Bandera Roja & Venezuela

Red Flag Party (in Spanish: Partido Bandera Roja) is a communist party in Venezuela. It was formed in 1970 by anti-revisionist members of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR). The Red Flag Party initially supported the ideology of Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Party of Labour following the Sino-Albanian Split, though in later years it has gravitated back towards Maoism.

In the 1970’s up until the 1990’s it was engaged in guerrilla warfare against the government. A young Hugo Chávez’s first assignment in the Army was as commander of a communications platoon attached to a counter-insurgency force—the Manuel Cedeño Mountain Infantry Battalion, headquartered in Barinas and Cumaná. In 1976, it was tasked with suppressing the guerilla insurgency staged by the Party.

The party is currently led by Gabriel Rafael Puerta Aponte. After the electoral victory of Hugo Chávez in 1998, the party started aligning itself with the right-wing and social democratic opponents of Chávez, labeling him as a social-fascist. This has led to desertions from the party, as many cadres instead joined the Chávez camp.

The party was suspended from the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle) in 2005. It was succeeded within the organization by the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela.

In the 2006 presidential election, the party supported the candidature of Manuel Rosales. The party got (as one of several parties backing Rosales) 18,468 votes (0.16% of the nationwide vote) in that election.

As of 2009 its popularity has rapidly diminished from its prior years and is reported to have less than 100 militant members.

Molotov’s Final Days

Shortly before his death, as he was failing in mind and body, Molotov, who was cared for by his grandchildren, was watching TV one day when Soviet Foreign Minister, Edvard Shevardnadze came on the news making some statement. Molotov rose from chair in a rage, shouting “What the hell is he saying! That’s revisionism! Pure revisionism! Worse than revisionism! Has he gone off his head? I hope Stalin hasn’t gotten wind of this yet, or there’ll be hell to pay. Tell Shevardnadze I want to see him in my office TODAY at 4:00 pm SHARP. And he better have a good explanation for this garbage!”

When they heard the shouting, his grandchildren rushed into the room and tried to calm him, saying “Grandpa relax! It’s just the news. You’re not Foreign Minister anymore. It’s 1986. Stalin’s been dead for 30 years.” Molotov calmed down and muttered “I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I just got so worked up. My memory isn’t all it used to be anymore.”

However, later that afternoon, at about 3:45, his grandchildren saw that the old man had put on a suit and was busy knotting his tie. His grandchildren laughed and asked “Grandpa, are you thinking of going somewhere/” Molotov replied “Go somewhere? I wish I could go somewhere! I’m getting ready for Shevardnadze. I should put in a call to Stalin and let know that I’ll handle this.”

Once again, Molotov’s grandchildren had to intervene and tell the old man that he was no longer a party leader, that Stalin was long gone, and that the world had changed.

Stalin Wasn’t Stallin’ (Golden Gate Jubilee Quartet)

Stalin wasn’t stallin’
When he told the beast of berlin
That they’d never rest contented
Till they had driven him from the land
So he called the yanks and english
And proceeded to extinguish
The fuhrer and its vermin
This is how it all began

Now, the devil, he was reading
In the good book one day
How that lord created adam
To walk the righteous way
And it made the devil jealous
He turned green onto his????
And he swore by things unholy
And he made one of his own

So he packed two suitcases
Full of greed and misery
And he caught the midnight special
Going down to germany
Then he mixed his lies and hatred
With fire and grim stones
Then the devil sat upon it
That’s how adolf was born

Now adolf got the notion
That he was the master race
And he swore he’d bring new order
And put mankind in a place
So he set his scheme in motion
And was winning everywhere
Until he??? and got the notion
For to kick that russian bear

Stalin wasn’t stallin’
When she told the beast of berlin
That they’d never rest contented
Till they had driven him from the land
So he called the yanks and english
And proceeded to extinguish
The fuhrer and its vermin
This is how it all began

Yes he kicked that noble russian
But it wasn’t very long
Before adolf got suspicious
That he had done something wrong
Cause that bear grabbed the fuhrer
And gave him an awful fight
Seventeen months he grabbed the fuhrer
Tooth and claws, day and night

Then that bear smacked the fuhrer
With a mighty armored??
And adolf broke all records
Running backwards to krakow
Then goebbels sent a message
To the people everywhere
That if they couldn’t hit the fuhrer
God, then hit that russian bear

Then this bear called on his buddy
The noble fighting yank
And they sent the fuhrer running
With their ships and planes and tanks
Now the fuhrer’s having nightmares
Cause the fuhrer knows damn well
That the devil’s done roast welcome
On his residence in hell

Good and Bad Genocide: Suharto and Pol Pot

Good and Bad Genocide

Double standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot

By Edward S. Herman

Coverage of the fall of Suharto reveals with startling clarity the ideological biases and propaganda role of the mainstream media. Suharto was a ruthless dictator, a grand larcenist and a mass killer with as many victims as Cambodia’s Pol Pot. But he served U.S. economic and geopolitical interests, was helped into power by Washington, and his dictatorial rule was warmly supported for 32 years by the U.S. economic and political establishment. The U.S. was still training the most repressive elements of Indonesia’s security forces as Suharto’s rule was collapsing in 1998, and the Clinton administration had established especially close relations with the dictator (“our kind of guy,” according to a senior administration official quoted in the New York Times, 10/31/95).

Suharto’s overthrow of the Sukarno government in 1965-66 turned Indonesia from Cold War “neutralism” to fervent anti-Communism, and wiped out the Indonesian Communist Party–exterminating a sizable part of its mass base in the process, in widespread massacres that claimed at least 500,000 and perhaps more than a million victims. The U.S. establishment’s enthusiasm for the coup-cum-mass murder was ecstatic (see Chomsky and Herman, Washington Connection and Third World Fascism); “almost everyone is pleased by the changes being wrought,” New York Times columnist C.L. Sulzberger commented (4/8/66).

Suharto quickly transformed Indonesia into an “investors’ paradise,” only slightly qualified by the steep bribery charge for entry. Investors flocked in to exploit the timber, mineral and oil resources, as well as the cheap, repressed labor, often in joint ventures with Suharto family members and cronies. Investor enthusiasm for this favorable climate of investment was expressed in political support and even in public advertisements; e.g., the full page ad in the New York Times (9/24/92) by Chevron and Texaco entitled “Indonesia: A Model for Economic Development.”

The U.S. support and investment did not slacken when Suharto’s army invaded and occupied East Timor in 1975, which resulted in an estimated 200,000 deaths in a population of only 700,000. Combined with the 500,000-1,000,000+ slaughtered within Indonesia in 1965-66, the double genocide would seem to put Suharto in at least the same class of mass murderer as Pol Pot.

Good and bad genocidists

But Suharto’s killings of 1965-66 were what Noam Chomsky and I, in The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, called “constructive terror,” with results viewed as favorable to Western interests. His mass killings in East Timor were “benign terror,” carried out by a valued client and therefore tolerable. Pol Pot’s were “nefarious terror,” done by an enemy, therefore appalling and to be severely condemned. Pol Pot’s victims were “worthy,” Suharto’s “unworthy.”

This politicized classification system was unfailingly employed by the media in the period of Suharto’s decline and fall (1997-98). When Pol Pot died in April 1998, the media were unstinting in condemnation, calling him “wicked,” “loathsome” and “monumentally evil” (Chicago Tribune, 4/18/98), a “lethal mass killer” and “war criminal” (L.A. Times, 4/17/98), “blood-soaked” and an “egregious mass murderer” (Washington Post, 4/17/98, 4/18/98). His rule was repeatedly described as a “reign of terror” and he was guilty of “genocide.” Although he inherited a devastated country with starvation rampant, all excess deaths during his rule were attributed to him, and he was evaluated on the basis of those deaths.

Although Suharto’s regime was responsible for a comparable number of deaths in Indonesia, along with more than a quarter of the population of East Timor, the word “genocide” is virtually never used in mainstream accounts of his rule. A Nexis search of major papers for the first half of 1998 turned up no news articles and only a handful of letters and opinion pieces that used the term in connection with Suharto.

Earlier, in a rare case where the word came up in a discussion of East Timor (New York Times, 2/15/81), reporter Henry Kamm referred to it as “hyperbole–accusations of ‘genocide’ rather than mass deaths from cruel warfare and the starvation that accompanies it on this historically food-short island.” No such “hyperbole” was applied to the long-useful Suharto; one looks in vain for editorial descriptions of him as “blood-soaked” or a “murderer.”

In the months of his exit, he was referred to as Indonesia’s “soft-spoken, enigmatic president” (USA Today, 5/14/98), a “profoundly spiritual man” (New York Times, 5/17/98), a “reforming autocrat” (New York Times, 5/22/98). His motives were benign: “It was not simply personal ambition that led Mr. Suharto to clamp down so hard for so long; it was a fear, shared by many in this country of 210 million people, of chaos” (New York Times, 6/2/98); he “failed to comprehend the intensity of his people’s discontent” (New York Times, 5/21/98), otherwise he undoubtedly would have stepped down earlier. He was sometimes described as “authoritarian,” occasionally as a “dictator,” but never as a mass murderer. Suharto’s mass killings were referred to–if at all–in a brief and antiseptic paragraph.

It is interesting to see how the same reporters move between Pol Pot and Suharto, indignant at the former’s killings, somehow unconcerned by the killings of the good genocidist. Seth Mydans, the New York Times principal reporter on the two leaders during the past two years, called Pol Pot (4/19/98) “one of the century’s great mass killers…who drove Cambodia to ruin, causing the deaths of more than a million people,” and who “launched one of the world’s most terrifying attempts at utopia.” (4/13/98) But in reference to Suharto, this same Mydans said (4/8/98) that “more than 500,000 Indonesians are estimated to have died in a purge of leftists in 1965, the year Mr. Suharto came to power.” Note that Suharto is not even the killer, let alone a “great mass killer,” and this “purge”–not “murder” or “slaughter”–was not “terrifying,” and was not allocated to any particular agent.

The use of the passive voice is common in dealing with Suharto’s victims: They “died” instead of being killed (“the violence left a reported 500,000 people dead”–New York Times, 1/15/98), or “were killed” without reference to the author of the killings (e.g., Washington Post, 2/23/98, 5/26/98). In referring to East Timor, Mydans (New York Times, 7/28/96) spoke of protesters shouting grievances about “the suppression of opposition in East Timor and Irian Jaya.” Is “suppression of opposition” the proper description of an invasion and occupation that eliminated 200,000 out of 700,000 people?

The good and bad genocidists are handled differently in other ways. For Suharto, the numbers killed always tend to the 500,000 official Indonesian estimate or below, although independent estimates run from 700,000 to well over a million. For Pol Pot, the media numbers usually range from 1 million-2 million, although the best estimates of numbers executed run from 100,000-400,000, with excess deaths from all causes (including residual effects of the prior devastation) ranging upward from 750,000 (Michael Vickery, Cambodia; Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent).

Pol Pot’s killings are always attributed to him personally–the New York Times’ Philip Shenon (4/18/98) refers to him as “the man responsible for the deaths of more than a million Cambodians.” Although some analysts of the Khmer Rouge have claimed that the suffering of Cambodia under the intense U.S. bombing made them vengeful, and although the conditions they inherited were disastrous, for the media nothing mitigates Pol Pot’s responsibility. The only “context” allowed explaining his killing is his “crazed Maoist-inspiration” (New York Times, 4/18/98), his Marxist ideological training in France and his desire to create a “utopia of equality” (Boston Globe editorial, 4/17/98).

With Suharto, by contrast, not only is he not responsible for the mass killings, there was a mitigating circumstance: namely, a failed leftist or Communist coup, or “leftist onslaught” (New York Times, 6/17/79), which “touched off a wave of violence” (New York Times, 8/7/96). In the New York Times’ historical summary (5/21/98): “General Suharto routs communist forces who killed six senior generals in an alleged coup attempt. Estimated 500,000 people killed in backlash against Communists.”

This formula is repeated in most mainstream media accounts of the 1965-66 slaughter. Some mention that the “communist plot” was “alleged,” but none try to examine its truth or falsehood. What’s interesting is that the six deaths are seen as a plausible catalyst for the Indonesian massacres, while the 450,000 killed and maimed in the U.S. bombing of Cambodia (the Washington Post‘s estimate, 4/24/75) are virtually never mentioned in connection with the Khmer Rouge’s violence. By suggesting a provocation, and using words like “backlash” and “touching off a wave of violence,” the media justify and diffuse responsibility for the good genocide.

The good genocidist is also repeatedly allowed credit for having encouraged economic growth, which provides the regular offset for his repression and undemocratic rule as well as mass killing. In virtually every article Mydans wrote on Indonesia, the fact that Suharto brought rising incomes is featured, with the mass killings and other negatives relegated to side issues that qualify the good. Joseph Stalin also presided over a remarkable development and growth process, but the mainstream media have never been inclined to overlook his crimes on that basis. Only constructive terror deserves such contextualization.

A New York Times editorial declared (4/10/98): “Time cannot erase the criminal responsibility of Pol Pot, whose murderous rule of Cambodia in the late 1970s brought death to about a million people, or one out of seven Cambodians. Trying him before an international tribunal would advance justice, promote healing in Cambodia and give pause to any fanatic tempted to follow his example.”

But for the New York Times and its media cohorts, Suharto’s killings in East Timor–and the huge slaughter of 1965-66–are not crimes and do not call for retribution or any kind of justice to the victims. Reporter David Sanger (New York Times, 3/8/98) differentiated Suharto from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, saying that “Mr. Suharto is not hoarding anthrax or threatening to invade Australia.” The fact that he killed 500,000+ at home and killed another 200,000 in an invasion of East Timor has disappeared from view. This was constructive and benign terror carried out by a good genocidist.

Source

Enver Hoxha’s “Reflections on the Middle East”

Click to download PDF of Enver Hoxha’s “Reflections on the Middle East”

FOREWORD of the book:”Reflections on the Middle East”

FOREWORD

The book «Reflections on the Middle East» by Comrade Enver Hoxha, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania, deals with political and social events which are linked with the Arab and non-Arab peoples of two continents, Africa and Asia, and with what is called the «Middle East crisis» in the international arena. Like the two volumes of the book «Reflections on China», published in 1979, it is part of the series of books of extracts from «The Political Diary on International Issues». The materials included in the book are some of the notes, outlines for articles, analyses and general reviews about the Middle East drawn from the «Political Diary» and refer only to events which belong to the period from 1958 to the end of 1983. These materials reflect some of the most important moments and events from the inhuman imperialist activities of the superpowers and Israel as well as aspects of the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people and other Arab peoples, the Afghan and Iranian peoples against the plots of the two superpowers.

From time to time the author has recorded some of his personal ideas and feelings, the grief which he has felt over the misfortunes and injustices which have been inflicted on these peoples as well as his great joy over their exemplary struggle for their freedom and national independence against the savage Israeli, imperialist and social-imperialist occupiers and enemies.

* * *

For more than three decades the Middle East has been an arena of repeated acts of intervention and war.

From 1948 to 1983 a number of wars, the one bloodier than the other, have been waged there. In the materials which are published in this new book by Comrade Enver Hoxha the reader will find correct answers to why so many wars have been waged in that region of the world during this relatively short period; why the Middle East crisis has assumed today such large proportions as to the dangers and consequences inherent in it that it influences the entire world situation; what has transformed the Middle East into an extremely dangerous hotbed of endless conflicts; who are the open and secret enemies of the Arab peoples; and a series of other acute political issues.

While following the events as they have developed in the Middle East and writing about them at the moments when they have occurred, the author makes an all-round analysis of them, based on historical materialism and the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, discloses their internal and external causes, their complexity and interconnection, and makes assessments and predictions the accuracy of which has been fully confirmed by the development of events in subsequent periods.

Although these analyses, assessments and predictions were made and written some years ago, many of them are of value for the present day. They include, for example, the notes analyzing the content and true aims of the global strategy of American imperialism in the Middle East pursued by all the American presidents before, during, and after the Second World War down to President Ronald Reagan, the unprecedented arrogance of the United States of America which has proclaimed the Middle East a sphere of its national interests and treats it as its domain. Proceeding from this strategy and this policy, time after time the United States of America has dispatched thousands of marines and hundreds of warships to the waters of the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, etc., in order to subjugate the peoples of the countries of the Middle East by military force.

Passing from one article to the other, the reader will also see what place Israel occupies and the role it has played and is playing in the context of the anti- Arab general strategy of American imperialism, what efforts the United States of America has made and is still making to ensure «secure borders», that is, borders which include all the Arab territories occupied by armed force, for its «pistol» in this region. The basis of the American-Israeli friendship and the political, economic and military alliances between them has always been and still is their common hostility and wars against the Arab peoples.

Also of great current value are the articles in which, through many facts and arguments, the policy of the Soviet social-imperialists in the Middle East is unmasked. They present themselves as friends and saviours of the Arab peoples but at the most critical moments have betrayed these peoples and left them in the lurch.

Many materials show what features the policy of the Soviet social-imperialists has in common with the policy of the American imperialists, what brings these two superpowers together, and what has impelled them to collide in fierce open clashes, before the eyes of the world or behind the scenes for many years, and to trample on the freedom, independence and national and social interests of the impoverished and hard-working peoples of the countries of the Middle East.

In the book «Reflections on the Middle East» a prominent place is given to materials which assess the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist uprisings of the peoples of the Middle East, for instance the heroic struggle of the martyred Palestinian people, the Iranian popular revolution, the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet social-imperialist occupiers, etc. A special place in the book is devoted to the problem of the energy crisis and, in this context, to the role of the Middle-East countries which are some of the biggest oil producers in the world, in this crisis which has gripped all the capitalist and revisionist countries, and to stressing the power of oil as a weapon to defend the freedom and independence and assets of the Arab peoples from the imperialist powers.

In the materials included in this book the attitudes of the Party of Labour and of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania to all the problems which have to do with the Middle East crisis are expressed frankly; the firm principled stands of our country and people in favour of the struggle of the Palestinian people and other Arab peoples against Israel and the two imperialist superpowers, in favour of the Iranian people, the Afghan people and the freedom-loving African peoples are outlined. These stands have also been expressed in many other important documents of our Party and state as well as at various international forums such as UNO, etc., where our representatives have defended the struggle and the just cause of the fraternal Arab peoples. The esteem and assessments which are contained in this book are further proof of that warm and sincere friendship which has always linked the Albanian people with the Arab peoples and with all the freedom-loving and peace-loving peoplesof the world.

Slice-of-Life, “Self-Indulgence” & Reaction

Amateur chauvinist critics nowadays label entertainment without plot to be “self-indulgent.” What they are referring to here is the “slice of life” story, universally met with knee-jerk attacks from our young, impatient reviewers. It is hardly ever analyzed by these people whether or not the lack of plot is due to a lack of talent on behalf of the writer, or a tremendous swelling of talent in his or her endeavors to make the story as mundane and everyday as possible. They are too busy foaming at the mouth with hatred.

Instead, there is merely a smug assumption that no plot equals incompetence or metaphysical forgetfulness, as if the author merely “forgot” to include one in his/her eternally befuddled manner, the silly and stupid befuddled manner which critics frequently assume writers must all posses by nature of seeking the approval of magazines which advertise for phone sex lines.

If these critics had not had their eyes cursed by the sight of such a “boring” and “plotless” work, or better yet been gifted with a better writer to formulate said work, surely then, a plot would have manifested, since as we all know, a lack of plot can by no means be included as part of the overall experience of the work—such a thing is not humanly possible or imaginable.

In between advocating the abortion known as modern art and taking a defibrillator to reactionary art movements such as Surrealism and Cubism (both of which plotted a decades-long coup d’état against Realism for being too proletarian), our young critics managed to skip a generation and “no plot” became a synonym for “bad” in precisely 100% of known cases of the phrase appearing.

The Japanese mastered the “slice of life” story, so did the Irish, but we Americans refused because of these chattering parrots of the free press who were too busy labeling art that the masses do not care for as “abstract” and abducting it for the urban students and petty-bourgeoisie. Realism is too “dirty,” too “low class and depressing” and too “everyday” for the petty-bourgeoisie, after all. So is the “slice of life,” albeit in the opposite form, being described as “too boring” and (irony of all ironies coming from students and petty-bourgeoisie) “self-indulgent!”

Apparently, this is meant to be a criticism of writers.

J.D. Salinger comes to mind as the “original” man who wrote a book with no plot—“Catcher in the Rye”—although that book still has too far much plot for your author’s tastes. For once, the critical reception was good for the work, although his later works such as “Franny and Zooey” were met with public outrage.

An example of this American disdain for story-less stories is The Wall Street Journal’s article by Adam Kirsch, which claims that Salinger’s later work seemed “to become not a way of exploring reality, but a substitute for it” and even worse “more like the gratuitous, self-delighting detail children use when inventing fantasy worlds.”

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033192658885922.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_5

This is an odd accusation. If Kirsch finds the less-than-heavily-plotted works of Salinger so objectionable, wouldn’t it be a positive turn in his opinion to have him “invent fantasy worlds?” The natural conclusion of this statement is that invention of a world, otherwise known as writing [!] is shallow imitation.

In other words, Kirsch finds imagination to be intolerable and more than that, impossible, and therefore declares war on those on daring to create it—quite a sad and stuffy conclusion. I can only guess that Kirsch’s own life is not filled with imagination or “self-indulgence” and has a definite scope and shape (plot), so he doesn’t desire to be bothered by directionless stories, else I risk accusing Kirsch of having a postmodern existential crisis in the process of his reading (dear lord, would I do that?!).

Since that surely cannot be the case, on the flip side maybe his life is filled with universe-destroying adventures that make his life less “self-indulgent.” He is more than free to write an autobiography that might not be as “gratuitous” as Salinger’s work, although in reality he would be hard-pressed to finish a product not identical to Salinger’s, at least if he is honest.

The real source of this is that “slice of life” is fresh and enchanting with no sense of duty, and views life the way a child might, for lack of a better phrase; precisely what they actually find objectionable. Randomness and rambling musings—the sheer effrontery boggles the mind. The idea of the everyday as marvelous is threatening to reactionaries. Unable to shake off some onion layers, I reckon.

Freud & the Tyrants of Therapy

For more than a century and a half since the founding of the psychoanalytic criticism by Sigmund Freud, the school has found a tremendous audience in the field of literature and politics in general. Psychoanalytic or “Freudian” critical practice is essentially the criticism of something, in two ready-made examples, a person or a literary text, through the lens of contemporary psychology in order to explain the sexuality and behavior of that same person or abstract character.

Sadly, despite Marxism’s best efforts, the return of the concept of the political unconscious to go along with Freud’s now-hugely-famous “unconscious mind” concept has not taken hold to the mainstream. It is much easier to find the political unconscious of any given text then might be imagined, but for some reason critics have gone running into one German scholar’s arms and not the other. Indeed, readings of a work that speaks of the hermeneutics of suspicion and do not end up referring to homoerotic desire or an Oedipus complex these days are few and far in between.

While it is justified to talk of Moby Dick, the Picture of Dorian Gray and Kidnapped in terms of the sexual tension between male characters, almost no attempt is made to analyze the political modes, class interests and production that might influence such characterizations. After all, do these characters emerge from nothing but the individual psychology of the author? For example, in the above-mentioned novels, are the characters’ repressed homosexual desires a mere endorsement of hedonistic values as a celebration of beauty, or an overt expression of sexuality as an outgrowth of decadence which challenges bourgeois society and thus is seen as desirable? Is it Romantic-era lushness taken to an extreme in order to compensate for the perceived royalist “drabness” of industrial life, or a manifestation of the appeal to sensation against the moralist society at large? A Freudian would doubtlessly say the latter in both cases, simply because it lures him away from politics except that of the postmodern. However there is an important distinction between those two types of homosexuality: one is progressive in the neo-liberal sense and one is essentially royalist.

The famous Marxist critic Fredric Jameson essentially criticized the psychoanalytic form as being too focused on the individual experience, and thus unable to reach a level of cultural and social analysis. For a Marxist, the immediate leap is made to connect this with neo-liberal policies, which seek to liquidate class struggle and eliminate the survival of anything contrary to the postmodern existential and individual experience.

Jameson is right in saying that the master dogma of Freudian criticism depends on an isolated, autonomized sexuality that emerges only within the contexts of capitalism. Consequently, because Freud’s own branch of thought can only reach bloom within capitalism, it is hardly in a place to critique it-it lives inside the house, and cannot go outside and have a look at it the way Marxism can. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis does retain a credible force of criticism which is merely expanded by Marxism, which says that human consciousness is not master within its own house.

Mental illness diagnoses in general are often a response to behavior that either conflicts with, or concentrates, ideas and practices prevailing under the imperialist system. A “murderer” or a “serial killer” is one who kills people and does not happen to possess a badge or gun, or a plane with bombs in it. What psychologists call depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder is particularly interesting from this approach. The manifestations of mental illnesses are social products even if there is a chemical basis for them.

The radical individualism and violence in America may lead people diagnosed as mentally ill to shoot up a school or worry about CIA surveillance, while in a socialist society their behavior would manifest itself differently. The obsessive-compulsive man, for example, is frequently distressed with what he perceives to be uncleanliness or imperfection, defined usually in bourgeois terms of class thinking. See the movie “American Psycho” for an example. Another interesting phenomenon is the popular idea of the “mad genius,” or the concept that mental illness can coincide with or produce genius. Always it is shown as also bringing its downfall, though little is done to analyze whether or not this is true. Instead, one is invited to gaze in awe of the genius and to strive to be one of these “greats” who “burn out, rather than fade away,” which does little but reinforce individualism and the rights of capital.

Unfortunately, Freudian criticism does not ponder how every single citizen in an imperialist country, male or female, white or black, worker or celebrity happens to be prone to “mental illness and depression.” To do so would undermine the whole individualist approach to Freudian psychology and expose (do not faint!) real social problems.

Briefly on Socialism

This is something that has been forgotten by many.

According to Marxism-Leninism, a capitalist society is one in which

1) the means of production — factories, land, etc., — are owned by individuals or corporate groups of individuals called capitalists;

2) this class of capitalists holds political power by controlling the state apparatus;

3) production is regulated by the profit motive; and

4) exploitation occurs, in that capitalists live, partly or wholly, on the labour of others, i.e., of their employed workers.

On the other hand, according to Marxism-Leninism a socialist society is one in which

1) the means of production are owned collectively by the workers;

2) this class of workers holds political power by controlling the state apparatus;

3) production is planned by the state; and

4) exploitation — the process of living partly or wholly on the labour of others — has been eliminated.

On the basis of these definitions, Marxist-Leninists describe the society which was constructed in the Soviet Union in the period following the revolution as a socialist society.

Polemic against Rotten.com’s “Dictator” Index

I’m afraid, dear reader; you have read the title of this essay correctly. This is a polemic against an article in the “Dictators” section of the infamous internet shock site, Rotten.com. A curious entity existing in the endless depths of the internet for seemingly no other reason than to embody the fetishization of violence under imperialism and give vent to the bottomless alienation and hopelessness that comes naturally under capitalism, Rotten.com is (or was, since the website is several years old) very popular among those youth who seek to desensitize themselves to the underside of the tortoise of life, myself included.

Why, you ask, does such an apparent intellectual blog want to “waste” its time arguing with a website that spends its bandwidth displaying pictures of mutilated bodies and various other fare worthy of a carnival freak show? The answer is simple: because the website reflects, perhaps without realizing itself consciously, what is really on the minds of non-communist working class people when referring to the records of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It’s written on the level of blunt, easy language, the kind used in normal conversation even among the most blue-blooded ACLU Democrats. Even more than this, it uses many of the clichés Marxist-Leninist activists have grown accustomed to on the street in a remarkably straightforward and honest manner, becoming one of the best available sources free from bourgeois academia in all but ideology.

In short, answering Rotten.com’s accusations against communism will provide a platform with which to give easy answers to the working class’s questions about Leninism and history in general. It is the best grocery list of anti-communist slanders that can be found outside of everyday conversation. This isn’t meant to be an academic research project filled with sources. Instead, I’ll use much the same methods as the website itself and give the revolutionary analysis.

Let’s start with the most obvious first. The list itself is questionable, and is clearly geared towards the liberal capitalist criteria of “dictator,” which is in this case someone who has state power, kills people and is not a liberal capitalist.

Politically, it is not at all obvious except to the person entirely sold to the dominant ideology that people like CIA puppets Mobutu Sese Seko, Pinochet, Franco and Saddam, as well as fascists and militarists like Hirohito and Mussolini belong in the same category as progressive socialists such as Stalin and anti-colonialists such as Qaddafi. Indeed, if death tolls are any criteria for being on this list, surely Lyndon B. Johnson, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson belong on it, since each of them, individually, were responsible for more deaths than any of the above mentioned people.

The Vietnam War, over which Lyndon Johnson presided, killed over 3,500,000 Indochinese people, and not all with the courtesy of a bullet, but rather by being burned with the jellied gasoline we call “napalm.” This figure also does not include the American deaths, nor the Laotian ones, which resulted from the heaviest bombing campaign in history, and the famines that resulted from those bombings, in both countries and Cambodia, nor does it include the countless people since affected in grotesque manners by Agent Orange.

As can be proven by documentation, this single war alone killed far more people than Stalin’s entire 30-year reign, and, I might add, was done for nothing more than US imperialist interests, rather than revolutionary purposes. Keep in mind also, that this list of massacres does not include only enemy soldiers, but also many civilians, as documents on the My Lai and Son My Massacres and the various “brush-clearing policies” can show much better than I can. And finally, please note that this is merely one war in a sea of other imperialist wars such as the ones against the Native Americans in the battles such as the Creek & Seminole Wars, or others such as WWI, which most agree today was a worthless battle fought for kings, or the invasions of Korea, Nicaragua, Spain, Russia, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan…etc.

I could go on for hours, but my point is essentially made. Now, on to the articles. They are reproduced here faithfully, with my annotations in boldface.

Joseph Stalin

Continue reading “Polemic against Rotten.com’s “Dictator” Index”

Clarity on the Marxist-Leninist, “Hoxhaist,” PCMLE and MPD Position on Ecuador

Revisionists, Brezhnevites and supporters of the pro-imperialist “Communist Party of Ecuador” have rallied behind the social-democrat Correa and launched a hysterical campaign of lies and slander as usual against the communists in Ecuador. This article is written in defense of the Hoxhaist Partido Comunista Marxista-Leninista del Ecuador (PCMLE) and defending the revolutionary forces in Ecuador from attacks and lies by anti-communists.

“Any action that a social movement takes can be read, understood, or publicized as an action in support of the Right, since this government is supposedly a Leftist one. This has produced a climate of uncertainty over what positions to take, what actions to take.”

– Ivonne Ramos of Acción Ecologica

No doubt you’ve heard the leftist forums alight with news of the “coup attempt” in Ecuador against President Rafael Correa. Perhaps you’ve also heard rumors that the PCMLE and MPD are complicit in this so-called “coup attempt,” while the social democrats in power have their hands clean of any sordid deeds. In fact, this is simply not true. The Marxist-Leninists, or “Hoxhaists,” as they are sometimes called, did not support the coup attempt against Correa.

Many so-called “socialists,” particularly Brezhnevites and Trotskyites, have joined the chorus in calling for the destruction of the Hoxhaists in Ecuador based on the fact that they did not support the government of Correa and instead backed the uprising, which was not limited to the police but rather extended to that institution.

Organizations have thus seen the need to disgustingly label Marxist-Leninists on the international scene as “sinners” for not supporting the social democratic government in Ecuador. They claim that they “backed the right-wing coup.”

The PCMLE are now being compared by traitors and revisionists as the same as the pro-Hoxha Maoist CIA-infiltrated group “Bandera Roja” in Venezuela.

The “Bandera Roja” has been expelled from the ICMLPO for 6 years now and now has less than 100 people left, since their actual MLs formed a new ICMLPO-supported party.

Oddly, the Hoxhaists in Ecuador are also falsely charged with calling Correa a “social-fascist,” when in fact it was Ecuador’s Maoists who made this trumped-up charge. There is no document, announcement or evidence for such an action or announcement by the PCMLE or MPD, nor any of its affiliated trade unions.

I will counter these slanders below and deal with many of the questions surrounding the stance of the Hoxhaists in Ecuador and internationally.

These anti-communist slanders against the ACTUAL communists in Ecuador should come as surprise to nobody, since in the Brezhnevite view one can never support communists without empowering the right. This article sums up the Brezhnevite line on Ecuador, which extends to the PSL and other Marcyites, et al:

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/chronicle-of-the-glorious-resistance-of-the-communists-and-the-masses-against-the-fascist-coup-in-ecuador/

Firstly, this article is from the pro-imperialist PCE, which was openly infiltrated by the CIA for many years.

It also calls Hoxhaists “fascists,” which is sheer reactionary filth that the author of this blog, BJ Murphy, should be ashamed for re-printing!

In his response to a commenter, notice he says “Well the PCMLE are not in power. They’re actually one of the least [!!!! – E.S.] communist groups to have support of the mass people. Now if they can start gaining better solidarity & actually do something other than support US-backed coups, then they may have a chance. As you can see, Communists that protected the government of Ecuador were far larger in numbers & power than the PCMLE. Nothing in the world is better than worker’s power. I want to see such in Ecuador, but this coup was an act of imperialism. An act we must always declare opposition against as top priority.”

This really should’ve been a time to invoke the “no investigation, no right to speak” clause of being a Marxist. In the mid 1960s the U.S. State Department estimated the party membership of the PCE to be approximately 2500. Later, the PCE was legalized, although it had only an estimated 500 members in 1988. The PCE participated in congressional and presidential elections as part of the coalition of the Broad Left Front (Frente Amplio de Izquierda – FADI), which gained thirteen seats in Congress in 1986.

Meanwhile, the Hoxhaist PCMLE is over 200,000 people and controls unions amounting to 2,000,000 Ecuadorian workers, peasants, students and teachers.

At the same time Brezhnevite bloggers were calling the vanguard of the Ecuadorian working class “fascists[!]”, on Revlib, the Mos Eisley spaceport of the left and a wretched hive of Trotskyfascists and Anarchskkkum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ecuadorean-coup-detati-t142548/index2.html

Brezhnevites and “New Communists,” who are uniformly in European social-democratic countries, walk in lock-step with Trots, ultra-lefts and those with FBI informant George Orwell avatars in condemning the PCMLE and the MPD in Ecuador. From the CubaNews email list, one PCE supporter says about the PCE and the PCMLE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/118472

“They have always had a rather ultra-left discourse, but in practice they are great street-fighters. It was the alliance between the CONAIE and PCMLE, as well as the unions, which helped to topple successive governments, including the regime of Gutierrez in 2005. The PCE and the CTE also played an important role, but the PCE has always been more [petty-bourgeois] in social composition.”

What Do Marxist-Leninists Say?

I support the PCMLE’s position, and above all PCMLE is the needed party. It has a mass movement, a mass line and can really act. That’s why Correa tries to show them as “imperialist agents” and “terrorists” and as puppets of whatever foreign intelligence agencies are fashionable. Given U.S. history in the region, this wouldn’t be hard to believe were Correa not himself seeking rapprochement with U.S. imperialism.

While PCE can only watch and give lessons, the PCMLE are actually waging a struggle against capitalism in Ecuador. When you are a small bunch of urban intellectuals and you have no mass movement or illegal military wing (unlike the PCMLE), to go on and start people’s revolution, you end up working for the bourgeoisie as loyal servants.

However, foreign Marxists should really know better, perhaps to listen to the countless public statements of Ecuadorian revolutionaries (NOT reformists like the PCE), about what actually happened. Otherwise they should keep their mouths shut.

What Do the Mass Organizations of Ecuador Say?

CONAIE, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, asserted:

We reject President Rafael Correa’s racist, authoritarian, and antidemocratic statements, which violate the rights of [indigenous] nationalities and peoples enshrined in international conventions and treaties. This constitutes an attack against the construction of a pluri-national and intercultural democracy in Ecuador. Correa has assumed the traditional neoliberal posture of the rightist oligarchy.

Ah, but don’t you see? It’s all CIA, of course!

Correa’s administration later rushed ahead with large-scale extraction projects and privatization of natural resources. Some “progressive,” as he is lovingly called by BJ Murphy.

Straw Men, False Accusations

Here are some other attacks from “Revleft.com”:

A coup against a leftist president, albeit one who is a capitalist head of a bourgeois government, would be a major blow to the workers movement in Ecuador. Let’s hope that this does not succeed or there could potentially be a serious crackdown and repression facing workers struggles in Ecuador.

Criticism is good, as long as you don’t cross the line. When the workers are supporting a guy you don’t like, you should NOT take arms side to side with the right counter-revolutionaries.

“The Vegan “Marxist” had this to say:

Exactly. I don’t see what’s wrong in having a military backing a Socialist government. It’s tactical, & in a lot of cases, as we can clearly see, it’s necessary.

When someone objected, stating the OBVIOUS FACT that the government was not socialist, the situation was distorted by another poster:

Right, we probably should have backed the police here!

Oddly, supporting police – in active striking – was NOT okay in these swampy parts of the internet, but supporting a bourgeois state’s military machine – notably not striking as they cracked down on the left with machine guns and tear gas – is just fine.

In fact, any dissent from this line is CIA, but not backing the US-supporting Correa.

Is this true? Does the PCMLE represent nothing more than the drives of imperialism, of the CIA?

http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2004/febraury/Ecuador.htm

PCMLE response to these accusations:

The lie as the official discourse

It is known the trick of the offender that, when is felt exposed , screams “catch the thief, catch the thief” so that the eyes of the witnesses go over elsewhere and in this way keep free of the responsability. By this logic works the President when he feels concerned in his image, and releases all sorts of insults, lies, and defendants who are considered the opposition.

Insolent – as normally acts- on the last Saturday called fascist and criminals to the members of the _Movimiento Popular Democratico. “Criminals? Is not this government that must answer for the murder of Professor Bosco Wisuma, produced a year ago in Morona? Was not this government that ordered the assault to the Police Hospital- actions not allowed even in war conditions , which cost the lives of eight Ecuadorian? Who is responsible for the brutal repression unleashed in Dayuma or against Zamora Chinchipe miners?

The struggle of the revolutionary left to transform this country has claimed the lives of militants from the MPD and other organizations committed to the workers and the people. Jaime Hurtado is the most emblematic example that illuminates the workings of the MPD and thousands of popular fighters of Ecuador. The revolutionary left does not lower their flags and is front-line fighter against the right and imperialism. Correa’s insults do not change the nature and purposes of those who fight for a revolution.

Correa has betrayed the political project of change and the hope that millions of Ecuadorians han nested. He moved away from positions of the left when said infront to the imperialism spokeswoman, Hillary Clinton h he is not anti-capitalist and imperialist, applies a neoliberal policy that causes rejection of our people, its government has become increasingly anti-democratic and authoritarian, Correa could be further from the constitutional provisions adopted in Montecristi. Missing space to show how far the government is of the change which the people voted.

Surely the trick correista continue and we continue listen “they are criminals … they are the fascists.”

http://www.pcmle.org/EM/article.php3?id_article=3861

Where did the PCMLE and MPD come from?

In 1964, M-Ls formed the Ecuadorian Marxist Leninist Communist Party (PCMLE). The PCMLE operated largely as an illegal and clandestine party, but in 1977 formed the Popular Democratic Movement (MPD) as a legal electoral front.

http://www.yachana.org/research/ierp_left.pdf

Is the PCMLE / MPD in Ecuador the vanguard of the working class or a student-led petty-bourgeois organization?

http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2009/sept_09/international_1.html

MPD: The relationship between MPD and the workers, peasants, teachers, students etc… is political and ideological. This relationship is a natural one. It is important that people in the parliament come from workers’, peasants’, teachers’ etc. organization. The organizations that work directly with us are UGTE (Workers organisation – 30, 000 members; 2nd largest trade union), UNE (Teachers’ organisation), FEUE (students’ organisation – 350, 000 members), UCAE (peasant organisation), PCMLE etc. We work with and organize in total 15 of these organizations (total membership – 2 million). In the last 20 years we have been working with this structure. All candidates for the elections come from these organizations. This is the principal way in which to obtain victory for the people.

The MPD on the present situation:

http://www.mpd15.org.ec/boletines1.php#ma42

Google Translate:

The National Executive of the Popular Democratic Movement, to the events that occurred yesterday in the country, notes solely responsible to President Rafael Correa, who in an attitude of arrogance challenged in Quito Regiment to the police, who made use of the right constitutional resistance, which degenerated into clashes that we all know.

The people of Ecuador, the troops and military police along with social and popular organizations, launched a righteous protest against the adoption of neoliberal laws, sent to the Assembly by Correa, these laws remain acquired rights public servants and encourages the dismissal of 225,000 workers.

The MPD, rejects the violation of the right of freedom of expression the regime committed yesterday in the state of emergency and the only voice heard is the official channel, restricting freedom of expression, selling the world the false information of a coup attempt, when in our country that there is a people who disagree with government policy which aims to pass laws affecting the achievements and rights of workers and peoples of Ecuador.

The revolutionary left supports popular actions, which today has risen in protest along with thousands of public servants in the country, with social organizations continue raising actions to continue the defense of university autonomy, our natural resources, national sovereignty, by the way of real change in the New Nation and Socialism.

We reiterate the call for unity of all political leftist, progressive, workers, teachers, students, peasants, indigenous people, to prevent President Correa to continue violating their human and constitutional rights of all social sectors.

Articles on the Subject Endorsing this View

From the author Greg McDonald on the “Marxism” List:

http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg11111.html

According to that line of reasoning, neither the high command of the military nor the police deviated from their loyalty to President Correa. The discontent emerged from below. demands were purely economic. Finally, the president even received support from the bourgeois right-wing in Guayaquil. All of these groups have backed the presidential decision to institute a state of siege inside the country, which has now been prolonged inside Quito.

Outside the country, Correa received the support of the OAS, President Obama, who called him personally to express his support, the UN, the UNASUR, and even the right wing governments of the region such as Peru, Colombia, and Chile.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the president was not really a victim of kidnapping either. Correa had access to his cell phone, guards were not posted outside his door, and he even had negotiated his peaceful exit from the hospital with his presumptive kidnappers. All of this has been verified by Dr’s Gilberto Calle and Fernando Vargas, as well as by journalists who were present in the room with the president.

To be sure, Lucio Gutierrez tried to take advantage of the situation to press publicly for Correa’s replacement, but his was the lone voice among the right wing bourgeoisie and partidocracy crying in the wilderness.

Not only does Correa represent the bonapartist head of a bourgeois government, seeking to disarticulate the social movements and push forward with a neo-extractivist economic program, he is even deviating from Chavez’s foreign policy by working with the Colombian government to encircle the FARC rebels.

With friends like these….

Greg McDonald

Correa Himself Admits There Was No CIA Coup:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/actualidad/noticia/archive/actualidad/2010/10/18/Correa_3A00_-Obama-no-estuvo-involucrado.aspx

President Correa was interviewed last week by a Colombian TV network, and an Ecuadorian paper published the transcript. In the interview, the President states unequivocally there was no USA involvement in the attempted coup on September 30th, and while he has suspicions of right-wing US involvement, his government has no proof of any US complicity. They do have proof that the extreme right-wing in the USA has funded the right-wing opposition inside Ecuador, but the Ecuadorian government has no proof of any direct US involvement in the events of September 30th. In terms of right-wing US funding, the president did not indicate one way or the other whether these are private or government sources of funding. Ricardo Patino, head of foreign relations for Correa, has underscored publicly that the USA was not involved in the coup attempt.

[….]

The MPD is the legal, parliamentarian front for the PCMLE. They backed Correa up until this year, but since they have a large membership in the public sector unions and the student organizations, they withdrew their support after Correa began his attack on the unions and on university autonomy. One of the leaders of the FEUE, a student organization aligned with the PCMLE, has been in jail on “terrorism” charges for 10 months. Marcelo Rivera is currently on hunger strike, and is considered by the MPD and FEUE to be a political prisoner. Over 100 social movement leaders have been arrested on trumped up “terrorism” charges.

The MPD asserts that Correa is trying to break the unions. Luis Macas and some members of CONAIE agree with this analysis. According to a recent NACLA article, the furor over the Public Services Law, which provoked over 1000 police to stage countrywide protests, was due to the fact that Correa vetoed sections of the bill which had been negotiated in the Legislative Assembly between union representatives, the MPD, and members of Correa’s own Alianza Pais.

Coup in Ecuador?

Written by Kristin Bricker

Tuesday, 12 October 2010 18:21

Source: NACLA

On September 30, about 1,000 Ecuadoran national police officers took to the streets, blocking key intersections and taking over public space, in protest of a new law that eliminated their bonuses and other benefits.

Even though the protesting police represented a small fraction of the 42,000-member force, things quickly spun out of control. A small number of low-ranking Air Force soldiers shut down airports, the police occupied Congress, and they held Correa hostage in a hospital for more than 10 hours until a mixed Special Operations team rescued him. The unrest left 10 dead and 274 injured.

The police rebellion began after Correa used line-item vetoes to change certain parts of the Public Services Law, which reportedly aimed to streamline Ecuador’s public sector by doing away with certain bonuses and forcing many public servants into early retirement. The president’s line-item veto power is provided for under the country’s 2008 constitution, and the president has often used it to overrule Congress.

According to Edwin Bedoya, vice president of the Ecuadoran Federation of Unitarian Working Class Organizations (CEDOCUT), the version of the Public Services Law that Congress originally passed was crafted in negotiations between Correa’s Alianza PAIS party and public servants. “But we saw in the second round of voting that the president had vetoed the agreements and had gotten rid of certain workers’ rights,” Bedoya said. When Congress, including some members of Alianza PAIS, balked at Correa’s changes to the legislation, the president threatened to use his right to dissolve Congress to pass his version of the Public Services law.

But the ensuing rebellion, Correa and others have emphasized, was not a spontaneous uprising. While still being held hostage, Correa declared: “It is a coup attempt led by the opposition and certain sections of the armed forces and the police.” Many Latin Americans, still rattled by the successful coup against leftist President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras last year, feared Correa would be next. Others argued that calling the unrest a “coup” is an exaggeration, or even that Correa kidnapped himself in order to increase his popularity and political power.

Yet the protests took place in at least four provinces in Ecuador, casting doubt on their spontaneity. And as Correa pointed out, the protests were “coordinated with the closure . . . of the airport, coordinated with the attacks on the [state television’s] relay antennas, with the invasion of [government-owned] Ecuador TV’s studios,” and the police takeover of Congress.

Moreover, video footage of the striking police during the operation that freed Correa clearly demonstrates that the police were shooting to kill. Correa told the press that the armored vehicle that drove him away from the hospital was shot multiple times.

While police held Correa hostage, former Ecuadoran president Lucio Gutiérrez—an outspoken critic of Correa—gave interviews from his exile in Brazil, hailing the police rebellion as a coup. “The end of Correa’s tyranny is at hand,” he said, and called for the “dissolution of parliament” and “early presidential elections.” Former president of Congress Alberto Acosta, a Correa supporter turned critic, reported that “ex-soldiers and ex-police, the very people that make up the fat of the Lucio’s party,” were seen in barracks in multiple cities. When police briefly occupied Congress, Acosta added, the representatives who are members of Gutiérrez’s Patriotic Society Party entered and exited freely, while members of other parties “had trouble entering.”

Both Correa and former National Police commander Freddy Martínez, who resigned after his failure to control his troops, argue that outside instigators infiltrated the police, misled police about the austerity measures in the Public Service Law, and provoked the uprising. Labor and indigenous organizations in Ecuador, however, have taken a more nuanced line. The police rebellion occurred, they argue, because Ecuador’s right wing is taking advantage of weaknesses created by Correa’s alienating governing style. Although they opposed any coup attempt and demanded that constitutional order be respected, they also criticized Correa for marginalizing his natural allies in the social movements and leaving himself vulnerable to attacks from the right.

A joint statement from four of Ecuador’s largest indigenous organizations rejected the “right-wing’s actions that in an undercover way form part of the attempted coup” and called upon its members to “be on alert and ready to mobilize.” However, the statement criticizes the Correa administration for violently repressing mobilizations against transnational mining, oil, and agro-industrial companies. The organizations argued, “The social crisis that was let loose today was also provoked by the authoritarian character and the unwillingness to dialogue in the lawmaking process. We have seen how laws that were negotiated [with social sectors] were vetoed by the President of the Republic. . . . This scenario nurtures the conservative sectors.”

Labor leader Bedoya says that on September 30, the CEDOCUT called on all sectors to hit the streets to restore constitutional order. However, like his country’s indigenous organizations, he qualified his organization’s defense of Correa: “We do believe that part of the blame for what is happening lies with not accepting dialogue with social sectors.”

Acosta, who co-founded the Alianza PAIS with Correa, echoed this. “The president and his government don’t know how to dialogue,” he said. “They impose their laws, without even respecting the criteria of the assembly members of their own block.”

Even worse, argued indigenous organizations on the day of the coup, the Correa administration has repressed them just as right-wing governments have. “Faced with the criticism and mobilization of communities against transnational mining, oil, and agro-industrial companies,” wrote the CONAIE, the ECUARUNARI, the CONFENIAE, and CONAICE, “the government, instead of creating a dialogue, responds with violence and repression. . . . The only thing this type of politics provokes is to open spaces to the Right and create spaces of destabilization.”

Bedoya shares this analysis: “Of course the right takes advantage of this, and takes advantage of the most powerful sector, which is the national police and the military, and it begins to sow discontent . . . but the government’s behavior is making that possible.”

Acosta hopes that his former ally will learn from the police rebellion. “History has given to President Correa, once again, the opportunity to reacquaint himself with the origins of the revolutionary process, to rectify. Hopefully he understands it that way.”

“A Citizens’ Revolution,” argued Bedoya, “implies a respect for the rights of all people, of the workers, of organizations’ collective rights, and to establish a dialogue to reach a minimum consensus with the social sectors.”

Finally, below is the analysis from the union federation CEDOCUT website:

http://www.cedocut.org/cms/

According to CEDOCUT, the entire passel of new laws created by Correa’s party–the laws on mines, water, public finance, education, public sector, and public businesses, were instituted autocratically without the participation of the popular movement, and undermine popular initiatives to the benefit of the private sector and multinational corporations. Furthermore, the government is pushing for “labor flexibility”, and we all know what that means.

There is a growing consensus among all the various sources I have researched, from Accion Ecologica and the MPD, to Pachakutik and CONAIE, as well as various labor organizations and student organizations, representing the vast majority of organizations of the social movements of Ecuador, that the primary thrust of Correa’s government is capitalist developmentalism.

It remains to be seen whether or not Correa responds to popular calls for a Golpe de Timon, or a rapprochement with the left. Given the institutional and legal ramifications of all the recent laws his government has passed, one cannot help but be pessimistic at that prospect.

There is also further analysis coming from the left in Latin America which disputes the argument that the events of september 30^th constituted even a poorly orchestrated coup attempt. A spokesperson for the Argentine PT agrees with the Ecuadorian unions, student groups, and indigenous organizations, that the police rebellion was not a coup attempt.

http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/que-paso-en-ecuador

From the Popular Liberation Army of Colombia (EPL): 40 Years of Struggle for Revolution and Socialism

40 years of struggle for revolution and socialism

EPL:

Published: February 13, 2008

40 years ago, the December 17, 1967, is born full of revolutionary optimism, confident of the future Socialist Colombia, Latin America and the Caribbean and humanity, the Popular Liberation Army of Colombia EPL.

40 years ago, the December 17, 1967, was born to lead the revolutionary armed struggle in northeastern Colombia, the Popular Liberation Army (PLA), led by the Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist), and under the command comrade and commander Francisco Caraballo.

As pointed out by the PLA in its statement: “I was born in that corner of the country the revolutionary armed struggle led by the party of the proletariat as an essential component in the struggle for making and exercise of political power by the proletariat and the people, the overthrow of the pro-imperialist bourgeois state, and establish a popular democratic state with achieving the strategic objective of the democratic revolution, imperialism, up to socialism. ”

In Colombia and in Latin America, the struggle of people against looting imposed by imperialism and the native oligarchy progressed, was present as an example of dignity, the revolutionary triumph of the Cuban people and their heroic resistance to the aggression and the criminal economic blockade, the courageous response of the Arab peoples “with the Palestinian people to head to the fascist invasion of Israel, the struggle of the Vietnamese people, who defeated and humiliated the most powerful military powers, U.S. imperialism , and is, in the framework of universal military-political upheaval, which is the Popular Liberation Army of Colombia, which, as indicated in his statement, “is born full of revolutionary optimism, confident of the future Socialist Colombia, Latin America and Caribbean and humanity ”

The strength and ideological unity within their ranks, has made it able to withstand the onslaught of the class enemy and those who within their ranks were broken as the now defunct group opportunistic “Hope, Peace and Freedom” that late eighties abandoned the revolution and began to serve the enemies of the people.

This steadiness and leadership attributes of the Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist) and the Popular Liberation Army, were allowed, as indicated, be an incorruptible force that has faced the toughest military, political and ideological “without morals and determination to fight has been broken,” firmness has not stopped “taking their political flexibility to armed conflict, political, social and fight for democratic space for people’s struggle” and its dedication to unit effort of construction and development of the Simon Bolivar Guerrilla Coordinator.

Comforts the world revolutionary movement and the PLA’s commitment to stay, “even in the midst of all sorts of difficulties and the siege of the enemy (…) revolutionary vitality firm and continuing to address this and move building structures in the countryside and the city ”

“The PLA reaches his 40 years of life diminished in quantity, but with the backing of the ideological and political strength of their leaders and commanders of the different lines.”

Our Party and the revolutionary movement in America and the world, presents this 40 th anniversary of the PLA and its commitment to advance the revolutionary perspective, looking at the future with optimism that honors the fallen in battle as the commander Ernesto Rojas and the thousands of prisoners of war found in the dungeons of the regime, without renouncing their revolutionary beliefs.

40 Years – Viva EPL!

–Freedom Fighter Francisco Caraballo, leader of PCdeC (ml) and Commander of the PLA

PCR/Grover Furr Interview

“Khrushchev’s accusations against Stalin are false”

Interview with Grover Furr by the Revolutionary Communist Party in Brazil [translated from Spanish]

Published: August 12, 2010

“I found that the period of Soviet history with Stalin at the head has been completely distorted. Not just ‘a mistake here and there’, but basically a massive fraud, the biggest lie of the century.”

The Issue No. 118 (July 2010) A Verdade, newspaper promoted by our comrades of the Revolutionary Communist Party (Brazil) publishes an interview with Grover Furr, author of important political works include “The Shame Anti-Stalinist”, recently launched in Moscow. Furr, a Ph.D. in comparative literature or medieval Princeton University and from 1970 taught at the University of Montclair (New Jersey, USA). He was responsible for courses on the Vietnam War and social protest literature, among others. His research interests focus mainly on Marxism, the history of the USSR and the international communist movement. In the following interview, Professor Furr talks about his investigation into accusations against Stalin and Khrushchev, of which says that “60 of the 61 charges are demonstrably false.” Below is the interview

Truth – Recently, a large number of books have been published to attack the person and work of Joseph Stalin. What explains the intensification of the struggle against the regime “Stalinist” in the U.S. and the world?

Grover Furr – Since late 1920, Stalin has been the main target of shouting anti-communist and capitalist. Leon Trotsky attacked Stalin to justify its inability to win over the working masses of the Soviet Union. The real cause of the defeat of Trotsky is his interpretation of Marxism-a kind of extreme economic determinism, predicted that the revolution was doomed to failure if it was followed by revolutions in other advanced industrial countries. But the party leadership chose Stalin’s plan to build socialism in one country. Trotsky’s ideas were (and still have) a great influence on all those anti-capitalist and openly. Trotskyist historians are well received by historians capitalists. Pierre Broué and Vadim Rogovin, leading Trotskyist historians in recent decades, have been praised and still frequently cited by historians openly reactionary. Many in the party leadership in 1930 strongly opposed Stalin when he fought for democracy within the Party and, especially, democratic elections for the Soviets. The major conspiracies in the 1930’s revealed the existence in the elites of a broad trend in opposition to the policies associated with Stalin. These conspiracies actually existed: the opposition party trying to overthrow and assassinate Soviet leaders of government, or take power leading a revolt in the rear, in collaboration with the Germans and Japanese. Nikolai Ezhov, head of the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs), had its own right-wing conspiracy, including collaboration with the Axis. To achieve its objectives executed hundreds of thousands of innocent Soviet citizens to undermine the trust and loyalty to the Soviet government. When Stalin died, Khrushchev, and many are party leaders who could blame these great Stalin repressions. They also invented many outright lies about Stalin, Beria Lavrentii and close associates of Stalin. When Gorbachev took power (1985) also realize that their capitalist “reforms”-the distance equal to capitalist market relations “could be justified if its anti-communist campaign was described as an attempt to” rectify the crimes of Stalin. “These lies and horror stories are still the main form of anti-communist propaganda in the world today. The trend is to intensify, as the capitalists are pulling down wages and social benefits of workers walk into an exacerbated nationalism, to racism and war.

Truth – What made you become interested in the history of the USSR?

Grover Furr – When I was in college, from 1965 to 1969, joined protests against U.S. war in Vietnam. One day, someone told me that the Vietnamese communists could not be “good guys” because they were all Stalinists and Stalin killed millions of innocent people. ” That stuck with me. It was probably that, in early 1970, so I read the first edition of The Great Terror by Robert Conquest. I was impressed when I read it. But I knew a certain field of Russian and could read this language, because I had studied Russian literature from the school. Then I examined the book by Robert Conquest carefully. Apparently, nobody had done it! I discovered the dishonest use of sources makes Conquest. His notes do not support any of his conclusions “anti-Stalin.” Basically, he used any source that was hostile to Stalin, regardless of whether it was reliable or not. So I decided to write something coherent. It took me a long time, but eventually published in 1988. During this time I studied the research being done by new historians of the USSR, Arch Getty, Robert Thurston and many others.

Truth – Antistalinskaia Podlost, his book (“The Shame Anti-Stalinist”) was recently published in Moscow. Tell us a little about it.

Grover Furr – A decade ago I heard about the large number of documents that were revealed in secret files of the former Soviet Union and began to study them. I read somewhere that one or two statements by Khrushchev in his famous “secret speech” of 1956, were identified as false from beginning to end. So I thought I could do some research and write an article pointing out some errors exposed by him during the “secret speech.” I never imagined to find that everything he said Khrushchev (60 of 61 charges against Stalin and Beria) was to be completely false. No 61 cargo could not find anything that would confirm or denied by. I realized that this would change everything, because virtually the entire history since 1956 is based on the words of Khrushchev or writers related to it. I found that the period of Soviet history with Stalin at the head has been completely distorted. Not just “a mistake here and there, but basically a massive fraud, the biggest lie of the century. And thanks to my colleague from Moscow, Vladimir L. Bobrov, who first showed me these documents, gave me valuable advice on several occasions and did an excellent job of translation. Without the dedication of Vladimir nothing would have happened.

Truth – In your research you had direct access to newly declassified Soviet archives. What these documents say about the millions who died under socialism, especially during the administration of Stalin?

Grover Furr – whereas people die all the time, I guess you talk about death “surplus.” Russia and Ukraine experienced famine every three or four years. The 1932-33 famine occurred during collectivization. No doubt that more people died than would have died naturally. However, many people die in famines successive-every three years, indefinitely into the future, if there was no collectivization. Collectivization meant that the famine of 1932-33 was the last, with the exception of the severe famine of 1946-1947, which was much worse, but that was due to the war. And as I mentioned before, Nikolai Ezhov deliberately killed thousands of innocent people. It is interesting to consider what might have happened if Russia had not collectivized agriculture and had not accelerated its industrialization program, and if the intrigues of the opposition in the 1930’s had not been crushed. If the USSR had not done the collectivization, the Nazis and the Japanese would have won. If Stalin had not contained the right-wing conspiracies, Trotskyists, nationalists and military, the Japanese and the Germans had conquered the country. In both cases, the victims among the Soviet people would have been much, much more numerous than the 28 million war dead. The Nazis would have killed many more Slavs and Jews that they killed. With these resources, and perhaps even with the armies of the USSR for its part, the Nazis would have been much, much stronger when fighting against England, France and the U.S. With the Soviets and the oil resources of Sakhalin, the Japanese would have killed many, many more Americans. The fact is that the USSR under Stalin saved the world from fascism, not only once, during the war, but three times: by collectivization, and the disruption of the opposition right-tortskista-military and in war. How many millions this give him?

Truth – Some authors have tried to find similarities between Stalin and Hitler, and some even say that the supposed “Stalinism” was “worse” than Nazism. Was there really any relationship between Stalin and Hitler?

Grover Furr – The anti-capitalist and not examine the class struggle and exploitation. In fact, it could be assumed that these things do not exist or are not important. But the class struggle, oppression is caused by the motor of history. Ignore this is falsifying history. Hitler was a capitalist, an authoritarian type is common in many capitalist countries. Stalin led the Bolshevik Party and the USSR, when the Communists around the world were fighting against all forms of capitalist exploitation. When we say “worst” we must always ask: “Worse for whom?” The USSR and the communist movement during the Stalin definitely was “worse than the Nazis” for capitalists. That’s why they hate capitalists to Stalin and communism. The communist movement during the period of Lenin and Stalin, and even later, was the greatest force for human liberation in history. And again we must ask, “Whose Liberation? “Liberation from what?” The answer is: the liberation of the working class in the world of capitalist exploitation, misery and war.

The Truth – One of the most frequent attacks Stalin is that he would be responsible for the famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933, also called the Great Famine. Does this version of the story corresponds to what actually happened?

Grover Furr – The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened. This myth was invented by pro-fascist Ukrainian nationalists, along with the Nazis. Douglas Tottle demonstrated in his book “Fraud, Famine and Fascism” (1988). Arch Getty, one of the best historians bourgeois (ie, no Marxist and non-communist), also has a good article on this. Robert Conquest is what gives the old version that the Soviets deliberately caused the famine in Ukraine. No shred of evidence that might confirm this vision, so such a test has never come to light. The myth of the “Holodomor” persists because it is the “founding myth” of rights of Ukrainian nationalism. Ukrainian nationalists invaded the USSR along with the Nazis killed millions of people, including many Ukrainians. His only “excuse” is the propaganda lie that “freedom fighters” against the Soviet communists, who were “worse than Nazis.”

The Truth “A message for Brazilian workers. Grover Furr – Fight for communism! All power to the working class around the world!

Yugoslavia’s Hoxha Vs. Albania’s Hoxha

YUGOSLAVIA’S HOXHA Vs. ALBANIA’S HOXHA

Munich, March 21 – (Stankovic) — TITO has chosen Enver HOXHA’s
namesake in Yugoslavia, Fadil HOXHA, a member of the Presidency of the
Socialist Alliance’s regional executive in Pristina, to counteract
“the slander campaign by Albanian leaders against Yugoslavia.” (See
CNR items D-115, D-116, and D-117 of March 20.)

At the plenary meeting of the Yugoslav front organization of
the autonomous Kosmet (Kosovo & Metohia) region Fadil HOXHA attacked
Enver HOXHA’s speech of Feb. 13 which charged that the Yugoslav
leaders have pursued policy of destroying national character of the
Albanian minority in Yugoslavia.

Following his speech the plenum passed a resolution protesting
against the assumption by Enver HOXHA of the right to represent the
interest of the Albanians in Yugoslavia and expressing loyalty to
the Yugoslav federal government. Fadil HOXHA also said that the
anti-Yugoslav campaign in Albania was aimed at causing distrust among the
Albanains in Yugoslavia toward TITO.

[In his speech before the plenary session of the Central Committee
held between Feb. 13 and 17 in Tirana, Enver HOXHA said that “the
Yugoslav rulers have taken a chauvinist and anti-Marxist attitude
towards the people of Kosovo.” He added that “a wretched situation
prevails in that region, with the Yugoslav leaders pursuing a policy
of destroying the people’s national character. Tens of thousands of
citizens from Kosovo have had to give up their land and homes to
emigrate to Turkey. Yugoslavia is trying to transform Kosovo into
a base for action against Albania. Day by day the Yugoslav press of
Kosovo and Metohia are unleashing slanderous propaganda against our
party and our people’s democracy…” This is the reason why Enver
HOXHA suggested to the Albanian newspapers that their “internationalist
duty” was ” to enlighten the Albanians of Kosovo so that they do not
fall for the chauvinist anti-Marxist propaganda (of the Yugoslav
Communists).”]

In his answer to Albania’s (Enver) HOXHA, Yugoslavia’s (Fadil)
HOXHA said that his namesake’s “stories about denationalization
have no other aim but to cause distrust among the Albanians in
Yugoslavia toward the socialist country in which they live. ” Fadil HOXHA
Then enumerated all the advantages which the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia enjoys, especially the progress being achieved in the
economy and in culture. He sharply rejected Enver HOXHA’s allegations
about “tens of thousands of citizens from Kosovo” having emigrated
to Turkey because of the alleged “Yugoslav leaders’ pursuing a policy
of destroying the people’s national character.” Fadil HOXHA said that
out of 524,500 Albanians living in Yugoslavia only 291 have
moved to Turkey,” mostly people who have their breadwinners or families
in Turkey, or dispossessed beys, agas and merchants.”

[It is interesting to note that Fadil HOXHA speaks only of
524,500 Albanians as living in the region of Kosovo and Metohia.
According to the latest Yugoslav data the population of the Kosmet
was 880,000 on June 30, 1956. True, there are about 200,000 Serbs
among them (again according to the same statistical data) but in
any case there should be at least 680,000 Albanians in the area
rather than 524,500. The difference between these two last figures
is obviously not 291.]

After adopting a resolution “refuting the allegations about State
affairs in this region made by Enver HOKHA,” the popular front
Plenum of Kosovo add Hetohia lent “full and solid support to the
Federal Executive Council (of Yugoslavia i.e. the Government) in
taking measures against this and similar acts of the Albanian
Government, which sonstitute gross interference in the domestic
affairs of Yugoslavia and an attack on the territorial integrity and
Sovereignty of Socialist Yugoslavia” – the words taken from the
Feb. 26 speech of Koca POPOVIC, Yugoslav State Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, made at the Yugoslav National Assembly.

The resolution further “vigorously protests against the assumption
by Enver HOXHA and his associates of the right to represent the
interest of the Albanians of Kosovo and Metohia.”

As could have been foreseen, the section of Enver HOXHA’s Feb.
13 speech dealing with the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia provoked
TITO’s anger more than anything else. This was the first open attack
by an Albanian Communist leader on the “wretched situation” allegedly prevailing in that part of Yugoslavia, and constituted a full-fledged
declaration of propaganda warfare on TITO.

In the above-mentioned speech of Feb. 26 Koca POPOVIC said that
“Albania is the only country of the Socialist camp with which,
though no fault of ours, our relations have never been really
normalized…” Politika of March 15 added to this extent that
Albania’s “22 anti-Yugoslav attacks” between Dec. 1, 1956, and
March 15, 1957, have “in point of ‘gravity’ even surpassed Soviet
propaganda” with its 33 major attacks on TITO and Yugoslavia within
the same period.

Albania’s offence is all the greater in TITO’s eyes since the
Albanian Communist Party owed its information in 1941 to the aid
and initiative of Yugoslav Communists. Before 1941 there were only
a few Communist groups in Albania, the most important group being
in Kor�e. To this group belonged Enver HOXHA, then still an
insignificant teacher at the Korce grammar school. (See S. Skendi’s “Albania”,
published by the Mid-European Studies Center of the Free Europe
Committee, Inc. – New York, 1956.)

Some months after the attack of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany,
two emissaries of TITO, Miladin POPOVIC and Dusan MUGOSA, members
of the regional committee of the Yugoslav CP for Kosovo and Methohia,
arrived in Tirana entrusted with the task of forming an Albanian
Communist Party. In a short time they succeeded in uniting the various
groups and in creating a single party on November 8, 1941. They
stayed on in Albania throughout the war and were the real leaders
of the Albanian party, Miladin POPOVIC as political organizer, Dusan
MUGOSA as military organizer. However, as the number of Yugoslav
“advisers” in Albania later increased, so did dissatisfaction among
the Albanians, both Communists and fellow-travelling members of the
Communist-led “Democratic Front”. They all resented control by the
Yugoslavs, and suffered ruthless persecution at the hands of the
pro-Yugoslav Koci XOXE, Minister of the Interior, head of the Secret police
and Secretary of the party, who with the backing of the Yugoslavs
became the most powerful man in the Party.

After TITO’s expulsion from the Cominform, however, the
anti-Yugoslav elements in the Albanian CP, backed by the Kremlin
and led by the Premier Enver HOXHA (subsequently Party secretary),
took sole power into their hands, began to treat Yugoslavia as an
enemy country and secured the execution of Koci XOXE in 11949. This
attitude has remained constant to this day and it seems that
Albania will, for a long time to come, be “the only country of the
socialist camp”, in POPOVIC’s words, with which Yugoslavia’s
relations have not been “really” normalized and which is “obviously”
not anxious to secure their normalization.

Source

Comrade Hoxha on the 1956 Counterrevolution in Hungary

October 23 marked the 53rd anniversary of the 1956 counter-revolutionary riots in Hungary. On this occasion, proto-fascist puppet forces under the command of Titoite loyalists and the NATO-imperialist bloc attempted to quell the growth and development of socialism and people’s democracy in Hungary in a reactionary campaign to bring back to power the deposed fascists.

Here’s what Comrade Hoxha had to say on the subject in a speech delivered before 81 other Communist and Workers Parties in November 1960:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/nov1960.htm

In our opinion, the counter-revolution in Hungary was mainly the work of the Titoites. In Tito and the Belgrade renegades, the U.S. imperialists had their best weapon to destroy the people’s democracy in Hungary.After comrade Khrushchev’s visit to Belgrade in 1955, no more was said about Tito’s undermining activity. The counter-revolution in Hungary did not break out unexpectedly. It was prepared for, we might say, quite openly, and it would be futile for any one to try to convince us that this counter-revolution was prepared in great secrecy. This counter-revolution was prepared by the agents of the Tito gang in collusion with the traitor Imre Nagy, in collusion with the Hungarian fascists and all of them acted openly under the direction of the Americans.

The scheme of the Titoites, who were the leaders, was for Hungary to be detached from our socialist camp, to be turned into a second Yugoslavia, be linked in alliance with NATO through Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, to receive aid from the U.S.A. and, together with Yugoslavia and under the direction of the imperialists, to continue the struggle against the socialist camp.

The counter-revolutionaries worked openly in Hungary. But how is it that their activities attracted no attention? We cannot understand how it is possible for Tito and Horthy’s bands to work so freely in a fraternal country of People’s Democracy like Hungary where the party was in power and the weapons of dictatorship were in its hands, where the Soviet army was present.

We think that the stand taken by comrade Khrushchev and the other Soviet comrades towards Hungary was not clear, because the greatly mistaken views which they held about the Belgrade gang did not allow them to see the situation correctly.

[…]

Whether to intervene or not to intervene with arms in Hungary is, we think, not within the competence of one person alone; seeing that we have set up the Warsaw Treaty, we should decide jointly, because otherwise it is of no use to speak of alliance, of the collective spirit and collaboration among the parties. The Hungarian counter-revolution cost to our camp blood, it cost Hungary and the Soviet Union blood.

Continue reading “Comrade Hoxha on the 1956 Counterrevolution in Hungary”

Extracts from the Letter from the CC of the Party of Labor of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party of China (1978)

President-Mobutu-visiting-Chairman-Mao-vertical — Stamp with President Mobutu of Zaire meeting Chairman Mao; Mao gave Mobutu $100 million in technical aid

Aid to Albania from China

On July 7, 1978 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People‘s Republic of China handed an official note to the Embassy of the People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania in Peking, whereby it announces the decision of the Chinese Government to stop its economic and military aid and its aid payments to Albania and bring back its economic and military experts working in Albania up till that date. With this perfidious and hostile act towards socialist Albania, you unscrupulously scrapped the agreements officially concluded between the two countries, brutally and arbitrarily violated elementary international rules and norms and extended ideological disagreements to state relations with Albania. Taking this hostile step against socialist Albania, you seek to hit at, and damage, the economy and defence capacity of our country, to sabotage the cause of the revolution and socialism in Albania. At the same time, you gravely undermine the fraternal friendship between the Albanian and Chinese peoples. Wishing ill to a socialist country, such as the People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania, you give satisfaction to the enemies of socialism and the revolution. The responsibility for this reactionary and anti-Albanian act, as well as its consequences, lies completely with the Chinese side.

The Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian Government denounce the brutal cessation of aid and loans to socialist Albania before all world public opinion as a reactionary act from great power positions, an act which is a repetition, in content and form, of the savage and chauvinistic methods of Tito, Khrushchev and Brezhnev which China, also, once condemned.

[…]

To any normal person it is unbelievable and preposterous that Albania, a small country, which is fighting against the imperialist-revisionist encirclement and blockade and which has set to large-scale and all-round work for the rapid economic and cultural development of its country, which is working tirelessly for the strengthening of the defence capacity of its socialist Homeland, should cause and seek cessation of economic co-operation with China, refuse its civil and military loans and aid. Inspired by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism, the Albanian people, their Party and Government have sincerely and consistently fought for the strengthening of friendship, fraternal co-operation and mutual aid between Albania and China.

[…]

Now, as in the past, the Albanian people, their Party and Government stick to their assessments of this aid and its role, among other external factors, in the development of our country. Socialist Albania has never considered its friendship with the peoples of other countries a means of economic profit. At the same time, it has permitted nobody to consider economic aid and co-operation an investment whereby political and ideological views, which run counter to Marxism-Leninism and socialism, are dictated to, and imposed on, our country. The People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania has never sold out its principles, it has never traded on them.

Continue reading “Extracts from the Letter from the CC of the Party of Labor of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party of China (1978)”