The CPUSA a Revolutionary Party?

From the FAQ on the official website of the CPUSA:

Why does the Communist Party oppose Violence?

Communists believe that social change can only be accomplished through the united action of mass movements which express the majority will of the people. Peaceful methods of change are not only the right thing to do, they are the most effective way to unite and mobilize the greatest majorities.

Violence, on the other hand, is a tool of the big corporations and the governments they control. To preserve their power, they use violence against workers’ and people’s movements.

In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully. We work to expand every democratic and electoral avenue as part of our fight for working class political and economic power.

Our party believes that it is possible to make fundamental transformations using the electoral process, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Marx on the dictatorship of the proletariat:

“Political power … is merely the organized power of one [socio-economic] class for oppressing the other.”

“[The working class] must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake.”

“Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions (e.g. bourgeois democracy).”

“The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must … organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. … [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. …As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.”


“But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”


“It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: ‘for what class?’ Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the ‘historian’ knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everyhody knows that it did not.”

“Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.”

Rationalizing Capitalism

Capitalism can only be justified with preconceived assumptions and not objective facts. Looking at the fundamentals of the system, one cannot rationalize that capitalism is beneficial, so the mind rationalizes that it is necessary.

For example, one simply cannot rationalize the existence of classes on the basis that they deserve what they have, or that the owning classes play any sort of role vital to the process of production. So instead, the human rationalizes the existence of classes on the flimsy basis that without them, without that position to strive for, without the final reward of completely removing yourself from productive work, productivity would plummet in all production.

You cannot rationalize that capitalism is good based on any evidence, because there is none. Instead it is rationalized by its supporters as a necessary evil. The dominant ideas of any epoch are the ideas of its ruling class.

This is the harder struggle to win—the struggle most people go through. That and blatent individualism. “Yeah, no one would be starving or homeless, but would everyone have the opportunity to direct their own films?”

Marx said that capitalism broke apart the feudal ties between families and bloodlines or “pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’”

but then “…left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’”

Ultra-Leftism & Right-Opportunism

The most common mistake among Marxists in our cultural review work is right-opportunism, which means that they fall into liberalism and subjectivism, tolerating artistic works which promote reactionary politics. Right-opportunism can be summed up as the liberal outlook of denying a particular judgement of a work due to relativism, such as the old line, “You can attach any political reading to any book, movie, music or what have you, that you wish. It all depends on the reader.”

This is reactionary capitalist thought that insists that art remain “neutral,” magically standing above society as something pure and detached from classes and modes of production. In a word, they sell out to Hollywood and cling to a nonexistant “indepedance” of art as though art could, or even should be, seperated from the class struggle. As Marx said, the fact that “the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of its ruling class” is a structural fact of society and cannot be denied because the liberal artist wishes it so.

Right-opportunist deviationists fail to recognize how much a peoples’ ideology may change at any given moment. As such, they allow the existence and wide spreading of all works, essentially offering the masses’ minds as a sacrifice to the alter of “open debate” and “freedom of speech.” This amounts to taking weapons out of the hands of the people and enables the blackest reaction and the most backward politics to spread.

Another form of this, besides run-of-the-mill liberalism, is the “ignore it” approach. This encourages leftist people to simply “ignore” reactionary works in the hopes that they will go away. History has proven this approach idealistic. It also does not allow the proletariat to teach themselves how to analyze works, which means communists then fail at leadership.

Another deviation within ourselves is ultra-leftism. Though it is not the larger danger of the two, it is still clear and present within our ranks. In this camp, Marxist reviewers will tear apart a work with progressive tendancies because of small traces of bourgeois ideology. Ultra-lefts fail to see the slightest progress even under the most radical bourgeois-made films, since they have departed from materialism and expect a capitalist film to essentially be socialist.

The sad reality is that most culture is controlled by the bourgeosie. To have any popular culture and be cut off from the masses, we will have to accept some flaws. The vast majority of films will be “submerged” with the dominant idealogy in one way or another, but it is not deterministic. Base does not determine superstructure 100% of the time, just as proletarians do not always take a bourgeois line and sometimes bourgeois may even take a correct stance. A minority of any class may be advanced, as shown by Lenin’s petty-bourgeois position as a lawyer who nonetheless took the proletarian line and put it into action for the first time in history.

Ultra-leftism and right-opportunism are both threats to be combated within the political situation at the time. Marxist criticism is especially important today when there is a definite risk that the audience will identify with and glorify the reactionary characters of a work, no matter how crudely depicted they are.

y of any class may be advanced, as shown by Lenin’s petty-bourgeois position as a lawyer who nonetheless took the proletarian line and put it into action for the first time in history.

Ultra-leftism and right-opportunism are both threats to be combated within the political situation at the time. There is the definite risk that the audience will identify with and glorify the reactionary characters, no matter how bluntly depicted.

Capitalist Terms Glossary

Freedom – the ability to exploit others if you have the money, and the ability to starve to death if you do not.

Capitalism – global oil-burning economic system that centralizes economic power in the hands of a few thousand landowners and business owners. Prone to periodic crashes, poverty, imperialist wars that kill millions, starvation and general psychological disease.

Free Press – privately-owned press.

Free Market – privately-owned production.

Free Trade – capitalist trade between financial robber barons.

Free Speech – the ability of the KKK to call for mass murder of blacks; freedom of talk, not freedom of action; the ability to play a “loyal opposition” to the government.

Privatization – the selling by puppet US governments of egalitarian state-owned enterprises to private corporate bosses for 1% of their worth; the appropriation of land, resources and production by oligarchs.

The Economy – the bourgeoisie’s profit margin.

Economic Growth – the rich getting richer, thereby raising the GDP; increased corporate profits.

Economic Development – the dedication of Third World country’s resources to invading foreign capital.

Industrialization – the growth of monopoly capitalism and the destruction of small, independent businesses.

Fighting For Freedom – being financed by the CIA, FBI, MI6 or US Military.

Dictator – a leader that is not the head of a corporate puppet regime installed by invasion and occupation or the CIA; a leader with redistributive economic policies, lacking World Bank and IMF loans or an export-based economy; a leader that copies the United States too closely.

Anti-Semites – those not in favor of the genocide of Palestinians by the use of cluster-bombing and white phosphorous by the IDF.

Economic Freedom – the extent to which private ownership and capital dominates the society entirely; the ability for less then 1% of the population to control 80% of the wealth; economic gangsterism. The freedom to buy from corporations and work for corporations.

Job Creation – increase in plantations, underage labor and sweatshops.

Diversity of Opinion – the promotion of reactionary ideas drowning progressive ones.

Relativism – postmodern wishy-washiness.

Free Competition – the curbing of rights, environmental regulations, safety rules, child labor laws, work hour limits, et al.

Stabilize the Region – bombing the region back to the Stone Age.

Terrorism – oppressed people striking back at colonial occupiers through every possible means to express themselves.

Terrorist – a person who does not submit to global genocide.

Peacekeepers – occupation army.

Coalition Forces – occupation army.

US Soldiers – occupation army.

Military Intervention – bombing campaigns followed by on-the-ground occupation and stealing of resources.

Building Infrastructure – US-subsidized freeway system forcing dependence on automobiles instead of public transit; see also: Iraq.

Protectorate – colony.

Economic Stimulus – promotion and manufacture of wasteful and unnecessary products.

Economic Advisors – capitalist spies.

Insurgents – armed civilian fighters against foreign occupation armies; failed napalm targets.

Something to Remember when Analyzing Bandera Roja

Alejandro Silva front of Bandera Roja

Bandera Roja is considered a disgrace, a stain on history that is used to attack Marxist-Leninists or to attack the legacy of Enver Hoxha. Bandera Roja openly supported right-wing opponents of Chavez in their native Venezuela (including Manuel Rosales in 2006) and have since lost much political credibility and most of their members, some of whom formed the new ICMLPO party, the PCMLV or Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela.

Even though BR does deserve strong criticism for their treacherous actions, it is important to realize that not all blame rests with them in this equation, particularly given the group’s personal history with Hugo Chavez.

Here is a little-talked-about incident in which Hugo Chavez’s first assignment in the army was a counter-insurgency force against leftist guerrillas from BR ala “Plan Columbia.”

Read an external article from a few years ago here:

Bandera Roja, La Masacre de Cantaura and last Sunday’s Elections in Venezuela

Explaining what has happened in Venezuela in the last decade can sometimes be quite a task. People talk about the “opposition” as if it were a homogeneous group with a common ideology. Besides the social-democrats, social christians and socialists, people always stare at me when I describe Bandera Roja, a Marxist/socialist organization that is part of Venezuela’s opposition and a member of the Mesa de Unidad (MUD) which fielded unified candidates in Sunday’s election.

Bandera Roja began as a Maoist guerrilla group. They were in fact, the last guerrilla group to abandon the armed fight and become a political party in 1992, to become the extreme far left [sic] in Venezuela. Despite this, Bandera Roja never backed Hugo Chavez, arguing he was no socialist or marxist, but an opportunist whose only project is his own self-promotion.

In 1982, what was then the Alejandro Silva front of Bandera Roja (picture above), held a meeting in a farm in Cantaura, inviting students that were simpathetic to the movement, many of whom were unarmed. The military somehow found out about it and started a military operation which began by bombing from airplanes in order to disperse those on the ground. As they dispersed, they were met by military ground forces which proceeded to capture many of those present. Reportedly, most were originally captured alive, but were later found dead.

The case was revived during the last few years, as Venezuela’s General Prosecutor’s office exhumed the bodies and began an investigation of the massacre in which a total of 23 people died. In early September, Human Rights organization Provea, denounced the fact that one of those being investigated, was retired General Roger Cordero Lara, one of the leaders of the massacre, who piloted one of the Broncos that led the attack. Provea asked Chavez’ party PSUV to withdraw the candidacy in order to stop the impunity on these cases.

Last Sunday, Roger Cordero Lara was elected as a Deputy for Circuit 2 of Guarico State under the PSUV party and now has immunity from Prosecution, unless the National Assembly and the Venezuelan Supreme Court removes it. This led Proeva to send this letter to Hugo Chavez and his party, noting the incoherence of backing Cordero Lara, as well as the precedent of impunity that this constitutes. Chavista groups have also raised their voices to protest, to no avail.

In the case of the Cantaura massacre, much like in other similar cases, military courts exonerated those involved, including General Cordero Lara in the Cantaura case, but the General Prosecutor has reopened the cases with the Cantaura case, being opened at the request of Hugo Chavez, but has yet to rule on any of them, which Provea suggests is due to the fact that many of those exonerated are pro-Chavez retired high ranking military like Cordero Lara. So much for the caring revolution!

But given that Chavez and PSUV did nothing when they could remove him as a candidate, it is highly unlikely that they would go through the complicated process of removing Cordero Lara’s immunity and impunity on the case will continue to prevail.

So much for the revolution…

Article on “Bandera Roja” translated into English:

Bandera Roja (BR) was a guerrilla group and later a political party in Venezuela. Was led by Gabriel Puerta Aponte. Initially known as Red Flag Movement (MBR), in later years was known as “Red Flag – Front Américo Silva (BR-FAS).” In its early was a Maoist guerrilla movement farmer of revolutionary violence, the main range were among public universities and high schools (secondary education centers) Venezuela.

Red Flag was formed on January 20, 1970 by a breakaway group of anti-revisionist wing of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), which in turn was a splinter of the Democratic Action party (AD). The latter was the biggest game in votes, which along with COPEI, formed a bipartisan pact of institutional form created through the so-called Pact of Punto Fijo, and the PCV with the MIR were first outlawed and firmly pursued, then the Rafael Caldera’s government were allowed to participate in elections.

In the ideological red flag represents, in its origins, the strongest line of Marxism-Leninism, initially with a common ideology with the Albanian Party of Labor of Enver Hoxha, close to the policies of the late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. His theories and practices after they were placed closer to other groups of extreme left residual Venezuelan armed struggle, as Revolutionary Organization (OR) led by Jorge Rodríguez, Julio Escalona and Marcos Gómez and legal front: the Socialist League and others .

Early career as a guerrilla organization

Red Flag starred in several guerrilla actions against the Army in the East of the country by Guerrilla Front “Antonio José de Sucre” which was a group of about 60 men and women under arms in the mountains and plains of eastern Venezuela (states Monagas and Anzoategui). Its top leaders were Carlos Betancourt, Tito Heredia González, Américo Silva and Gabriel Puerta Aponte.

On January 18, 1975 took place near the PRV-FALN an operation in which through a tunnel of 70 meters and 60 centimeters wide, 23 prisoners escaped politicians from both guerrilla groups that were held at the San Carlos in North Caracas. These accounts included: William José Álvarez Blanco (FALN) Leonardo Araque Carlos Carcamo (BR); Betancourt, Argenis (BR), Carlos Efrain Betancourt (BR), Vicente Antonio Contreras Duque (BR), Marco Tulio Croquer Horace ( BR), Antonio López Chang (BR), Jose Asdrubal Guzman Cordero (BR), Marco Antonio Ludeña Arocha (BR), Jesus Arnaldo Romero Marrero (BR), Ramon Morales Elías Rossi (FALN), Quentin Ramón Sánchez Moya (FALN); among others.

First Division

The Organization had a first division in March 1976 and losing the Guerrilla Front Command was divided leaving Puerta Aponte and Tito Gonzalez with the game itself and the neighborhood and labor fronts and Carlos Betancourt exclusively with the armed wing and created a parallel movement called Red Flag – Marxist-Leninist “whose initials were BR-ML and was short-lived as it dissolved itself following the partial dismantling suffered by Venezuela’s intelligence police, DISIP.

BR rebuilt the military and founded the guerrilla “Americo Silva” whose first operation was the release of several military cadres prisoners in the jail of La Pica in August 1977.

Slaughter of Cantaura

In early 1982, the Guerrilla Front was in a state of euphoria, came to get several military victories, including the taking of San Antonio de Maturin, San Félix de Caicara, the Excise of Santa Maria de Ipire (January 1982). At that time, FAS, he gave to the armed struggle eminently violent. For example, in dealing with barbecues where it caused several casualties to the army killed and wounded and a DISIP agent who was captured and later released. Making the people of Santa Ines and Brig sample was available for the control of that group.

By the end of September 1982, the guerrillas set out in the camp where the confrontation occurred later, was the same site used years ago as a refuge for escapees from the San Carlos headquarters.

The action began at 5:45 am on October 4, 1982. The State Security Forces were operating a classic purse in action combined land and air. Once located the guerrillas placed in strategic sites around, ambushes distributed in a semi-moon, forming several rings, then began the attack with the air force with planes bombing and strafing with Canberra aircraft OV-10 Bronco observation intensively. In this first assault, suffered six wounded face death without any fighter.

During two days of fighting guerrilla ambushes in ten falls, leaving 23 dead and several minor injuries and is permanently divided into three groups, each of which tries to break the siege by different routes. The group that breaks the siege led by Alirio Quintero Paredes and another group led by Alejandro Velasquez Guerra succeed.

Escaped nearly a dozen guerrillas, of which very few wanted to rebuild the Guerrilla Front later. All the bulk of the Front Command was killed in the clash. The commanders and fighters were killed in Cantaura: Roberto Antonio Rincon Cabrera (aka Sergio and The Catire, first commander), Enrique Jose Marquez Velasquez (aka Florencio, Deputy Commander); Empress Cordero Guzman (alias Sonia, or hump, Third Commander) ; Sister Fanny Alfonzo Salazar (aka Patricia and Pat, a member of the Command), Carlos Jesus Arzola Hernández, José Miguel Nunez (aka Rivas and Spaniard), Mauricio Tejada Carmen Rosa Garcia, (aka Rosie); Ildemar Lawrence Morillo, Carlos Sambrano Alberto Mira, María Luisa Arranz Estevez (aka Natalia) Antonio Maria Echegarreta Hernandez, Beatriz del Carmen Jimenez (alias Maira); Baudilio Veracierto Valdemar Herrera, Jorge Luis Becerra Navarro (aka Gilbert); Eumennedis Ysoida Gutiérrez Rojas (alias Heydy), Diego Alfredo Alfonso Carrasquel, José Luis Gómez, Eusebio Martel Daza (aka Sunday), Ruben Castro Alfredo Batista, Nelson Antonio Pacin Collaso, Julio César Farías Zerpa Ysidro Mejias and José Colina.

Recent years as a guerrilla

In the years after Red Flag was a self-truce, its existence being limited to universities and colleges of Education Media, rebuilding the Front “Americo Silva” only to provide training to its members, no other post operative function, and concentrating pro organizations forces the freedom of political prisoners, legal and facades dissolve the Committees of Popular Struggle (CLP) and professional bodies such as the Regional Federation of Secondary Education (FREM) from Caracas.

Finally in May 1994, the National Red Flag decided to disband the guerrilla fronts and a score of former guerrillas came down from the mountain as a symbolic surrender their weapons and pacified despite not having carried out armed actions in more than ten years . At this time, Red Flag emphasizes its political work in its two legal fronts, which used to attract cadres and members, were these the Revolutionary Youth Union (UJR) and the Movement for Popular Democracy (MDP). Of these walls came the second division of Red Flag 1992 when a lot of his paintings defected to the Revolutionary National Coordinator (CNR), whose student wing, the Youth Movement Ezequiel Zamora (MJEZ) Red Flag came to represent the high schools middle school and was totally lost. The people who comprise this division are the principal subsequently joined the Movimiento V Republica (MVR) and support the government of Hugo Chávez, unlike the Red Flag which is opposite to that government.

Red Flag supported both coups occurred in 1992 against then President Carlos Andrés Pérez and the coup of 11 April 2002 against President Hugo Chávez.

Conformation as a legal political party

His first record as a legal party is its emergence as Democratic Movement in the 1993 presidential election, when the candidacy of Gabriel Puerta Aponte by MDP card received 3,746 votes (0.07%).

In the 1989 election takes the form of legal political group and decide to participate with your card supporting the candidate Gabriel Puerta Aponte. Red flag while maintaining its socialist ideology, opposed from the outset the Chavez government (which has consistently held to be socialist), joined the opposition coalition called the Democratic Coordinator, participating in political actions opposing the party of Hugo Chávez. In this sense, the organization said that the drive to social sectors is due to consider Chavez a communist false and misleading the people of Venezuela.

In August 2006, the organization announced for the presidential elections on 3 December his apoyo1 Manuel Rosales (Social Democratic Party leader Un Nuevo Tiempo, and Zulia state governor) who was the candidate for much of the opposition parties, but not could prevent the reelection of Chávez.

Most of the historical ex-members organized around a new organization called the Popular Vanguard detached from the Venezuelan opposition trying to recover political presence in the capital and the east.

In the last parliamentary elections, held in September 2010, Red Flag, won 67,563 votes, representing 0.60% of the vote and it the fifteenth most votes Venezuelan party, yet it the eleventh game of the MUD opposition coalition, to grab the 1.26% of the votes of misma.

Bandera Roja says Chavez Frias has dragged left-wing banners into the mire

Celebrating 34 years of existence, Bandera Roja (BR) leader, Gabriel Puerta Aponte comments that Venezuela’s last guerrilla group is fighting the damage and mud-raking that the Chavez Frias administration has thrown over the traditional banners of the Left through the President’s demagogy … “what’s required now is not a left-wing, radical or revolutionary government ( that will come later) but a government that can get us out the crisis as soon as possible.”

In the company of BR general secretariat members, Armando Diaz, Rafael Venegas and Pedro Veliz Acuna, Puerta rejects accusations that BR is sharing policies with its traditional adversaries: Accion Democratica (AD) and the Christian Socialists (COPEI) as a compliment and says it shows political maturity … “if we speak about reconciliation, this is the best way to show that BR is not full of hatred … if we don’t show our sincerity, we would be like those taking about plurality, integration, unity but who want to hog everything when it comes to electoral processes.”

BR considers the unity factor as the Coordinadora Democratica’s biggest challenge and calls on would-be breakaway parties, Primero Justicia (PJ), Proyecto Venezuela (PV) and Causa R to sit down and discuss matters inside CD with transparency and responsibility.

There can be no return to the past, Puerto points out … ” the past is represented by a practice and conduct vis-a-vis power … before it was AD and COPEI … now it’s Movimiento Quinta Republica (MVR) and allies … Chavez Frias represents the past and continues the old practices of political cronyism, corruption, political segregation and treating the country like a feudal lord.”

“Chavez Frias has not approved a single measure that has annoyed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and foreign capital has been the greatest beneficiary with this government.”

BR now sees itself as attempting to consolidate a center-left tendency in Venezuela along with other parties, preparing for any pendulum political movement that could produce a right-wing government, unwilling to facilitate change in Venezuela.

Provide the PSUV and the slaughter of Cantaura

The NGO reports that an official candidate to the NA is one of the perpetrators of the deadly incident in 1982

The NGO Venezuelan Program of Action and Education (Give), reported on Thursday Queuña National Assembly candidate for the State of Guarico, Lara Roger Lamb is an author known for the slaughter of Cantaura. Here Provide the full statement:

One of the authors recognized the Slaughter of Cantaura today is PSUV candidate for Guarico. His name is Roger Cordero Lara. It will be recalled 28 years ago was an attack by armed forces against a concentration of guerrillas of Americo Silva, armed against the Red Flag Party, which was planning a military operation Cantaura policy, Anzoátegui state. Such an event happened to the pages of the Venezuelan political history as “The Slaughter of Cantaura.” 23 guerrillas were killed, 14 of them captured alive and finished by officials of the DISIP, the DIM and the elite troops of the battalions of hunters, constituting a severe violation of human rights at the time.

The then Lieutenant Roger Cordero Lara piloting one of the Broncos who bombed in Cantaura, as websites even claim near the Venezuelan government ( htm). 24 years later became Major General and Commander in Chief of Aviation of the Bolivarian government, praised by President Chavez as a “true revolutionary general.” The day of his nomination as candidate for the State of Guarico, which was held on 03.05.1910, Cordero Lara said: “I constituted loyal supporter of the National Simon Bolivar Project. All must be loyal to this project that is beneficial to the group, which is why I show my full willingness and I become the basis for instrument approaches lead to the National Assembly. ” The nomination was accepted by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), so that the perpetrator of the Slaughter of Cantaura is running for circuit 2 of the entity, with Altuve Lidice, Oscar Figuera, General Secretary of Communist Party Venezuela-Jesus Cepeda and Alfredo Ureña.

Cordero Lara’s bid for the PSUV is inconsistent with the Government’s words against impunity in the so-called massacres of the Fourth Republic. ” The tolerance in this situation is an incentive to abuse of power and in fact dismisses the plight of the family to achieve justice in the case, and is an example of the inefficiency of the Attorney General’s Office, Luisa Ortega Diaz, who on October 27, 2009 reaffirmed its “commitment to solving the case”

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

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

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.


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”


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.”


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’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, 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, 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’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’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:

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:

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:

“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 “”:

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?

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.”

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.

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 30th 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.