Unity (NCMLU). Bland also formed the Stalin Soicety in the UK. But the pro-China factions within the Stalin Society that ensured Bland’s later expulsion. He was a key figure in the formation of the International Struggle Marxist-Leninist, and is cited as a major influence by Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America).

Written by Hari Kumar, 2005

Source

Meeting Kim Il Sung in His Last Weeks

Kim-Il-Sung-April-16-1994-2-690x360

BY MARK BARRY, APRIL 15, 2012

The first (non-communist) Americans to meet North Korea’s president Kim Il Sung likely were journalists Harrison Salisbury of The New York Times, and Selig Harrison, then ofThe Washington Post, in 1972. Congressman Stephen Solarz was the first U.S. public official to meet him in 1980, and Rev. Billy Graham later met him in 1992 and 1994. Little did I realize when I met Kim Il Sung on April 16, 1994, weeks before his death, I would be among a very small group of Americans ever to do so. On Sunday, April 15, North Korea celebrates the 100th anniversary of the birth of the “Eternal President,” perhaps the North’s biggest celebration ever. Kim ruled North Korea for nearly half a century, far outliving Stalin and Mao, and holding power from Truman through Clinton. More importantly, Kim Il Sung embodied North Korea, a country and people he molded in his image. His legacy is now carried on by the young Kim Jong Un, who, North Koreans are constantly reminded, resembles his grandfather.

*  *  *

I was senior staff in a delegation organized by a Washington, DC-based NGO, the Summit Council for World Peace, an association of former heads of state and government, that arrived in Pyongyang at the time of Kim Il Sung’s 82nd birthday. The group was chaired by a former president of Costa Rica, Rodrigo Carazo, and included a former Governor General of Canada, former Egyptian prime minister, former chief of staff of the French armed forces, a U.S. think tank executive, and CNN’s chief news executive, among others. TV crews also came from CNN and Japan’s NHK. The Council had a prior record of successfully arranging meetings with Kim Il Sung, and Carazo himself had met Kim several times in the past.

Mid-morning on April 16, 1994 – the day after Kim’s birthday – our international delegation was brought in a fleet of black Mercedes to the Kumsusan Assembly Hall in Pyongyang, Kim Il Sung’s official residence. Our minders kept repeating how lucky we were for this opportunity. Inside, we lined up single file and were introduced individually to the waiting Kim Il Sung by a vice chairman of the Korea Asia Pacific Peace Committee. By Kim’s side was his superb English translator, and party secretary Kim Yong Sun, then the number three figure in North Korea (who later played an instrumental role in the 2000 inter-Korean summit) and chair of the Peace Committee. Kim Il Sung stood and walked on his own without assistance, but had a military aide nearby just in case. He did not seem to be wearing a hearing aid. His handshake was firm, he did not look overweight and appeared to be in good health, although his voice was rather gravelly (a Korean affairs analyst later told me this was because Kim used to smoke a lot). Very noticeable on the right side of his neck was a baseball-sized growth, which was benign, but because of its location, was said to be inoperable; official photos of Kim always were taken from a leftward angle to hide the growth.

Official Meeting Photo

Official Meeting Photo

After our official greetings, we were brought before a huge mural in the main lobby of the palace for our official photos. They were taken in two groups: the former heads of state and government and other senior members of the delegation, and the journalists. As with other visitors to the palace, we later each received a copy of the official photo with the date gold-stamped.

We were then escorted into the palace conference room with a long table that could accommodate two dozen. Each place setting had a pen, writing pad, and microphone, as well as coffee cup and dish of small candies. After we sat down, the window curtains and room lighting were remotely adjusted. Noticeably, neither the translator nor Kim Yong Sun sat too close to President Kim. On the DPRK side of the table were also Kim Yong Sun’s wife, and two other officials from the Asia Pacific Peace Committee.

President Carazo, who founded the United Nations Peace University in Costa Rica, spoke first, thanking Kim for receiving our group, and noting we were a goodwill delegation that had come to the DPRK for the sake of peace in the entire peninsula. President Kim responded that he regretted that we did not come through Panmunjom because we could then better understand the division of Korea (in fact, we had sought permission from the ROK to do so, but the Kim Young Sam administration denied our request; however, we later traveled to the northern end of Panmunjom, as well as a small town by the DMZ that clearly was not a Potemkin village). Kim added that earlier in the year, Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) had come to see him, and had returned to South Korea by way of Panmunjom, becoming the first American to do so since the Korean War.

Kim then began to expound. He said, “We always open our doors widely. Our only secrets have to do with the military. But apart from that, we are ready to open to the outside.” The nuclear issue, which had become quite serious by that time, was not brought up in this meeting, but was left to the journalists. Later that day, Kim Il Sung would personally hand to Josette Sheeran, then managing editor of The Washington Times (now vice chair of the World Economic Forum), a booklet of his written answers to her questions, that included his candid responses about the DPRK nuclear program. The full-length interview, her second with him, was published on April 19th. I do not believe his answers were ghost-written, but were largely dictated by Kim, because the tone had the same unmistakable authority as when I heard him speak.

Kim then proceeded to boast that in North Korea “there are no beggars, no unemployed, no homeless.” He recalled asking Billy Graham if there were beggars, unemployed and homeless in America, to which Graham said “yes.” While this statement seems laughable in the context of the severe food shortages that North Korea would endure from 1996 on, it was not a ludicrous thing to hear about the North in 1994. Flying in on Air Koryo, President Carazo had peered out the cabin window and saw the expanse of freshly planted rice paddies, and said it appeared North Korea could produce enough food to feed itself. Kim Il Sung also told a story about a visiting Hong Kong businessman who had lost his wallet in a Pyongyang hotel with $10,000 in it. His wallet was returned to him within two hours, everything intact.

Kim then turned to what seemed a favorite theme of his: what made the DPRK different from the Soviet Union, China and other communist states. He said, “After 1945, I tried to find intellectuals to rebuild the country, but could only locate a handful. The partisans who fought with me against the Japanese knew how to fight, but not how to build institutions.” The Japanese in their 35-year colonial rule, he said, left no college functioning in the North. “So I had to start my own, which became Kim Il Sung University, and then other schools. Today [1994], there are 1.76 million intellectuals out of a population of 20 million, almost one out of ten citizens.” What still impresses me about his point is how North Koreans value education, are inquisitive, and possess great human capital that can easily be trained to a high-level of professional skill.

Suddenly, Kim Il Sung leaned to the side and asked Secretary Kim Yong Sun for his Korean Workers Party card. I will never forget the look on Kim Yong Sun’s face. He almost turned white, because even though President Kim wanted the card just to make a point, Kim Yong Sun did not know if the request meant something more serious, such as losing his party post. But as he handed the card to his leader, Kim Il Sung held it up and pointed to the large gold-stamped party emblem, consisting of the usual hammer and sickle, but also a calligraphy brush in the middle. “In 1946, I created this emblem for our party. The brush symbolizes our highest commitment to intellectual pursuits in every discipline. Our emblem is unique among communist parties in the world. This is an example of juche, doing things our own way. We did everything in our own way.” President Kim then handed the party card back to its relieved owner.

At this juncture, Bill Taylor, vice president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, who was meeting the North Korean leader for the second time, told Kim that he had not changed a bit from two years ago, and looked to be in good health. Kim responded, “I always live with optimism.” Eason Jordan, president of CNN International, greeted Kim on behalf of Ted Turner, founder of CNN, and expressed hope for a face-to-face interview, which did not materialize. Taylor praised Kim’s decision to allow in CNN and NHK as a very important step. In fact, CNN’s Mike Chinoy conducted the first live broadcast from Pyongyang during this trip, using state television’s satellite uplink.

The meeting ended and we adjourned across the hall for lunch. We sat at a large round table with white tablecloth, although most journalists sat at a second table. The northern Korean cuisine was extraordinary, including my first time to taste blueberry wine. Conversation became a bit more free-flowing. Kim was asked about the role of his son and successor, Kim Jong Il. He responded, “I am so proud of him. As an elderly man, I cannot read easily, and every day my son dictates reports into a cassette recorder so I can listen to them later on. But he keeps me fully informed. He is truly a filial son.” The North Korean leader also noted he likes to hunt, especially wild boar. One participant asked him if he would like to come to the United States. He responded, “I have yet to visit the United States, but I hope to do so in the future.” Someone suggested he even come to the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 1994. Kim smiled. Though he likely feared flying, the State Department could not have prevented him from coming to the UN with other world leaders in attendance because Kim was head of state of a member nation.

According to one Korean affairs specialist, in Kim’s 1994 discussions with Rev. Billy Graham, a large U.S. National Council of Churches delegation, and former president Jimmy Carter, he frequently returned to his youth and engaged in a discussion of religion with curiosity. In a sense, he began to mellow, as older Korean men can be  quite susceptible to this; among older overseas Korean men, there is an urge to return to one’s hometown in Korea. This seemed to me to be true based on my observation of Kim Il Sung that day.

After the banquet, we said our individual farewells to Kim Il Sung. Several participants told him they wanted to return to the DPRK with others so they could see the country for themselves. One even invited Kim to come to the U.S. to enjoy sport fishing. Kim seemed genuinely appreciative of each gesture. As we walked out of the reception room, Kim was left standing with just Kim Yong Sun, his translator and military aide. He seemed to regret seeing us leave. We were outsiders, non-Koreans, from Europe, the U.S., Canada, Japan, Egypt, and elsewhere. He appeared to enjoy nothing better than to tell us his story, one few foreigners in the non-communist world had heard. For Kim Il Sung, it was a rare opportunity, to get courtesy and respect from foreign leaders and let them know his legacy. We did not realize Kim had only weeks to live.

Kim Il Sung would see two more outside visitors in June 1994, Selig Harrison and Jimmy Carter, as the nuclear issue reached a fever pitch and both the Clinton and Kim Young Sam administrations prepared for a possible outbreak of hostilities. Carter’s historic trip as the first former U.S. president to meet Kim Il Sung*, defused the nuclear crisis, averted war and led to the 1994 Agreed Framework, which froze the DPRK nuclear program until 2003. Kim also told Carter he agreed to hold the first-ever inter-Korean summit that summer with Kim Young Sam. It was not to be.

Kim Il Sung died suddenly of a heart attack on July 8, 1994. We later learned that Kim knew he was dying and felt an urgency to initiate major policy measures while still alive to effect a strategic change; Kim Jong Il would have been unable to implement major policy change after his father’s death. Kim senior’s meeting with Carter was that pivotal moment, and U.S.-DPRK relations eventually were elevated to where, in October 2000, the top North Korean general, Vice Marshall Jo Myong Rok, greeted Bill Clinton in the White House and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang weeks later. The same pattern appeared to unfold last fall: Kim Jong Il knew he would not live long, and in his final weeks, set into motion policy initiatives, including toward the U.S., to pave the way for Kim Jong Un’s succession.

*  *  *

Kim Il Sung’s official residence became his mausoleum, renamed the Kumsusan Memorial Palace. Kim Jong Il, who died in December, soon will join his father there. In February, Kim Jong Un rechristened the mausoleum the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, named for his father, but foremost for his grandfather, Kim Il Sung.

* Excellent sources for this trip include Marion Creekmore, Jr., A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, the Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions, 2006, and Douglas Brinkley, The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey to the Nobel Peace Prize (cf. Chapter 20, “Mission to North Korea”), 1998. Bill Clinton was the only former U.S. president to meet Kim Jong Il, in 2009.

Source

Book Review: Bruce Cumings’ North Korea: Another Country

nkorea18-690x360

BY SOPHIA SOLIVIO

Bruce Cumings is the Chairperson of the History Department and Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History and the College at the University of Chicago. In 1975, he received his PhD from Columbia University. Cumings’ professional and academic credentials make his compilation of complaints primarily in regard to the United States’ foreign and domestic policies and his fundamental admiration for North Korea in North Korea: Another Country (2004) especially grating to read because presumably he has the professional experience and academic training to produce a more informative, engaging book about North Korea for the general reader.

Cumings has written well-received scholarly books on Korean history, especially the Korean War. With North Korea: Another Country, however, he does not intend to write for other academics. Instead, he focuses on a readership with little or no familiarity with the history of North Korea or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Korean peninsula, and United States–Korea relations. By the end of Cumings’ 256-page book, that readership may have learned more about the aforementioned topics, but only tangentially and selectively. Unfortunately, Cumings has written a book sidetracked by his supercilious attitude.

In North Korea: Another Country, Cumings seeks to educate “the reader who wishes to learn about our eternal enemy” and wonders “if Americans can ever transcend their own experience and join a world of profound difference.” To help curious readers, even Americans, willingly enter his “world of profound difference,” the author divides the book into six chapters beginning with the brutality, particularly of the United States, during the Korean War and its continuous influence on North Korea; the history of North Korea’s nuclear program and the apparent intransigence of North Korea–United States negotiations over the former’s denuclearization; Kim Il Sung’s life, his fight for an independent Korea, and the appeal of anti-imperialism to North Koreans and Koreans overall; the history of daily life in the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the DPRK; Kim Jong Il’s life and dynamism as a leader; and the crises in North Korea, including floods, droughts, famine, and the collapse of its energy system, following the death of Kim Il Sung in 1994.

Throughout the six chapters, Cumings basically covers the modern history of north Korea and its relations with the United States to show that, contrary to Western narratives about the DPRK, the country is dynamic rather than static and more rational than not. Cumings’ objective, to increase public awareness of North Korea as a somewhat knowable country and to combat perceptions of North Korea as a hopelessly backward, mysterious country, is very worthwhile and admirable. His execution of that objective maybe well-intentioned, but it is also meandering and overbearing. Often, Cumings seems more interested in using North Korea as a lens through which to contemptuously mention and criticize the United States and whatever or whoever else annoys him; this habit frequently detracts from his attempts to educate others as completely as possible, about North Korea.

For example, early on Cumings notes a 1999 CIA study that according to him, “almost grudgingly acknowledged various achievements of this regime: compassionate care for children in general and war orphans in particular; ‘radical change’ in the position of women; genuinely free housing; free health care, and preventive medicine; and infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine.” Rather than clarify whether the CIA study “grudgingly acknowledged various achievements” of the North Korean government in a vacuum, in comparison to other Communist states, or even South Korea, Cumings appears to reference the study mainly to underscore the hypocrisy of the United States, where the government and the press relentlessly pigeonholes North Korea as “our” evil Oriental enemy as, at one point, the CIA documents positive socioeconomic developments in North Korea.

Cumings does not bother to examine, point by point, the trajectory of North Korea’s early achievements in social welfare and gender equality. North Korea’s “compassionate care for children in general and war orphans in particular” led to the creation of Mangyondae Revolutionary School, initially chiefly for the education of the next generation’s political elite, the children whose parents died in the Korean War. In addition, in contrast to South Korea’s post-Korean War policy of “exporting” orphans, resulting in approximately 150,000 adopted ethnic Koreans in more than 20 Western countries, Kim Il Sung encouraged domestic adoption of the country’s war orphans although from 1951–52 at least, an estimated 2,500 North Korean war orphans were adopted in several Eastern European Communist countries, such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia, as well as Hungary and Mongolia. However, the recent famine also contributed to the creation of 200,000 orphans, many becoming ‘kotchebis’ or “ wandering swallows,” street urchins living off black markets in North Korea and/or relying on crossing into the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in order to scavenge for food.

Also, while North Korea for instance, on July 30, 1946 announced the enactment of the “Status on Gender Equality” with Clause I stating, “In all areas of the country’s economic, cultural and social political life, women have the same rights as men,” in terms of political power, as of 2001, women represented about 20% of the Supreme People’s Assembly, all in symbolic posts. In 1990, there were only 14 women members of 328 members in the policy-making Central Committee and the Alternative Members of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party. In addition, in the mid-1980s, North Korean defectors claimed about 60–70% of women quit their jobs after marriage.

Yet at the same time, North Korean women may have earned or earn more than 70% of the male income level. Notably, in 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported South Korean women earned 38% less than the male income level and South Korea had the largest income gender gap in the developed world. Similarly, a Beijing Broadcast Agency report on March 6, 1988 announced a gradual increase in the number of highly educated women professionals in North Korea from the 1970s-80s. In 1963, 43,000 of about 294,000 specialists in North Korea were women. In the 1970s, there were 1,310,000 specialists in North Korea and 463,000 were women with about 220 having doctorate or semi-doctorate degrees. Most recently, in 1989, approximately 37% of the 1,350,000 specialists in North Korea are women. Women in North Korea then, are not brainwashed and incapable zombies for non-North Koreans, particularly Americans, to pity or scorn.

Cumings wants to humanize not only North Korean women, but North Koreans in general. Presumably, as a Westerner fortunate enough to have already entered the previously mentioned “world of profound difference,” he thinks and behaves just as, if not more, empathetically and respectfully toward North Koreans as anyone else. His characterization of his experience at the North Korean Museum of the Revolution, however, perfectly encapsulates the contrast between Cumings’ non-stop moralizing and his condescending tone throughout North Korea: Another Country. Commenting on one exhibit of gifts given to Kim Il Sung by foreign dignitaries, Cumings writes,

“My guide, a young woman whose English was less than fluent, paused in front of a glass-encased chimpanzee, and began to instruct me in a sing-song voice that ‘the Gleat Reader’ had received this taxidermic specimen from one Canaan Banana, vice president of Zimbabwe. I dissolved into hysterics and could not stop laughing as she continued to intone her mantra without dropping a single (mangled) syllable.”

Cumings is considered a “progressive” academic. His ostensible liberalism and unique ability to “transcend” his own experience does not make him a less dogmatic, petty person as demonstrated by his paragraph-long mockery of a North Korean woman’s English accent—obviously not up to his standards. Finally, Cumings presents himself as a person and a historian of Korean history (unable or unwilling to speak Korean fluently) who considers Korea and the United States equals culturally and socially, and in an ideal world, politically as well. Following the “cultural exchange” Cumings describes at the Museum of the Revolution, though, who had the privilege of publicly ridiculing and contributing to negative public perceptions of the “Other?” The young, female North Korean tour guide? Or Cumings, an older white guy with a comfortable job at a prestigious American university? …

Source

KCNA on the Korean War

383165_10151367395187826_2077368957_n

Pyongyang, March 29 (KCNA) — The Fatherland Liberation War (1950-1953) ended in a victory of the Korean people.

But, its consequences were very devastating and disastrous.

The U.S. bombing in the war left more than 8 700 factories destroyed and 90 000 hectares of farmland spoiled.

Power stations and reservoirs were severely damaged and towns and rural communities were reduced to ashes.

The U.S. imperialists said that the DPRK would not be able to get to its feet even in one hundred years.

Convinced of the victory in the war, President Kim Il Sung pressed ahead with preparations for post-war rehabilitation and construction in a far-sighted manner.

In early Juche 40 (1951), he gave an instruction to work out a blueprint for rehabilitating the capital city of Pyongyang. He had a Cabinet decision on reconstructing Pyongyang adopted in May 1952.

After the war, in August 1953 he delivered a historic report “Everything for the Postwar Rehabilitation and Development of the National Economy” at the 6th plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

He, in the report, proposed a basic line of postwar economic construction, the keynote of which was to give priority to building heavy industry while developing light industry and agriculture simultaneously.
The President channeled all efforts to liquidating the aftermath of the war.

Soon after the war, he called at the Kangnam Ceramic Factory and the Kangson Steel Plant, appealing to the workers to restart their operation at an earlier date.

When visiting the Hungnam Fertilizer Factory in South Hamgyong Province, which was heavily damaged in the war, he encouraged the workers there to restore the factory in a short time, mindful that the farmers in Hamju Plain were bitterly lamenting over the ruined factory.

He went to Jangjingang Power Station, Joyang-ri, South Hamgyong Province, Sambong-ri, South Phyongan Province, Wonsan College of Agriculture and other industrial establishments, rural communities and educational and cultural institutions to arouse them to rehabilitation.

In response to his appeal, the workers of the Kangson Steel Plant restored the ruined electric furnace by their own efforts and made the plant operational 40 days after the war.

The then Songjin Steel Plant, too, reconstructed the electric furnace to begin production.

Railway workers opened the train service in all branch lines some days after the ceasefire.

Farmers worked hard to rezone the ravaged farmland and repair the irrigation facilities.

Under his energetic leadership, rapid rehabilitation and development were witnessed in the heavy and light industries and agriculture.

Meanwhile, Pyongyang and other local cities began making their appearances again on the ruins.

Thus, the post-war rehabilitation and construction was successfully carried out in Korea under the President’s wise guidance.

North Korea or the United States: Who is a Threat to Global Security?

164782_184154651611131_152497481443515_642072_2619753_n

North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of US led bombings in the 1950s.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Most people in America consider North Korea as an inherently aggressive nation and a threat to global security.

Media disinformation sustains North Korea as a “rogue state”.

The history of the Korean war and its devastating consequences are rarely mentioned. America is portrayed as the victim rather than the aggressor.

North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of US led bombings in the 1950s. 

US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s  population was killed off over a three year period of intensive bombings:

“After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”

It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.” (See War Veteran Brian Willson. Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, April, 2002)

Official South Korean government sources estimate North Korean civilian deaths at 1,550,000

Long lines of refugees fleeing from Yongdong on 26 July 1950. The day before, hundreds of refugees were massacred by U.S. soldiers and warplanes at bridge at No Gun Ri, eight miles away.

Long lines of refugees fleeing from Yongdong on 26 July 1950. The day before, hundreds of refugees were massacred by U.S. soldiers and warplanes at bridge at No Gun Ri, eight miles away.

During The Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%.

During the Korean war, North Korea lost 30 % of its population. In the words of General Curtis Lemay:

There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. (emphasis added)

Reflect for a few minutes on these figures:  If a foreign power had bombed the US and America had lost thirty percent of its population as result of foreign aggression, Americans across the land would certainly be aware of the threat to their national security emanating from this unnamed foreign power.

Now put yourself in the shoes of the North Koreans, who lost 30 percent of their population as a result of 37 months of relentless US bombings.

From their standpoint, the US is the threat to Global Security.

Their country was destroyed. Town and villages were bombed. General Curtis Lemay acknowledges that “[we] eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too.”

There is not a single family in North Korea which has not lost a loved one.

Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. (See War Veteran Brian Willson. Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, April, 2002)

pyongyang

For the people of North Korea, in their inner consciousness as human beings, the aggressor, which inflicted more than two million deaths on a country of  8-9 million (1950s) is the United States of America.

These facts continue to be concealed by the Western media to sustain the “Axis of Evil” legend, which portrays North Korea as a threat and “rogue state”, to be condemned by the “international community”.

Genocide is defined under the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as the

“the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”. Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

What is at stake is an act of genocide committed by the US. During the Korean War an entire civilian population was the target of deliberate and relentless bombings, with a view to destroying and killing a national group, which constitutes an act of genocide under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Source

Video: North Korean Song – Reunification

Video: A 100 años del Natalicio de Kim Il Sung

Actividad en conmemoración de los 100 años del nacimiento del Camarada Kim Il Sung realizada por el Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) PC(AP) el día viernes 13 de Abril.

Los comunistas chilenos recalcamos la importancia de esta actividad, ya que apoyar a la República Popular Democrática de Corea es parte importante de la lucha anti-imperialista y por la revolución y el Socialismo.

ACTO DE HOMENAJE AL PRIMER CENTENARIO DEL NACIMIENTO DEL CAMARADA KIM IL SUNG

El 13 de Abril en la ciudad de Santiago de Chile, el Comité Regional Metropolitano, por encargo de la dirección del Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) PC(AP), realizó un significativo acto de homenaje a los CIEN AÑOS DEL NACIMIENTO DEL CAMARADA KIM IL SUNG.

En la ocasión junto a los vídeos, intervenciones y a la música revolucionaria de homenaje al camarada Kim IL Sung, se dio lanzamiento a la edición del libro titulado ” A CIEN AÑOS DEL NACIMIENTO DEL CAMARADA KIM IL SUNG”, el contiene un artículo del camarada Eduardo Artés titulado: ” A CIEN AÑOS DE SU NACIMIENTO, EL CAMARADA KIM IL SUNG VIVE EN LAS MENTES Y CORAZONES DE LA CLASE OBRERA Y DE LOS PUEBLOS” y la obra del camarada Kim IL Sung titulada ” ALCANCEMOS LA GRAN UNIDAD DE NUESTRA NACIÓN”, escrita el 1 de agosto de 1991.

Es de destacar el gran entusiasmo de los asistentes, reflejado, entre otras cosas, en el hecho de que compraron varios ejemplares del libro en lanzamiento, de manera de hacerlo llegar rápidamente a otros camaradas y compañeros. El libro en estos momentos se está distribuyendo por medio de los militantes del PC(AP) en todo el país.

Chile, sus trabajadores y pueblos, desde el PC(AP), no nos hemos quedado al margen de los actos de homenaje que en todo el mundo, partiendo por la República Popular Democrática de Corea RPDC, se llevan a cabo en este primer centenario del gran dirigente comunista, del camarada Kim IL Sung.

¡Honor y gloria al camarada Kim IL Sung!

Comisión Nacional de Comunicaciones
Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria)
PC(AP)

www.accionproletaria.com