Benin: PCB about the political situation and current legislative elections

The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Benin (PCB) met in Cotonou on Wednesday March 30, 2011, to discuss the political situation in our country.

1. The Political Bureau reaffirmed its withdrawal from the scrutiny of March 13, 2011, as a caricature organized electoral support and active complicity of the European Union and France, to carry out an electoral larceny for re-election of Boni Yayi. This re-election, finally proclaimed by the Constitutional Court, is a sham, a serious blow against democracy, which is now endangered in Benin. Boni Yayi can not claim any legitimacy to a second term that has usurped.

Accordingly, the Political Bureau of the PCB supports all the actions of resistance and rejection of this fraud that means the establishment of a renewed autocracy. It also denounces police repression against peaceful demonstrations, while supporters of the impostor pleasured themselves on the streets. The Political Bureau of the PCB called the people to continue and renew the protests, hoping that will benefit from their rich experience of struggle against autocracy to overcome and defeat the imposter’s power.

Philippe Noudjenoume, the PCB's candidate. PCB is forbidden from participating in elections by the bourgeois government.

2. In regard to ongoing legislative elections, it is clear that they, like the presidential elections are organized in a hubbub conducive to fraud and trickery. The future Parliament replacement is completed, it will be better, because the conditions under which elections are held today. The Political Bureau of the PCB has decided not to participate in legislative elections.

3. It is known that a political system that gives all powers to rule the President, even without Parliament, by decree, on the one hand, and the strong complicity between Yayi Boni and President of Constitutional Court, Robert Dossou, otherwise, the future parliament will not constitute a major obstacle to fascist futility of power against the people impostor. Only mass struggles of workers, youth, women, the patriots at all levels, can afford to leave the cliff and the popular revolution. It is imposed on workers, youth, the democrats and patriots of Benin as the only way of salvation.

The Political Bureau of the PCB reaffirmed its determination to the side of the workers and peoples of the undoubted victory over deception, dictatorship and repression.

DOWN THE FASCIST POWER OF Boni Yayi!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

LIVE THE POWER OF THE WORKERS AND PEOPLE!

Done in Cotonou on 30 March 2011.

The Political Bureau of the PCB.

Plenum of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Upper Volta (PCRV)

From Bug-Parga Takisse Jewol-Jema

Central Political Organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Volta

No. 52 [August 1995]

Last July the Central Committee of the PCRV held an ordinary Plenum:

Analyzing the experience of socialism and its defeat on a world scale as a social system, the Plenum showed that this defeat is temporary and that the objective causes exist more than ever today that make the march of history lead only to socialism as well as communism. The tasks of communists is to work for the realization of the subjective conditions, in this case the creation and/or the reinforcement of genuine Communist Parties, the elaboration of correct revolutionary strategies and tactics in view of a fierce struggle for the destruction of capitalism by the taking of power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat for the construction of Socialism and Communism.

Analyzing the international situation, the Plenum showed that the defeat of socialism has as a direct consequence that capitalism, as a social system, rules on the entire globe in a hegemonic manner under the direction of American imperialism, with the emergence of a single world capitalist market, and that from now on the world is marked by three fundamental contradictions, that is:

  • the contradiction between the imperialist powers
  • the contradiction between imperialism and the peoples
  • the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The dismemberment of the USSR and the collapse of the revisionist regimes of East Europe have put an end to the bipolar division of the world which placed on one side the USA and its European allies and on the other the USSR and its satellites.

The Plenum showed that the economic and political upheavals taking place in the world, the prodigious changes and developments taking place in all spheres of life through the Scientific and Technical Revolution (STR) and its consequences, have not changed the character of our epoch, which remains the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

Analyzing the national situation the Plenum showed:

* the complete restriction of the political life of our country by setting up a Party-State.

* the ruin of the economy and social misery by the selling off of the national patrimony, the corruption, the exclusion of the large masses from health service and education, the reduced diet, etc.

The Plenum analyzed the internal situation of the Party and decided on measures for its reinforcement and the elevation of the level of its activity.

In conclusion, the Plenum elaborated the tactics of the Party for:

– the advance of the struggle for the revolution in our country;

– its contribution to the struggle for the reinforcement of the International Communist Movement (ICM).

Long Live the immortal doctrine of Marxism-Leninism!

Long live socialism and communism for the national and social liberation of the peoples!

Long live the PCRV Party of Revolutionary Action!

BREAD AND LIBERTY FOR THE PEOPLE!

July 1995
The Central Committee of the PCRV.

Cuban Revisionism

“I see this Movement as one of the many inspired by the bourgeoisie’s desire to free themselves from the economic chains of imperialism. I always thought of Fidel as an authentic leader of the leftist bourgeoisie, although his image is enhanced by personal qualities of extraordinary brilliance that set him above his class. It is in that spirit that I joined the struggle; honestly without any hope of going beyond the country’s liberation, ready to leave when the conditions of the struggle would shift toward the right…”

— Che Guevara.

Cuba is carrying on a tremendous struggle against US imperialism. At the same time it is clear that the party and state are corroded by revisionist trends. A brief analysis by myself is given below. The great Che Guevara was a defender of Stalin and was critical of the revisionist Soviet Union and the path of the Castro brothers: it is the tradition of Marxism-Leninism which is needed in Cuba today.

–Espresso Stalinist.

“Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income”, Raul said in a speech to the National Assembly on July 11, 2008. “Equality is not the same as egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation: exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy.”

“From now on, if the bureaucracy doesn’t hold us back … [n]obody will have to wait for the generous hand of the state for an increase in salary or pension, which may have to be postponed … If you need it, or if you want to live more comfortably, you can work more”, Luis Sexto commented on July 15.

Source: http://directaction.org.au/issue21/cuban_socialist_renewal_changes_under_raul_castro

This line coming out of Cuba should surprise no one. Marxist-Leninists paying attention have known for decades that Cuba was never a socialist society. This is not merely a single comment by one figure in the Cuban Communist Party—this is a reflection of the dominant mode of production in Cuba. The Cuban Revolution took the line of Khrushchev and Brezhnev in the revisionist Soviet Union and continue to apply it in building “socialism.” What this means is that Cuba has openly declared itself liberal capitalist for all to see. Cuba’s model is a more radical version of European social-democracies like Sweden. Its essential production relations have remained unchanged. As the quote from Marxist-Leninist Che Guevara shows, Cuba’s revolution was never mainly about attaining socialism but about national liberation from the dictator Batista.

From State-Capitalism to Market Capitalism

Cubans can now legally buy from capitalist cell phone companies, stay in luxury hotels, rent cars, cultivate unused state land with cash crops and buy supplies at privately-owned stores without state permission. The government will soon take away restrictions on small businesses as well, bolstering Cuba’s petty-bourgeois class, the backbone of capitalism.

On April 21, 2011, an article appeared in the L.A. Times announcing that Cubans would be able to buy and sell homes for the first time since revolution:

SAO PAULO: Cubans will be allowed to buy and sell homes for the first time since Fidel Castro seized power in 1959.

It flows from the unprecedented reforms introduced by the Communist Party at its first summit in 14 years. Since the revolution Cubans have been allowed to swap homes only through a complicated system or pass them on to their children.

But reforms agreed at the first congress since 1997 includes a plan to legalise property sales. Under the current system of home swaps, a culture of corruption involving ”under-the-table” payments has developed.

The Cuban President, Raul Castro, who is Fidel’s brother, said a concentration of property in fewer hands would not be allowed but no details were given on how sales would operate.

The plan to allow home sales was one of 300 approved by the party. They include more self-employment, cutting a million government jobs in coming years, encouraging foreign investment and reducing state spending.

Political reform was also on the agenda. President Castro used his speech at the weekend to propose that top political positions, including the presidency, should be limited to two five-year terms.

The changes were backed by Fidel Castro, who was president of the country for 49 years until 2008. An almost ghost-like Fidel attended the closing of a Communist Party conclave on Tuesday that marked the formal end of his era.

Fidel, 84, smiled, clapped and nodded but remained silent as his younger brother, Raul, 79, replaced him as the party’s first secretary and warned that the reforms, though badly needed, would bring hardships.

While the party’s first congress in 14 years renovated about half the membership of its ruling Politburo and the broader Central Committee, there was no sign of the generational change in leadership that many Cubans had hoped for.

Replacing the 79-year-old Raul as second secretary is Jose Ramon Machado Ventura, 80 and a long-time party functionary. In the third spot is Ramiro Valdes, a reputed hardliner who is 79.

The new Politburo, which has been cut from 24 to 15 members, has an average age of 68.

Half of the 12 incumbents who retained their places are generals from the armed forces and Interior Ministry who are known friends of Raul, who was defence minister for 48 years.

The Havana dissident and former MiG pilot Vladimiro Roca described it as ”the militarisation of the Politburo”.

President Obama has spoken of lifting the embargo and the Castro Brothers have spoken of allowing US capital in to have free reign with the island’s resources. Their program means an eventual complete liberalization of Cuba. Cuba’s state-capitalist system is being primed and fattened to be privatized any week now.

Raul has been busy purging the so-called Cuban Communist Party of any remaining hardliners from the party. In this he has the full support of Fidel Castro. This fully supports the Marxist-Leninist line of state-capitalism and revisionism in Cuba. The Castro Brothers are behaving as a new bourgeoisie opening the way for an imperialist takeover of Cuba.

Liberal Capitalist Reforms in 2008 Alone:

February 24 Raul Castro’s acceptance speech

February 28 Cuba signs two UN human rights treaties

February 29 Raul meets with top Vatican Cardinal – talks about a release of reactionary political prisoners with conditions.

March 13 Cuba lifts ban on ownership of electronics

March 18 Cuba allows farmer’s to buy their own equipment

March 21 Cuba launches emigration web site

March 21 Granma features letters to the Editor

March 21 Cuba releases rare economic report

March 24 Cuba moves to decentralize Cuban agriculture economy

March 25 Cuba lifts restrictions on Cuba pharmacy sales

March 28 Raul Castro allows Cuban people to own cellphones

March 31 Cuba allows citizens to stay in tourist hotels.

April 1 Cuban farmers receive Cuban land to improve agriculture production.

April 3 Cuba to broadcast new foreign information television channel.

April 10 Cuban farmers can have unlimited salaries

April 11 Renters will get title of ownership for housing

April 29 Death sentences in Cuba commuted

May 25 Cuba will eliminate its dual currency system

June 11 Cuba to pay worker’s based on performance

July 11 Cuban government to allow for private taxis

July 11 Cuban government to decentralize construction projects

July 20 President Raul Castro to allow Cuban farm land grants

Attitude Towards Cuba & Revisionism in General

Ernesto “Che” Guevara criticized such Dengist and neo-colonial policies toward Cuba in his writings before he left in the 60’s. In my mind, the best revolutionary in the Cuban movement was Che, since he both upheld Stalin and sided with the Sino-Albanian bloc during the Sino-Soviet Split. Neither Castro brother has ever done either of these things. Fidel promotes the bourgeois line of Gorbachev and Raul idolizes the state-capitalist development road of China.

Cuba’s system is much more progressive than the savage neo-liberal policies pursued by the rest of the US client states in Latin America. We must be against intervention or takeover in Cuba by any imperialist power, whether by military intervention or on the consent of the Castros themselves. We must oppose any imperialist aggression against the island nation and uphold its right to self-determination in the face of the half-century-long embargo against Cuba designed to hamper its success as a more leftist political system. This does not mean we must uphold Cuba as a Marxist or Leninist nation.

Maoism on Foreign Affairs vs. Pseudo-Marxist Geopolitical Pragmatism

This is an old book review by MIM (Maoist Internationalist Movement) of a work by Ludo Martens entitled, The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes and Lessons: For the Revolutionary Revival of the International Communist Movement. I am not a Third-Worldist or a Maoist, but this review has a principled theoretical stance regarding the International Communist Seminar and Brezhnevism as a whole.

I post it here despite misgivings about the defunct MIM, including their “defense” of Mao’s collaboration with U.S. imperialism and comparing a two-year non-aggression pact before killing Hitler to a decade of supporting Mobutu, Nixon and Pinochet.

Ludo Martens, while he has taken Marxist-Leninist stances in the past and has written some good works, since 1995 has chiefly worked in the service of “pan-socialism,” seeking to unity Marxist-Leninist and revisionist currents in a strategy that would make Ceaușescu blush.

This critique of Martens’ work and “pan-socialism” is a very important point to be made in the revolutionary struggle between revisionism and non-revisionist Marxism-Leninism and the teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

It should be noted that they toss around the old Maoist canard “Hoxhaite” and claim that “certain sections of international Hoxhaism fell” for Gorby, without providing any evidence of such claims (and even tries to say that the M-L / revisionist struggle was chiefly Mao’s doing), although MIM does laugh at Gossweiler’s attempt to say Albania had “nationalist” reasons for opposing the Soviet Union, which earns them more credit than most American Maoist organizations.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes and Lessons: For the
Revolutionary Revival of the International Communist Movement

by the International Communist Seminar

Brussels, BELGIUM: 1998, 313 pp. pb

reviewed by International Minister, December, 2000

This book represents a triumph of the work of Ludo Martens and his Belgian PTB, a party seeking to reconcile with Castroites, Brezhnevites and Hoxhaites. Doing so, Ludo Martens is very close to the numerical center of gravity amongst those calling themselves communist in the world, since there are still many revisionists hanging on to their world views.

To the Maoists, Ludo Martens encourages “constructive engagement” with revisionist parties. By befriending the revisionist parties, one could receive the impression that the revisionists are gaining someone to talk to other than their revisionist selves. Such would be a tactical justification for a a Maoist to do what Ludo Martens does.

On the other hand, such a tactic cannot be justified beyond a certain price. Seminar participants are supposed to all uphold Stalin, but in fact, some Trotskyists hang about and the Castroites are allowed in and welcomed despite Castro’s many statements of praise of Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping. (See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5973/leftover.html )

Hence, it is one thing to have tactics of “constructive engagement,” but it is another thing to allow someone to call him or herself “Marxist-Leninist” when s/he does not truly defend Stalin. Yet, such is not surprising since Ludo Martens himself and a portion of international Hoxhaism fell for Gorbachev–that being another story about “Back to Leninism” for another time.

Thus the seminar supposedly unites to defend Stalin, but on page 10 we already learn that the vast majority of seminar participants welcomed the party representatives from Cuba and Korea and upheld “the defence of socialism in Cuba.” For MIM, that puts this conference of 136 organizations beyond the pale from a proletarian point of view.

Whenever MIM raises phony communist Cuba, we never hear about the mode of production in Cuba, but we always hear about the geopolitical necessity of defending Cuba against invasion. Such is the tell-tale sign that Marxism has taken the backseat to geopolitics.

There is nothing special about Cuba facing imperialist invasion. Panama saw Yankee troops. Somalia saw Yankees land and so did Iraq. None were “socialist” countries and still the Yankee invaded. Opposing Yankee invasion is not something we do only for countries like Cuba calling themselves “socialist.” Opposing Amerikan imperialism is an internationalist duty. Creating a “special deal” for Cuba and Korea despite their modes of production is an example of neo-colonialism, very typical of the kind of revisionism that would rather fight than switch to scientific Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is the ideology of those hoping to restore a Soviet social-imperialism and a new neo-colonial orbit.

Thus, from these forces it is as if nothing in the world has changed, largely because they wish to restore the Soviet social-imperialist realm. These parties cannot admit their own failures with regard to defending Stalin and so now they continue defending the same old politics without missing a beat. The collapse of the Soviet Union might as well have not happened, because these people are essentially not interested in the mode of production. They are communists in sentiment in some cases and manipulators of geopolitics in others, but they are not Marxist-Leninist in any case.

The first interesting essay in the book with something new in it is from Dr. Kurt Gossweiler of the former East German revisionist party. Gossweiler seems to realize that there might be some criticism that he is in for given the ruinous collapse in East Germany.

His analysis is that China was a large and independent country which was why its communist party was able to resist Khruschev revisionism. His analysis of Albania is that it had selfish reasons of self-defense against Yugoslavian annexation to oppose Khruschevite revisionism. However, such material analyses of the respective parties would be more persuasive if Gossweiler did not end up excusing the German party leaders essentially because of their geopolitical situation, something we hear about Castro all the time too.

We are told that because of the Western troops on its border and because of the force of the USSR, the leadership of the East German communists wanted to side with Mao but did not. “It would be wrong to call the SED a revisionist party. Under the leadership of Walter Ulbricht it put up the maximum resistance possible at that time to the revisionism of the Khruschev clique, and it did so to such an extent that in October 1964 its activities were suppressed.”(p. 83) This statement by Gossweiler is indeed something new in the world.

Because of Honecker’s anti-fascist role, Gossweiler also excuses him when he replaced Ulbricht at the request of the USSR. “It was more a question of exchanging one of the most gifted leaders, and one of the most seasoned in the German and international class struggle, for a well-meaning party functionary who was too easily led astray owing to his poor leadership qualities.”(p. 84)

Gossweiler also gives Honecker credit for repressing Gorbachev’s statements in East Germany and states that a violent repression of the pro-Gorbachev demonstrators would have missed the real counter-revolutionaries. Thus, overall, we have some notion that the party in East Germany deserves criticism, but we are told that the true inside story is that all that could be done was done under Ulbricht while Honecker was simply incompetent when he implemented revisionism.

Whether Cuba’s Castro, China’s Hua Guofeng or East Germany’s Ulbricht and Honecker, we are told there are good reasons not to hoist the banner of communism. Had Ulbricht done it, invasion would have resulted. Had Cuba not gone along with Khruschev, we are told Cuba would have been done in.

Essentially we hear again and again that the geopolitical situation demanded compromise of the mode of production itself without an open fight, without an open call to the people to attack revisionism.

To take such a stand is to put geopolitics in its own right above Marxism. It is one of the root reasons for the continued division of the revisionists from the genuine international communist movement; even though the Soviet Union is dead. The mere death of the Soviet Union did not erase all the fallacious pseudo-Marxist methods of thought ingrained in the Soviet Union’s revisionist followers. As long as geopolitics is put above the mode of production’s advance, Marxist-Leninists have no chance of uniting. It is Marxism’s attention to the material world that makes unity possible, while making cardinal principles of geopolitical calculation means endless division.

Next in the book follow some essays from the Castro brothers and North Korea–as if nothing has changed in the world and as if Gorbachev and Yeltsin could have occurred without some major betrayal in the Soviet CP. These people just go on singing the same old revisionist song.

After the grossly reactionary documents from Cubans and Koreans, we received another even more reactionary contribution from a Syrian Ammar Bagdache, who seemed hell-bent on being social-fascism incarnate. In the split between Khruschev and Mao, Ammar Bagdache still cannot discern one side being more correct than the other. (p. 174) Instead, it is clear that this particular persyn seeks the restoration of the Soviet empire. Like the Nazis before, Ammar Bagdache focuses his hatred of parasitism on the Jews. This would be one thing on the West Bank, but according to A. Bagdache, the Jews a.k.a “Zionism” were mainly responsible for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.(p. 165) Most of Khruschev’s advisers and the “main” force behind revisionism is supposedly Zionism.(p. 168)

While MIM is all for having Marxism-Leninism-Maoism take national forms, what Ammar Bagdache is doing is a violation of the universal aspects of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It’s not surprising that this reactionary essay was also allowed in the book. Again, it is not focused on the mode of production, only how geopolitics–in this case Mideast geopolitics–intersects with capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union. This geopolitical focus goes to such an extent that it wipes out the parasitic nature of imperialism except for the Jews. From the proletarian view, this is the class essence of Hitler’s ideology too–an attack on parasitism of the Jews in essence to cover for the parasitism of imperialism generally. It’s a sacrifice of some parasites to let the much bigger bloodsuckers off the hook. Anybody who thinks Amerikan imperialism would miss an imperialist beat if the United $tates had no Jews has major illusions. Such illusions create a major escape hatch for imperialism when it gets into trouble like Germany in the 1930s.

The DKHP-C Turkish comrades also have an essay in the book. Once again, the focus is geopolitical. “It is a matter of fact that it is much easier to create the conditions for open interventions and to put them into practice since the USSR is not a factor of balance anymore, and since the USA is the sole ‘superpower.'”(p. 256) This is exactly the kind of reasoning that says, “because the USSR is powerful in a geopolitical sense, we will call it socialist.” However, Lenin did not call the Kaiser socialist when the Kaiser gave him a railroad car to ride back to Russia.

Furthermore, we heard the traditional Brezhnevite and Trotskyite complaints about Mao from the DKHP-C: “The CP of China, who regarded the USSR as the ‘main enemy’, went even so far as to confront progressive and revolutionary movements, if they were supported by the USSR. The support for the counter-revolutionary FNLA and Unita in Angola, and even for Pinochet in Chile were consequences of this policy.”(p. 259)

On this point, DKHP-C is one of many parties that has adopted the white man’s double standard toward the Soviet Union and China, a standard so white that even some Trotskyists uphold it though it means giving some credence to Stalin. Almost without exception, these organizations accepted and defended the Stalin-Hitler pact, which included real material aid such as the shipment of raw materials from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, but let Mao so much as recognize Pinochet or shake hands with Nixon, and these hypocrites attack Mao with no shame–even seeing the obvious today of capitalist restoration in the USSR. If there were all these progressive and revolutionary forces backed by the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union, these critics of Mao should show us one that has a socialist society to show for it. There aren’t any, because these forces were all revisionist. Furthermore, as MIM documents elsewhere, Mao supported all the anti-colonial forces in Angola. Perhaps the DKHP-C thought that exclusively supporting the Soviet side was more important than ejecting Portuguese colonialism! That’s how important neo-colonialism is for these people to make such a principle of it before colonialism is even done with!

[Please note the admin of this blog does not support Maoism, the “Three Worlds Theory,” the idea that the social-imperialist Soviet Union was the “greater threat,” or justify Mao’s support of reactionary forces in the name of China’s geo-political interests, and condemns MIM’s pathetic attempts to equate Mao’s support of U.S. imperialism with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.]

Entire parties have split around the world over the question of the Three Worlds Theory–that’s how much the pseudo-Marxists have managed to convince us that geopolitics is so cardinal instead of a matter of strategic calculation of the balance of forces, and not something that would come up in a conference first attempting to regroup around cardinal questions. In the realpolitik world of geopolitics-first thinking, it is not surprising that Great Russian nation interests come to the fore easily and without a second thought, while Mao has to justify himself several times over or entire parties will split. It’s exactly the kind of garbage that explains why the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was an equal superpower to the United $tates, but also an equally capitalist society. Pragmatist geopolitical considerations can in no way guide the revolutionary advance of society on a consistent basis. Doing that requires knowledge of the mode of production.

The essay by Harpal Brar does the most to discuss the actual economic conditions in the USSR, but on the whole, none of the essays in the book systematically cover the factual situation of the mode of production in the USSR. One last essay worth mentioning is so stuck in the past, it still has not theoretically admitted that the bourgeoisie in the party — not landlords or imperialists outside the party–restored capitalism in the USSR. The Iniziativa Comunista (Italy) would appear to be one of those organizations too far brain-dead to make sense of current events: “While acknowledging the non-antagonistic character of the contradictions amongst the internal classes, we have to be conscious of the antagonistic relationship that exists between the socialist countries and their capitalist counterparts.”(p. 302) Although Yelstin joined the Soviet CP in 1961, the Italian Stalinists have the nerve to tell us that there were no internal contradictions with the enemy in the Soviet Union!

Hello, hello, hello supposed Stalinists! It was not the landlord class or the imperialists or even the cultural intellectuals you mentioned who restored capitalism outright in the Soviet Union. It was Ramiz Alia, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev and Yeltsin who restored capitalism–the bourgeoisie in the party. Not in a single case did the imperialists invade or the landlords rise up in armed struggle to restore capitalism.

[…]

Yes, we must uphold Stalin’s last great work, the “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.” Without understanding this work, it is impossible to understand the material basis for capitalist restoration.

[…]

Why “social-fascism” and “social-imperialism”

In 1993, Ludo Martens of the Belgian PTB attended a conference to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mao Zedong, a meeting very important in attempting to regroup Maoist parties, some of whom met for the first time and challenged each other with scientific issues not found in their own countries. At such a meeting, and indeed, at all international conferences of the moment, cardinal questions should be the order of the day.

It is often stated that for Mao Zedong, political line was merely a matter of intention. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Mao analyzed the superstructure and its connection to the mode of production, he did so scientifically and giving full accord to the economic base’s active role in determining the superstructure.

Today’s neo-revisionist and Brezhnevite critics of Mao dovetail because of their underlying combination of Menshevik views. One component of Menshevism is anarchist idealism or nihilism when it comes to the state or leadership under socialism. When it suits them, these Mensheviks criticize power-holders for holding power! How remarkable! The Mensheviks have discovered that people hold power and have self-interests! Such infantilism underlies much of the criticism of Mao Zedong with regard to the Soviet Union and foreign affairs.

Since the Soviet Union called itself “socialist,” but its mode of production was capitalist, Mao had no choice but to refer to the USSR as “social-imperialist.” Even more problematically for the critics of Mao — who in many cases, such as Ludo Martens or the now defunct “Communist Workers Party” of the U$A and countless others, believed that the political leadership of the Soviet Union was degenerate under Khruschev and Brezhnev–the critics admit that the Soviet Union after 1956 was not a bourgeois democracy. So what was it? The Soviet Union was a dictatorship, but of what class and in what form? Once again, it is the mode of production that prevails in deciding the question. If the mode of production is capitalist, but the superstructure is not bourgeois democratic and in fact is openly dictatorial, then “social-fascist” is the right term. Not for nothing the Nazis also claimed to be “socialists,” as a matter of historical coincidence.

In his 1993 speech, ” Mao Zedong et Staline,” (See http://www.wpb.be/doc/doc.htm) Ludo Martens (like many others in the world before and since) raised this question in an opportunist way. He said that Mao opposed the Soviet Union and called it the main enemy for a spell, because of China’s self-interests. Yet, here we are talking about something purely superstructural. Ludo Martens accuses Mao of “bourgeois nationalism,” and connects that to what he considers the incorrect “social-imperialist” thesis, but what national bourgeoisie is he referring to? Certainly he is not referring to the bourgeoisie in the Chinese party which wanted to follow the path of Khruschev and Brezhnev. It was not their self-interests creating this “bourgeois nationalism.” Then what is Ludo Martens talking about? He is talking about an idea detached from the mode of production, a nitpick if even 100% correct would have no business being raised as a cardinal question at an important conference marking Mao’s 100th birthday. Mao Zedong did not own any means of production. China did not have a mode of production driving it toward incorrect foreign affairs positions. That is the cardinal issue at stake.

At most if we accept all of Ludo Martens’s observations, some of which are historically jumbled (another subject for another date), we will prove that Mao made errors. These errors might even reach to the level of “deviation,” but these errors would not change the fact that the Soviet Union was social-imperialist and social-fascist. Strategic and tactical calculations do not change the mode of production in the Soviet Union and Mao’s errors were unconnected to a capitalist mode of production in China. Errors are not of cardinal importance. All leaders will make errors: that is guaranteed.

To say Mao did something against the Soviet Union to protect his own power is the anarchist strain of Menshevism. Mature Marxist scientists become tired of learning that people hold power, a truism as true as the rising sun each morning until the day of communism established internationally. It’s not interesting to us anymore to hear that people hold power.

We want to know about the mode of production, and the superficial nature of pseudo-Marxism stands exposed when geopolitics takes the main theoretical role in discussion. Geopolitics can only be the expression of underlying modes of production. If there are no capitalist relations of production there will be no imperialism, and that is the real cardinal question at hand, but Ludo Martens, the Workers World Party (USA), the Trotskyists, the defunct CWP and countless contributors in Ludo Martens’s seminars held in Brussels with parties from around the world say that geopolitics is decisive. It’s not just that Ludo Martens is saying political line scientifically arrived at is decisive. No, he and the other anti-Mao troopers are saying that geopolitics is decisive, and doing so, they seek to take us into a “lesser evils” world of foreign policy. In one of the few great errors in his life, W.E.B. Du Bois advised the Chinese in 1936 to abide by Japanese occupation as a lesser evil than European occupation and Mao subsequently proved that more was possible than this seemingly lesser evil. Yet, in 1936, Du Bois did not claim to be a scientific Marxist-Leninist yet. The geopolitical pragmatists masquerading as Marxist-Leninists have systematized Du Bois’s error and have called it Marxism-Leninism.

Although Ludo Martens did catch onto the idea of the “new bourgeoisie in the party” from Mao Zedong, he never really confronted the mode of production in the USSR. In fact, he and his party in 1993 could be heard saying that there was no unemployment in revisionist China, when even the social-fascist regime there was admitting 8 digit unemployment. That is how far removed from economic realities these geopolitics-is-decisive-folks are. If geopolitics or other sentiment demands it, these people are fully prepared to say there is no unemployment even when the regime in question does not say so. For this sort of superficial reason of geopolitics, Ludo Martens objected to the term “social-fascism.” Since Stalin and Dimitrov had established that fascism is the rule of the most reactionary segments of the bourgeoisie and with no pretense of democracy or civil liberties, and since the USSR was capitalist, Mao had no choice within Marxism-Leninism other than to refer to the USSR as “social-fascist.” Certainly it was not a bourgeois democratic society.

Like many others including many Trotskyists, Ludo Martens says that the leaders of the USSR were parasites on a mainly socialist economic foundation mostly in order to justify a certain easily understood line on foreign policy. “The socialist basis of society was not yet destroyed,” he says in his essay called “Balance of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, April 2, 1992.” A thing is always a unity of opposites, but one of the opposites is always principal. Never is there complete purity, so that in a struggle in the worst situation–bourgeois prison for instance–even in such circumstances, the enemy does not obtain 100% of what it wants and the proletariat does not obtain 100% of what it wants.

Hence, Ludo Martens wants to say that the economic base under Khruschev and Brezhnev was at least 51% socialist and somehow the superstructure was more reactionary and out of synch, so it needed to wait till Gorbachev to implement total capitalism. In this way, Ludo Martens justifies his and others’ belief that Chinese foreign policy should have been pro-Brezhnev, if not in reasoning, then in substantial alliance. What it means is that Ludo Martens is willing to ape Trotsky on a disjunction between the Soviet mode of production and the state and hold to such an idealist analysis for a generation or two of the Soviet Union’s existence, all so that he can defend a certain geopolitical approach that was popular in the 1960s to the 1980s and still exerts its influence on the minds of older revisionists Ludo Martens is seeking to reconcile with.

The problem with this understanding of having the superstructure out of synch with the mode of production for decades aside from its idealism and obvious Trotskyist origins–and this is true of his review of the USSR called “Balance of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, April 2, 1992” and his 1993 remarks at the Mao Centennial organized by Joma Sison–is that it presents the Stalin era as having no new bourgeois elements despite the victories of class struggle. Yes, Stalin won out against the bourgeois lines of Trotsky, Bukharin and Tito. Yes, collectivization went forward. Yes, World War II was won. It is our duty to defend all these gains under Stalin. Yet, at the same time, our current dialectical materialist understanding must be that the new bourgeoisie did not disappear. Quite the contrary, many of the necessities in fighting the war involved a material basis for the new bourgeoisie.

[…]

A word on the creation of the new bourgeoisie under Stalin is not to be found in Ludo Martens’s discussion of cardinal subjects, only reference to the usual exploiters–the rich peasants, imperialist spies and so on that Stalin tended to.

Although we talk about many things in regard to Soviet history — Khruschev’s “three peacefuls” and capitulation to imperialism for instance–there was only one factor needed to push the new bourgeoisie over the top from dominated to dominating, and that was Khruschev’s loosening of the atmosphere in the party, his creation of the “dictatorship of the whole people.” The moment when the bourgeoisie in the party knows it will no longer face a strong possibility of being violently repressed is the moment it takes charge, not because the superstructure is decisive mainly, but because the new bourgeoisie is already in a very good position and getting a good portion of what it wants even under socialism. Perhaps it is determining 35% of what is going on and goes to 51% or 70% with Khruschev’s attack on Stalin. It is not a case that the new bourgeoisie started from no where and instantly became 51% as the Trotskyists like to caricaturize our views. So the superstructure is only decisive at a certain moment of time, that being the time when the new bourgeoisie no longer faces violent repression in the case of the USSR and China.

The bourgeoisie is not entirely “gutless.” This view is a mistake. One only need witness various intra-bourgeois civil wars to know that the leaders of the capitalist class will take risks for their rule, (even though the oppressed classes do most of the fighting in civil wars) and such is even more true when fighting socialist rule on behalf of the whole capitalist class. Hence, it takes considerable violence to keep the capitalist class underfoot.

Anyone who has stopped to consider the careerists in the CPSU, anyone who has read any anecdotes or talked to any of the common people of the Soviet Union knows that the state and the means of production attract careerists like flies. Such people mouth communism at the proper moment, but everyone knows that they don’t really know how or desire to apply communism in practice. These people protect their own interests and careers, but damage the interests of the proletariat, if they even know what they are since many have not studied politics in any systematic way. The only counterweight to such people in a society where there is yet a contradiction between leaders and led, the only counterweight to these careerists is violent repression, for they will certainly chance being criticized for implementing capitalism.

When a Khruschev comes to power almost by inertia (and only almost because he still did have to stage a coup), the reason is that the material situation of the bourgeoisie is already good. Layers and layers of the bureaucracy with access to the means of production in that peculiar superstructure known as socialism in the 20th century already exist ready and willing to follow and support a leader who will only “relax a bit,” maybe focus on making some goulash and taking off his shoes in the UN.

As the bourgeoisie has centuries of training leaders behind it and propertied ruling classes more than centuries, and because there is a shortage of trained proletarian leaders, and also because it is not easy to discern those with genuine socialist conviction and those mouthing phrases at the appropriate moments, “democracy,” “relaxation” and “free speech” become the excuses and battering rams of the new bourgeoisie seeking to oppress the proletariat in this era of imperialism. Once Khruschev erased the fear of a leader like Stalin, the new bourgeoisie implemented the things it always wanted to implement, and partially did implement under Stalin. The revisionists emphasize that it took more than a generation to restore capitalism, because they deny the role of force in history in addition to the fact that the new bourgeoisie does not have to start from scratch. The revisionists deny the role of Khruschev’s coup and use of the military against Molotov and Stalin’s other allies, and more importantly, they deny the role that the leadership has to play in violently repressing the would-be ruling bourgeoisie in the party, a group of people who do after all have access to the means of production once the government plans production under socialism (but not in the stages leading up to the socialist revolution unless there are base areas where the party is running the economy).

Conclusion

Recently we had a discussion with a member of the PTB who asked us about the band “Rage against the Machine” which had just done benefit concerts for Tibet. Ironically after discussing with us how many still put geopolitics above the mode of production, the PTB comrade asked why “Rage” did what it did. MIM answered that probably with all the watering down done by revisionism, no one ever talked to them about the mode of production. Hence, the “Rage against the Machine” did not understand the advance over slavery that the communists including communist Tibetan slaves brought to Tibet. Instead “Rage” adopted simpler political ideas with regard to the national question. It’s not surprising that people focussed on geopolitics will have no real answer to the “human-rights” and “free speech” for slaveowners point of view and even bands like “Rage” will be unpersuaded. We do not defend Mao’s work in Tibet just because the United $tates opposes it. The pseudo-Marxists consciously and unconsciously seeing geopolitics as decisive have led us down a pragmatist road to endless division and revisionism.

[To see the “International Communist Seminar” speak for itself, go to http://www.wpb.be/icm.htm%5D

Michael Parenti on Chinese Capitalism

The following excerpt was written by Michael Parenti in the expanded edition of his article on Tibetan feudalism entitled, “Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth.” In this work, the left-wing scholar exposes some of the realities of Chinese social-imperialism.

Finally, let it be said that if Tibet’s future is to be positioned somewhere within China’s emerging free-market paradise, then this does not bode well for the Tibetans. China boasts a dazzling 8 percent economic growth rate and is emerging as one of the world’s greatest industrial powers. But with economic growth has come an ever deepening gulf between rich and poor. Most Chinese live close to the poverty level or well under it, while a small group of newly brooded capitalists profit hugely in collusion with shady officials. Regional bureaucrats milk the country dry, extorting graft from the populace and looting local treasuries. Land grabbing in cities and countryside by avaricious developers and corrupt officials at the expense of the populace are almost everyday occurrences. Tens of thousands of grassroot protests and disturbances have erupted across the country, usually to be met with unforgiving police force. Corruption is so prevalent, reaching into so many places, that even the normally complacent national leadership was forced to take notice and began moving against it in late 2006.

Workers in China who try to organize labor unions in the corporate dominated “business zones” risk losing their jobs or getting beaten and imprisoned. Millions of business zone workers toil twelve-hour days at subsistence wages. With the health care system now being privatized, free or affordable medical treatment is no longer available for millions. Men have tramped into the cities in search of work, leaving an increasingly impoverished countryside populated by women, children, and the elderly. The suicide rate has increased dramatically, especially among women.

China’s natural environment is sadly polluted. Most of its fabled rivers and many lakes are dead, producing massive fish die-offs from the billions of tons of industrial emissions and untreated human waste dumped into them. Toxic effluents, including pesticides and herbicides, seep into ground water or directly into irrigation canals. Cancer rates in villages situated along waterways have skyrocketed a thousand-fold. Hundreds of millions of urban residents breathe air rated as dangerously unhealthy, contaminated by industrial growth and the recent addition of millions of automobiles. An estimated 400,000 die prematurely every year from air pollution. Government environmental agencies have no enforcement power to stop polluters, and generally the government ignores or denies such problems, concentrating instead on industrial growth.

China’s own scientific establishment reports that unless greenhouse gases are curbed, the nation will face massive crop failures along with catastrophic food and water shortages in the years ahead. In 2006-2007 severe drought was already afflicting southwest China.

If China is the great success story of speedy free market development, and is to be the model and inspiration for Tibet’s future, then old feudal Tibet indeed may start looking a lot better than it actually was.

From MPD – May the 1st: Combat and Struggle


The Popular Democratic Movement, will participate May 1, Labor Day, the march in defense of the rights of workers, one day fighting against the right-wing government that must be faced by the workers and peoples of Ecuador.

Luis Villacis National MPD Director, invites all employees, students, peasants, workers, housewives to make this May 1st a day of unity and struggle against the arrogance of the executive, the anti-worker policies, against the high cost of living and the deaf ears of Correa, who tries to mask the reality based on false national speeches he called “Citizens’ Revolution.”

Emepedista leader states that the right to protest, complaint, popular mobilization is always current and today more than ever becomes important to fight against water privatization projects such as the Territorial Reorganization Code which will establish a system neoliberal administrative sustained higher taxes based on the people, demand the reality of free education, refuse delivery of our natural resources to transnational companies.

Villacis, confirmed the line of political independence of MPD to the government, which implies the right to fight imperialism, fighting everything from the executive or legislative action is made against people’s interests and sovereign country, and support all what it means to hit the economic and political interests of the bourgeoisie.








Esta Vez NO!


Correa is in the service of the right and the United States

Villacis Luis Maldonado, National Director of MPD, noted that Correa is leading a capitalist right-wing government, pro-imperialist and therefore not only maintains a pact with the right, but maintains part of it. These facts that have been evident in anti-worker policy, trying to privatize water, the delivery of our resources to U.S. and Chinese transnational corporations, agreements for mutual collaboration with the United States (DEA and U.S. Southern Command, etc.).

Under rule by Correa, the right and the oligarchy are economically better than ever, the lip may prove confrontational, but in fact set the course for the procedure, Villacís said. He added that the resignation of Assemblyman Henry Blacksmith agreements makes it clear that the present administration maintains a section of the right, who originated the proposal to affect the freedom of citizens through anti-democratic consultation.

Additionally empedista leader noted that further evidence are the arrangements for the adoption of legislation in the National Assembly between Alliance Warrior and Timber Country. These political developments and the continuing allegations of corruption, and to attempt to control the judiciary show that we are dealing with a system to serve the oligarchy, under the U.S. interest and contrary to the interests of workers and peoples of Ecuador, are more than enough reasons to vote NO on the query.

MPD rejects U.S. interference in internal affairs of Ecuador and requires investigation into allegations of corruption involving President Correa

The National Executive of the Popular Democratic Movement through its director Luis Villacís Maldonado condemned the continuing interference by the U.S. government in the internal affairs of Ecuador, as demonstrated again in the cables revealed by Wikileaks authoring Ambassador Heather Hodges Quito U.S. and engage in acts of corruption by former Police Commander.

The MPD, in principle rejects any form of foreign intervention and supports the departure of Ambassador Hodges, representing the U.S. government’s imperialist policies. At the same time requires the president to rescind. Correa has signed agreements with the DEA his government and USAID, which submitted to the Police and the Ecuadorian armed forces to the interventionist policy of the United States.

Villacis said “who are consistent in defending national sovereignty claim by the complicit silence of President Correa’s intervention Outpost Operations” FOL “in the city of Manta and American planes in the attack on Ecuadorian territory March 1, 2008 as established by the Commission on Transparency and Truth About the Case of the Bombing of Angostura “recalled that regard, either the President or the Chancellor Patiño Correa has not raised even a note of protest.

Finally, MPD director stated that the allegations made​against former National Police Chief Jaime Hurtado Vaca Aquilino very serious and involve the President himself as Correa required to be investigated urgently and the culprits must be punished.

MPD: Departure of U.S. Ambassador attempt to cover up corruption

The Popular Democratic Movement, through its director Luis Villacis Maldonado, noted that the Ecuadorian government’s decision to order the departure of the U.S. ambassador in Quito, is in the interest of covering up the corruption that dots the Correa regime, and is by no means a patriotic and anti-imperialist position.

Villacis recalled the submission with which Correa in Hillary Clinton’s visit and his declaration of “the left to which I belong is not anti-capitalist, or imperialist” clear evidence of its ideological stance. He said the U.S. embassy and Correa held mutual tolerance, including the conductor of Wikileaks said for months: “The double standard maintained by the Ecuadorian government, said that although during the entire month of March (bombing Angostura 2008) the president had strong accusations against the U.S., while he met with the ambassador of that country to communicate its desire to preserve economic arrangements.”

Emepedista leader said that further evidence of their complacency with the United States is that in three years has not done anything nor has he given any notice of protest, when the commission investigating the bombing of Angostura determined that the aircraft came from the base Manta U.S..

This event which reveals the involvement of senior members of the police in acts of corruption, evidence that the consultation which seeks to conceal corruption, insecurity and maintain, these problems will be solved until the root is removed embedded corruption in high government circles. Villacís added that neither the query nor demagogic measures will resolve the uncertainty, and urged the workers and peoples of Ecuador and the world not to be surprised by the demagogic speech of the campaign, Correa long ago betrayed the political project. so THIS TIME NO.


MPD: At 4 years into the revolution – NO Correa socialism

The MDP National Council meeting in Quito on Saturday January 15, through its Director Luis Villacis Maldonado, reported that in these four years of government Correa’s betrayal of the workers and peoples of Ecuador grew. “In four years THERE IS NO revolution or socialism. ”

Emepedista leader claimed that a right-wing government at the service of Americans and Chinese, adding that in 4 years the poor are poorer and the rich richer, where the demagoguery and lies are a constant and the violation the Constitution, giving up our sovereignty and delivery of natural resources to multinationals.

The National Council of MPD reported that the government of Rafael Correa is subject to the policies of IMF and World Bank, and by paquetazo which was intended to express the people’s reaction and was in the back mirror of Evo Morales in endeavors.

Villacis said the MPD proposes alternative measures, instead of taking paquetazos against the people, is charged debtors of the banks closed 2 thousand 500 million dollars for tax evasion of $ 2 billion; stop advertising campaign that cost the town more than $ 170 million; fails to pay the billions of dollars of foreign debt; reversal of the mining, oil and telephone and address health, education and the reactivation of the productive apparatus.

Finally, he noted that the MPD in principle agrees with popular participation and consultation do not accept willful attitude to the referendum Correa, wanting to use patronage as a smokescreen to divert the real issues facing the country and added that MPD militants will be vigilant and not allow them once again using a sense of the people for safety, seeking to implement unpopular policies.

MPD: Correa: neither left nor right … is right

The National Director of the MPD, Luis Villacis Maldonado said the ban on Intercultural Education Act once again shows the double standards of the scheme to include the implementation of religious education in educational institutions, violating the Constitution and disrespect for the principle of secularism, an important progress achieved by the Liberal Revolution and the General Eloy Alfaro.

The Presidential Veto violates the Constitution of Ecuador in Articles 1, which states that Ecuador is a secular state, the Article 28, third paragraph, “public education will be universal and secular at all levels” and the art. 29, expresses the freedom of parents to choose for their sons and daughters, according to their beliefs, principles and pedagogical options, with this is to divide the educational community, parents, students having different Villacis said religious beliefs.

He said that did not include the draft resolution adopted at the meeting, which protects teachers’ contracts provide job security and fair wages, social gains have been removed and contributions of the educational community, has crippled the job security of teachers to impose immediate dismissal and other rights of students, parents and mothers of families, peoples and nationalities that were made with the approval of the Bill which received the vote of 106 Assembly members now erased at a stroke by President.

Emepedista leader claiming that this idea ended late, neoconservative and right was defeated by social mobilization of students, teachers and parents in previous governments as the de León Febres Cordero and Sixto Duran Ballen, today Correa will have the same response: the massive rejection of the Ecuadorian people and the defense of secularism.

Abolitionist Poetry

The 1807 abolition of slave relations of production within the British Empire may have been very progressive for its time, but one wonders if these same authors would have been so jovial if they could see the way leading capitalists have lined up to contrast the modern marvel of “free trade and labor” with slavery.

The collection of essays I had the opportunity to read accurately reflects the trends of the British abolitionist movement of the nineteenth century (with all the trappings one would assume), particularly their eloquent use of parody to convey the sufferings of slaves to the public. William Cowper’s Sweet Meat has Sour Sauce is a prime example of this method, whereby a narrator talks to the reader in darkly sarcastic tones. The poem itself comes in a form similar to a bar song, though it graphically discusses torture, whippings and mutilation of “negroes,” each stanza ending with the unsettling refrain, “which nobody can deny,” a line that begins to take on the double meaning—the ‘undeniability’ of the agony of slavery. Meanwhile, Robert Southey’s epic The Sailor, Who Had Served in the Slave Trade keeps to the visceral and rapturous in terms of feeling, but ends up being more ironic than the author perhaps intended. At the end, the narrator (a preacher) tells him that God will forgive his sins if only he prays and asks, in the process giving the sailor a convenient vehicle with which to cope with the continuance of his trade.

The poem hereby implies that the sailor’s religion will be used to encourage, not stop the sailor’s behavior, while at the same time it may be said that the narrator is showing the sailor a new (abolitionist) way free of the sin of slave trading. This odd duality certainly leaves the work open to debate, and shines a light on how traditional doctrines of morality, such as Christianity, can be used to justify both progressive and reactionary forces. Hannah More, on the other hand, throws subtlety to the wind with her work Slavery, a Poem, in which she seems to shout in thunderous language at the very heavens, crying for any force of justice to rain fire down upon this wicked world. Much of the same can be said about Cowper’s other major work in this section, On Slavery. Both simply state in powerful yet plain language the experiences of the abducted and colonized races. In my opinion, by far the most disturbing of the bunch is The Sailor, not only because of its abrupt twist ending but because of its outrageous uncertainty.

Ann Yearsley’s A Poem on the Inhumanity of the Slave Trade not only far surpasses its simple title in rich content, but also manages to carve out effective imagery in the text in order to force the reader into the place of an individual slave, making it a personal favorite. Hardly anything is said about the character of Luco as an individual, but the scenes of the mourning of his family at his abduction and his heroism in the face of the horrendous tortures he endures develop his character far more than simple dialogue ever could. When Luco is enraged at being blinded by a whip and kills his master with his hoe—a symbol of his oppression—the reader is made to feel his wrath. When afterwards he faces the fate of burning alive rather than live as an animal or beast, the reader himself is filled with righteous anger. The poem shows above all the millions of individual dramas that lay behind hollow statistics such as tallies of slave figures.

Written in a different style but showcasing the same sort of detached and analytical cynicism, Anna Barbauld’s On the Rejection of the Bill for Abolishing the Slave Trade is written almost like a letter to William Wilberforce, shows how the ruling class lackeys and the clergy have given the black man false hope that he might be free through peaceful, parliamentary means. Without knowing it, the text reinforces the belief in the utter futility of ruling class politics and implies the only way an enslaved people will be, or has ever been, freed is through armed struggle, such as the slave uprisings that were happening in the British colonies at the time. It also exposes (perhaps meant in a mocking manner) the worship of Wilberforce as the “great man of history,” the white liberal at the head of the abolitionist movement. Throughout, her account of his exploits and ideological fights read like propaganda. One can only hope she meant to display the hypocrisy in placing a white reformist writer (who foolishly sought peaceful means to emancipation) on the grand pedestal of admiration instead of the black slave organizers of revolts themselves, who risked their lives to gain freedom.

Wordsworth’s sonnet To Toussaint Louverture does not have the same intention as Anna Barbauld’s poem—to criticize a figurehead of the abolitionist movement and to undermine his cult of personality or taking of excessive credit—but rather gives focus to a genuine revolutionary hero who was instrumental in a slave uprising. Wordsworth clearly had an admiration for the man, though the poem itself goes into no great detail about why Louverture should be so revered. This is most likely to avoid charges of sedition or treason by the British government, since Louverture was the leader of the Haitian slave uprisings that uprooted the colonialists. Ultimately Wordsworth says that his story will be heard around the globe to inspire other oppressed peoples, though he fails to mention if too much focus on reformism of the Wilberforce type will be promoted by the ruling classes.

The Little Black Boy seems to be one of William Blake’s more “innocent” poems in the Songs of Innocence, disturbingly so. The narrator, the little black boy in question, seems to unhesitatingly absorb what is told to him by the dark figures of authority in the poem, such as his mother or God. It demonstrates the role of the church in the creation of the slave trade by implying that the Jesus figure favors the little white boy. Even his mother seems complicit in the boy’s ultimate fate in becoming a slave, since he is completely dependent on her for information regarding the world. The last stanza is obviously meant to be sarcastic, showing the tendency in society for the lower classes to aspire to and imitate the habits of the higher ones, no matter how reprehensible.

Marxist Literary Criticism: Brief Guide

Along with psychoanalytical, feminist, and cultural criticism, Marxist literary criticism exemplifies what the French philosopher Paul Ricouer terms a “hermeneutics of suspicion.” These are approaches that concern themselves not with what the text says but what it hides. As Terry Eagleton, a leading Marxist critic, writes, the task of Marxist literary criticism “is to show the text as it cannot know itself, to manifest those conditions of its making (inscribed in its very letter) about which it is necessarily silent.”

By its very nature, ideology is silent. Like the water in the aquarium breathed by the fish, ideology is virtually invisible. Its invisibility gives it greater power. Ideology – defined in general as the shared beliefs and values held in an unquestioning manner by a culture – exerts a powerful influence upon a culture. Those who are marginalized in the culture are most aware of the ways in which an ideology supports the dominant class in the society. Those who enjoy the fruits of belonging to a dominant group of the society barely generally are filled with what Marx called “false consciousness.” Since it is not in their interest to notice the ways in which an economic structure marginalizes others, they tend to buy into an ideology that supports that structure.

Recurrent terms in Marxist literary criticism:

  • Base vs. Superstructure: Base in Marxism refers to economic base. Superstructure, according to Marx and Engels, emerges from this base and consists of law, politics, philosophy, religion, art.
  • Ideology: the shared beliefs and values held in an unquestioning manner by a culture. It governs what that culture deems to be normative and valuable. For Marxists, ideology is determined by economics. A rough approximation: “tell me how much money you have and I’ll tell you how you think.”
  • Hegemony: coined by the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci, this “refers to the pervasive system of assumptions, meanings, and values — the web of ideologies, in other words, that shapes the way things look, what they mean, and therefore what reality is for the majority of people within a given culture” (See glossary in case studies in contemporary criticism book).
  • Reification: often used to describe the way in which people are turned into commodities useful in market exchange. For example, some would argue that the media’s obsession with tragedy (e.g.the deaths of Jon Benet Ramsay, Diana, JFK Jr., the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado) make commodities out of grieving people. The media expresses sympathy but economically thrives on these events through ratings boost.

What do Marxist literary critics do with texts?

They explore ways in which the text reveals ideological oppression of a dominant economic class over subordinate classes. In order to do this a Marxist might ask the following questions:

  • Does the text reflect or resist a dominant ideology? Does it do both?
  • Does the main character in a narrative affirm or resist bourgeosie values?
  • Whose story gets told in the text? Are lower economic groups ignored or devalued?
  • Are values that support the dominant economic group given privilege?
  • This can happen tacitly, in the way in which values are taken to be self-evident.
  • They look at the conditions of production for the work of art. For example, they ask:
  • What were the economic conditions for publication of a work?
  • Who was the audience? What does the text suggest about the values of this audience?

What other approaches resemble Marxist literary criticism?

  • Marxist literary criticism often shares with feminist criticism a desire to challenge the power structures in contemporary society. For feminist, the issue is a marginalized gender; for Marxists, the issue is not gender but economic power, leading to political power.
  • Marxist literary criticism can also be viewed as a type of cultural criticism, in that it seeks to analyze a discourse (of power) that makes up one of the discourses that determine a text’s historical meaning.

Source

The Experience of Nepal Summed Up

“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” –“The Communist Manifesto.”

“We do not believe that private property should be abolished.” –Prachanda, Interview with BBC on 09/03/2008.

Introduction

Perhaps you’ve heard the various communist parties claim that there has been a revolution in Nepal, and that the 21st century has finally seen its first socialist revolution. The sad reality is that the red flag is not flying in Nepal, and never was. What is happening is the reformation of bourgeois democracy and the disarming of the Maoist guerillas in order to construct a regime that cuddles up to imperialism. The revisionism coming out of Nepal has its fans, particularly charlatans on the American left and the international scene who have been working overtime to apologize for Prachanda and the reformist wing of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), otherwise known as the UCPN(M), as well as castigate any anti-revisionist who dares expose what’s really going on. The so-called “anti-dogmatists” are not worth refuting, and their arguments have little substance to criticize in the first place. This is not “dogma,” but science. The development in Nepal shows zero signs of heading toward socialism, let alone communism, and show many signs of capitalism, reformism and revisionism, which we shall examine at length below. There is no dictatorship of the proletariat and no socialism being built in Nepal, nor is it even anti-imperialist, having expressed their desire to have foreign private capital invade their country and become a pro-Chinese comprador neo-colony.

The expulsion of the former monarchist regime in Nepal must be applauded. Since then, the leadership of Nepal has come out as not Marxist, but revisionist, and not for the revolution in Nepal but for the so-called peaceful transition to socialism. The Nepali coalition government led by the Maoists has since come under fire from the more hardline wing of their own party and the international Maoist movement, not to mention from Marxist-Leninists. The American Party of Labor shall seek to offer justification and evidence for its perception of the events unfolding in Nepal.

A Brief History of the Situation in Nepal

From 1768 to 2008, the country of Nepal was ruled by an absolutist monarchy. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, more commonly known as Prachanda, led the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or the CPN (M), into an armed struggle against the government in 1996. Fighting continued until 2005. The costs paid by the Nepalese people for this armed struggle against the reactionary monarchy were very great—about 13,000 Nepalese died in this conflict. In 2005, the Party signed permanent peace agreements with a bourgeois-democratic alliance of the mainstream Nepalese parties opposed to the monarchy of King Gyanendra. Massive popular uprisings in the country soon followed in 2006 and a lengthy general strike led to clashes between protestors and the monarchy’s police.

Finally, in 2008 the civil war came to a head when the monarchy capitulated. Since then, the country has been known as the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal and has been led by the Nepalese Constituent Assembly. The CPN (M) then led the coalition government. In January 2009 it changed its name to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or UCPN(M) after fusing with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre-Masal). It now claims adherence to a hybrid ideology known as “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Prachanda Path.” On May 4th 2009, Prachanda resigned as Prime Minister in a fight with elected President Ram Baran Yadav about Prachanda’s desire to fire the reactionary head of Nepalese Army, Rookmangud Katawal. The UCPN(M) continues to be the leading party in the bourgeois-democratic coalition government. Since then, there have been splits between the Maoist faction and the Prachanda faction over whether to form a People’s Republic or maintain the parliamentary bourgeois democracy.

Reformism & “Peaceful Paths to Socialism” in Nepal

The Maoist theory of “New Democracy” has halted the class struggle in its tracks in Nepal and allowed private capital to continue unabated. The fans of the UCPN(M) have claimed this is merely a “stage” of the revolution there and that the coalition government stage is merely a small step before the final socialist revolution in launched. However, Maoist China itself was never able to transcend the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution and still had a capitalist class up until Mao’s death (it was a policy of the state that the old bourgeoisie still received a quarter of its old profits from factories, for example). Like China, the Nepalese Maoists are not interested in socialism or the final goal of expropriating the bourgeoisie, but rather they aim to establish “socialist-oriented capitalist relations,” which amounts to social democracy.

The UCPN(M) is now dominated by rightist thinking that seeks a peaceful road to socialism in the name of the “creative application of Marxism adapted to Nepal’s conditions,” which is in practice a form of Eurocommunism, bourgeois pluralism and revisionism. As shown with the quote from the BBC interview that began this works, Prachanda supports private property instead of state property. As well, the UCPN(M) and the Prachanda leadership in particular does not support the revolutionary smashing of the capitalist state, but rather a “peaceful transition” to socialism. Referring to the efforts to build a People’s Republic, a term used for a socialist government, Prachanda said, “We [the party] will definitely attempt to establish a People’s Republic by institutionalizing [the] democratic republic and through the legitimate means like elections” (Mishra, BBC News interview). He continued on to say that his party had “concluded that socialism without multiparty competition and political freedoms cannot survive” (Mishra). The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has clearly not learned anything from revisionism in the USSR and the fascist coup in Chile, nor from Marx and Lenin’s thesis on the state.

The Nepalese party has also shown itself to support integration with the reactionary army of the former monarchy. Prachanda said publically in the same interview that, “[a]s long as everyone including the army, the police and the other officials remain committed to the people’s mandate on democracy, peace and change, no one needs to feel insecure. There will be no prejudice against any” (Mishra) and that “I never showed such distrust [toward the army]. I never wanted to show any bit of distrust towards NA [Gyanendra’s former troops] or police or PLA or armed police” (Mishra). In his interview with the Hindu in 2006, Prachanda said, “we are telling the parliamentary parties that we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all” (Varadarajan). The fusing with social democrats and capitalist democracy on the part of the Nepalese Maoists has become a theory of peaceful competition with reactionary parties, otherwise known as “peaceful coexistence” with capitalism. According to Prachanda, the party will “go for the goal of the people’s democracy through peaceful means. Today, we are talking of a democratic republic and our understanding with the parties is that the way to realise this is the constituent assembly” (Varadarajan). The Communist Party leadership even went so far as to say the ‘people’s war” they waged in Nepal for years was not directed against capitalism or imperialism, but rather merely to fight the remnants of feudalism on behalf of the bourgeoisie. “Three years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to move ahead. And three years ago we decided we must go in for political competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new. In August, we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the parliamentary political parties. We don’t believe that the people’s war we initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure” (Varadarajan). What is being built in Nepal is not socialism but a capitalist government led by “Marxists,” which according to Prachanda himself will be “under international supervision, either by the United Nations or some other international mediation acceptable to all” (Varadarajan).

Despite the lies and distortions of Nepal’s sycophantic followers, the Communist Party has made it crystal clear from the beginning that bourgeois democracy, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the preservation of capitalism at the expense of proletarian dictatorship is their true agenda:

“Varadarajan: Nowadays, we hear the phrase ‘The Maoists will sit on the shoulders and hit on the head.’ Does this mean your alliance with the parties is tactical rather than strategic, that when the head – the monarchy – is weakened or defeated, you might then start hitting the shoulder?

Prachanda: It is not like this. Our decision on multiparty democracy is a strategically, theoretically developed position, that in a communist state, democracy is a necessity. This is one part. Second, our decision within the situation today is not tactical. It is a serious policy. [.…] Of course, people still have a doubt about us because we have an army. And they ask whether after the constitutional assembly we will abandon our arms. This is a question. We have said we are ready to reorganise our army and we are ready to make a new Nepal army also. So this is not a tactical question” (Varadarajan).

Lenin said about such opportunism: “He who says that the workers must support the new government in the interests of the struggle against tsarist reaction (and apparently this is being said by the Potresovs, Gvozdyovs. Chkhenkelis and also, all evasiveness notwithstanding, by Chkheidze) is a traitor to the workers, a traitor to the cause of the proletariat, to the cause of peace and freedom. For actually, precisely this new government is already bound hand and foot by imperialist capital, by the imperialist policy. […] For the only guarantee of freedom and of the complete destruction of tsarism lies in arming the proletariat, in strengthening, extending and developing the role, significance and power of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. All the rest is mere phrase-mongering and lies, self-deception on the part of the politicians of the liberal and radical camp, fraudulent trickery” (Lenin 306). To justify a collaborationist and bourgeois stance, the Nepalese party claims the mantle of Lenin, but doesn’t raise its revolutionary flag. On the contrary, Prachanda and his clique make Lenin into a common liberal by saying “if Lenin had lived another 5 or 10 years he would also introduce multiparty competition, this is my understanding” (Ely).

This assertion, of course, is patently ridiculous for everyone who has read Lenin’s works on the dictatorship of the proletariat, which were then enunciated by Comrade Stalin. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” said Stalin, “can be complete only when it is led by a party, the party of the communists, which does not and should not share the leadership with other parties” (Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism). The truth is that Lenin always put forward the Marxist-Leninist line on the capitalist state in relation to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism. Lenin said that there is no “halfway” or “hybrid” state possible—a state is either socialist or capitalist, either under the rule of the proletariat or the rule of the bourgeoisie. Lenin also maintained that “the emancipation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class” (Lenin, The State and Revolution). Both of these basic tenets of Marxism have continuously been denied by the Nepalese party.

Worse than this, the Prachanda leadership supports disarming the Indian Maoist guerillas in favor of his bourgeois “peaceful transition” strategy. This comes hot on the heels of the Indian state gearing up for a fascist war against the Naxalite/Maoist insurgents. Calling on the Naxalites to disarm against the machine guns of the government, Prachanda says, “We believe [bourgeois democracy] applies to them [the Indians] too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the questions of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition, those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice” (Varadarajan). It should be noted also that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has previously exposed Prachanda’s revisionism and liberalism in several letters and polemics issued to them. The Revolutionary Communist Party USA and other RIM parties have as well.

Questionable Theoretical Stances & Praise of Trotskyism

The Maoist government of Nepal has lately been seeking favor with the American imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists and the reactionary Indian state. This stems from their revisionist, anti-Marxist and anti-proletarian theories. This stems also from their chauvinist following of Maoism, which proclaims a thesis on “protracted people’s war” similar to the Shining Path’s. It proclaims that “the theory developed by fusion of protracted People’s War and insurrection has special significance and it has become universal” (quoted in Open Letter to the UCPN [Maoist] by the Communist Party of India [Maoist]). The UCPN(M) has also put forward that Lenin’s theory of imperialism, which they attempt to co-opt for Mao, is somehow “outdated” in the modern era, no doubt to pave the way for their collaboration with American and Chinese imperialism. The Worker, an organ of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), states that “[o]ur Party, under the leadership of Chairman Comrade Prachanda, believes that the analysis of imperialism made by Lenin and Mao in the 20th century cannot scientifically guide the Maoist revolutionaries to develop correct strategy and tactics to fight in the 21st century” (“The Worker,” 84).

Most troubling however, is the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)’s rehabilitation of the counterrevolutionary and anti-Marxist theory of Trotskyism. The summer issue of the journal “The Red Spark” (Rato Jhilko) has published an article by Dr. Baburam Bhattarai stating that, “Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat” (Bhattarai 10).

This speaker is not a small figure. Dr. Bhattarai is a politburo member of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and is considered to be its leading theoretician. He is essentially the number two next to Prachanda and has served as Minister of Finance. Despite his disturbing assertion, the American Party of Labor and the communist movement in general have always exposed the reactionary nature of Trotskyism as an anti-Marxist theory. We realize that the Trotskyite theory of “Permanent Revolution” is irrelevant to today’s world. Trotsky’s theory is absolutist in that it is either permanent revolution or no revolution. However, Lenin and Stalin proved the case that socialism in one country is possible while maintaining that it is not the final victory of the proletariat.

“[T]he overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured.” Stalin says, “After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries” (Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism). Stalin’s thesis in turn supports Lenin’s thesis that the revolution must do “the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries” (Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution & the Renegade Kautsky). Either Mr. Bhattarai is intentionally leaving out Stalin’s true position on Socialism in One Country so as to give kudos to Trotskyism or he is not aware of this passage. We are not inclined to believe the latter since its source is Stalin’s most prominent work.

Despite this statement, Trotskyism and Trotsky’s ideas are not relevant to today’s world and certainly not to Nepal. Trotsky was an opponent of guerrilla warfare, which has been the main vehicle of the armed struggle in the world and Nepal in particular. Trotskyism is also not significant anywhere, and especially not amongst the most oppressed sectors of the world. Bhattarai is trying to resurrect ideas that are Eurochauvinist and complete failures at initiating any insurrectionary tactics.

Surrendering Marxism in Words & Deeds

The line of the UCPN(M) on the theoreticians of Marxism is as questionable as their recent deeds in Nepal in stopping the people’s war. Prachanda once said that “Stalin had made a serious mistake of ideology, in philosophy, in science—and all of the workers movement has taken so much loss from this deviation from dialectical materialism” (Ely). Without going into too much detail defending the legacy of Stalin as a great Marxist and teacher, the APL must ask: does this mean Prachanda himself is not guilty of these same so-called mistakes? He is quoted as saying, “I am not an atheist […] do not take the Maoist Party as an atheist party” (“Telegraph Nepal”). Prachanda has admitted to the world that he is not an atheist, which Lenin himself said that every socialist must be as a rule, and which would show his complete denial of science and self-deluded embrace of idealism and would bar him from making any accusations of “deviating” from dialectical materialism. Prachanda also is quoted as not believing in the abolishment in private property, which leaves us to ponder how the UCPN(M) would create socialism by leaving bourgeois property intact.

The throwing out of the Soviet Union as a model of socialism and the leadership and theories of Joseph Stalin as one of the classics of Marxism does not stop there. Prachanda once said about his own party’s ideology: “[w]e are fully confident that we are developing the [Marxist] ideology from Lenin, not from Stalin” (Ely). Like many Maoists, the UCPN(M) adjusts their views on Stalin to suite their own ends, a strategy that is particularly disturbing in the wake of Bhattarai’s praise of Trotskyism. The leadership of Nepal has disgraced the memory of actually existing socialism in the service of the bourgeoisie, working overtime to apologize to reactionaries and bourgeois propagandists for Stalin, or just not to mention him at all in comparison to the Great Helmsman, or perhaps Prachanda himself. It has always been the position of the American Party of Labor since its founding that Joseph Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist who fought all his life for the interests of the working class and socialism. The non-revisionist communist parties in all countries have always upheld the experience of socialism under Stalin as a part of upholding the ideology of Marxism and always will. The APL views the ideologies, beliefs and practices of Lenin and Stalin as inseparable, and thus the idea of taking from Lenin and not Stalin, or from Stalin and not Lenin, is theoretically absurd.

Prachanda’s leadership has also proposed dropping the “Maoist” label from their party’s title to gain favor with foreign imperialist powers like China and the United States in wake of their fusing with revisionist and bourgeois parties at the behest of the revisionist and state-capitalist “Communist” Party currently ruling China. The Times of India reported that “Prachanda, chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and Nepal’s first revolutionary prime minister, capped the growing debate about the party at home and abroad Friday by telling journalists at the Nepalgunj airport, prior to kicking off a festival, that two months ago, he had proposed to the central committee of his party that the Maoist tag be jettisoned” (17-10-2008). It also reported that the “Chinese government […] advocated the unification of the communist parties in Nepal to form a single monolithic party like the Communist Party of China. The Maoists have taken the advice to heart” (17-10-2008).

Splits Within the UCPN(M)

Matrika Yadav, a former member of the Central Committee of the party, resigned last year from his post as Minister of Land Reforms and Management. He claims to have now quit the Maoist party for good after coming under fire from the Prachanda leadership for redistributing land to poor peasants, which the party labeled as anarchistic activity. About his resignation, he said ”Prime Minister [Prachanda] had the compulsion to ensure survival of the government. I had the compulsion to advocate in favour of landless people” (Nepal News”). He accused the UCPN(M) of being a revisionist and reformist party that was “no longer” a communist party and was capitulating to the class enemy by dissolving the PLA. Since then, Yadav has sought to form his own party to go against the dissolution of the PLA and to seize property from the feudalists and the regional bourgeois parties who act in the interests of local comprador landlords, which he vocally accused the party of compromising with. Yadav claimed in an interview that the “unified Maoist party is no longer a real communist party. Prachandaji has welcomed those people in the party who always criticized the decade-long armed struggle. He has close alliance with those reactionary forces. I have asked him to read his own articles about revolution and people’s liberation written in the past” (Ojha).

Yadav’s faction, which has since taken up arms, stated publically “the party also bowed down to the pressure of the parliamentary forces and agreed to return the land captured by the peasants and landless people during the conflict” (“NayaNews.com”). He accused Prachanda’s revisionist policies of leading “to the mushrooming of regional Madhesi parties who represent the landlords” (“NayaNews.com”). Regarding the dissolution of the PLA, Yadav spoke candidly about widespread criticism of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)’s handling of the situation. “The PLA combatants joined the war not for any personal gain. Many of them lost their relatives in the war. They want total liberation of the Nepali people. I have heard they are extremely frustrated now. They are saying their sacrifice has gone in vain” (Ojha). As if to prove him right, Prachanda announced that People’s Liberation Army is to become the national army and will be fully integrated with the reactionary bourgeois state. “Prachanda has said that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would not remain under the party from now onwards” (Mingxin). These moves are nothing less than tearing the teeth out of the Nepalese movement.

Support of Chinese “Market Socialism” & Foreign Imperialist Capital

Rather than a Marxist-Leninist path of development and the construction of socialism, Prachanda has endorsed leaving Nepal open to foreign capital and a Dengist path of development. China Brief reports that during an interview “Prachanda went on further to chide Western-style capitalism and praised China’s model of economic development as one that Nepal will emulate. ‘We will build special economic zones like China,’ Prachanda said. ‘The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.’ In the interview, Prachanda emphasized the geographic proximity between China and Nepal, and the high respect that Nepalese people have for China and Chinese people. ‘For Nepal’s national independence, it is critically important for Nepal to maintain intimate relations with China’” (quoted in Hsiao).

Some of the Nepal Maoists’ supporters have answered criticisms of these remarks by comparing this plan to the New Economy Policy in Soviet Russia. The idea that socialism has to beat capitalism and imperialism in terms of delivering commodities is a manifestation of the Theory of Productive Forces, a theory which history has proven wrong by the industrialization of small, isolated socialist nations in quick order. History has provided us with many examples of small, poor and backward countries that have had to defend themselves under very difficult conditions: Albania, Korea, Cuba, etc. In fact, it could be argued that these nations were in a much worse situation and much poorer and underdeveloped than Nepal (Korea was razed to the ground by the Korean War and Albania was a pre-feudal tribal society until the 1950s). There is historical precedent to consider on the question of industrialization.

These remarks endorse the state-capitalist ideology of the Chinese revisionist politician Deng Xiaoping, who once stated there was “no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy. The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively. We used to have a planned economy, but our experience over the years has proved that having a totally planned economy hampers the development of the productive forces to a certain extent. If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth” (Xiaoping). Prachanda wishes to build a modern Chinese-style state-capitalist government in Nepal, and considering Prachanda Path’s flimsy theoretical nature, we won’t hold our breath for socialism in Nepal anytime soon.

Conclusion

The American Party of Labor has long been mindful of the revisionism coming out of Nepal. The revolution in Nepal requires a party led by the science of Marxism, a party that stands for carrying out the class struggle to the end. As of right now, the Maoists under the leadership of Prachanda have become the puppets of reaction and imperialism. If a party like the UCPN(M) is unable to correct its revisionism it will not be able to lead to a socialist, much less a communist society. As the APL has said before, in terms of building a socialist society, only the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism has been successful.

Sources:

“I Am Not An Atheist: Nepal Maoist Chief Prachanda.” Telegraph Nepal 02 Sept. 2009: n. pag. Web.

“International Dimension of Prachanda Path.” The Worker. 10. 84. Print.

“Matrika rules out leaving CPN-M.” Nepal News. NepalNews.com, 24 Sept. 2008. Web.

“Matrika Yadav Rebels Against UCPN-Maoist.” NayaNews.com. N.p., 12 Feb. 2009. Web.

“Nepal Maoists ready to abandon Mao.” Times of India 17 Oct. 2008, Print.

Bhattarai, Baburam. The Red Spark. #1 (2009): 10. Print.

Ely, Mike. “Prachanda NYC Speech: A Maoist Vision for a New Nepal.” Kasama Project, 27 Sept. 2008. Web.

Hsiao, Russell. “Nepal Following China’s Economic Path.” China Brief. 8.14 (2008): Print.

Lenin, V.I. Collected Works. “Letters from Afar.” 4th English. 23. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964. 306. Print.

Lenin, V.I. The Proletarian Revolution & the Renegade Kautsky. 1st Ed. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1972. 88. Print.

Lenin, V.I. The State and Revolution. 1st Edition. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1970. 10. Print.

Mingxin, Bi. “Nepal’s UCPN-M army to become national army soon.” ChinaView 12 Feb. 2009, Print.

Mishra, Rabindra. “Prachanda’s first interview as Nepal PM.” BBC News South Asia. BBC News, 03 Sept. 2008. Web.

Ohja, Ghanashyam. “We will form our own army: Matrika Yadav.” República 01 March 2009, Print.

Stalin, J.V. Collected Works, “Concerning Questions of Leninism”. Vol. 8. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954. 13-96. Print.

Stalin, J.V. The Foundations of Leninism. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976. 38. Print.

Varadarajan, Siddharth. “Exclusive interview with Prachanda, Maoist leader.” Hindu 8-10 Feb. 2006: Print.

Xiaoping, Deng. “There is No Fundamental Contradiction Between Socialism and a Market Economy”. Selected Works Vol. 3. Beijing: People’s Daily, 1985. Print.

Concerning certain distortions of Stalin’s work and L. Martens’ revisionist view of socialism

This article is not my work. It was originally printed in the journal of the ICMLPO (Unity & Struggle) in the May 2008 issue #16. It was published under the title “Concerning Certain Distortions of Stalin’s Work and L. Martens Revisionist View of Socialism.” You can find it here: http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/search/label/Ludo%20Martens. It appears here with no alteration.

Issue Cover
Issue Cover

It has been more than ten years since the book “Another view of Stalin” by Ludo Martens was published. This book was hailed by many unsuspected and well intentioned communists all over the world as an “excellent pro-Stalin book”. However, at the same time a number of Khruschevian revisionist and opportunist parties that have traditionally adopted an anti-Stalinist line advertised and promoted the book in many ways. Taking into account the virtually unchanged ideological and political line of all these parties, Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists should be suspicious about the “sudden” urge to publish a book about Stalin. Indeed, a careful look at the contents of this book we will find out that, at least, in three very fundamental questions, the answers to which delineate Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists from Khrushchevian revisionists, Martens maintains essentially revisionist views.

Question of Stalin: The question of Stalin, that is, the revolutionary theoretical and practical work of the great communist leader of the world proletariat and classic of Marxism, has been, since the middle of 1920s, at the centre of a sharp ideological-political struggle between the revolutionary communists and all kinds of counter-revolutionaries (social democrats, Trotskyites, anarchists, titoists, Kruschevians and others). All the fundamental issues of socialism and the revolution come down to this. It marks the boundary that separates the real Marxists-Leninists and all kinds of revisionists and opportunists.
In the first and most important question of the revolutionary movement, the question of Stalin, to which all the fundamental issues of socialism and the revolution come down to, Ludo Martens propagates, not the crude anti-Stalinism of Khrushchev, but a more refined and camouflaged version that appeared in the communist movement between the mid-50’s and the beginning of 60’s, namely the “mistakes’ theory”. The latter is usually comes from various “anti-Khrushchevian” opportunists and it is formulated in certain clichι phrases such as: “Stalin was great but he made mistakes”. It is exactly this “mistakes’ theory”, of an allegedly “left orientation”, that is adopted by L. Martens in his “criticisms” of Stalin and exposed in the chapter “Weaknesses in the struggle against opportunism”.

In this context, Ludo Martens blames Stalin that “this struggle was not done to the extent that was necessary”, that “he was not able to formulate a consistent theory explaining how classes and the class struggle persist in a socialist society”(!) that he “had not completely understood that after the disappearance of the economic basis of capitalist and feudal exploitation, that there would still exist in the Soviet Union fertile ground for bourgeois currents”(!), that Stalin “was not able to formulate a theory about the struggle between the two lines in the Party” and “did not appreciate” the dangers of “bureaucracy and technocratism” and many other things that Stalin “was not able to do…,understand” etc.

But if there was any grain of truth in any these accusations related to Stalin’s views on the most fundamental question of the revolutionary communist movement, namely the one of socialism-communism, any person of good intentions would ask the following: in which, then, questions Stalin developed Marxism-Leninism further if not in this question and how can he be considered a classic of Marxism since he “committed”, according to his critics, so grave “mistakes” in such fundamental, theoretical and practical, questions of the communist movement?

Question of socialism: Stalin, as a Marxist, had, first and most importantly, a scientific view of socialism and, secondly, approached the question of the construction of socialism-communism in a materialistic, historic-dialectic way in contrast to all the representatives of the various bourgeois-revisionist currents. He understood the construction of socialism – the first stage of the communist society which constitutes a period of class struggle that is inevitable as long as classes still exist during which the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely necessary” (Lenin) – as a long process of revolutionary transformations that passes through different phases of historical development wherein a class struggle is waged in all levels that becomes sharper as the construction of socialism proceeds. The transition period from capitalism to communism, as Lenin pointed out, “cannot be but a period of struggle between the dying capitalism and the newborn communism or in other words: between the defeated but not yet liquidated capitalism and the, new born but still very weak, communism”.

Ludo Martens, as mentioned above, blames Stalin that “he was not able to formulate a consistent theory explaining how classes and the class struggle persist in a socialist society”.

First of all, the theory of the “persistence of classes” in socialism even after its economic basis has been constructed, is an anti-Marxist, bourgeois theory because: in the first place, it contains the bourgeois revisionist view of socialism according to which the exploiting classes and the proletariat will be preserved; in the second place it revises the Marxist-Leninist theory of the classes when it maintains that there can be exploiting classes without private property, that is, after the construction of socialism’s economic basis and in the third place it completely contradicts the final goal of the revolutionary communist movement which is the liquidation of all exploiting classes in socialism and, subsequently, of all classes in communism.

Contrary to the groundless attack of Martens, it is obvious that Stalin, as a Marxist, neither had formulated, nor could he have done so, a theory on “how classes persist in a socialist society”, that is, a bourgeois-revisionist theory because it would directly oppose the theory of scientific socialism-communism. On the contrary, he followed and put into practise the Marxist theory on the liquidation of the exploiting classes in socialism and, subsequently, of all the classes in communism. This liquidation proceeds gradually and it is completed together with the construction of the economic basis of socialism, that is, with the establishment of the social ownership on the means of production in the form of state- and kolkhoz-cooperative property and the transition to the unified type of communist property.

Persistence of the exploiting classes in socialism after the construction of its economic basis? By purporting the theory “on how the classes persist in a socialist society”, L. Martens doesn’t specify either which classes (exploiting or not) or which exactly historical stage of the socialist society (before or after the construction of its economic basis) he is referring to; this is an characteristic example of the anti-historical, anti-dialectic approach of socialism. It is obvious, however, that he means the persistence of the exploiting classes after the construction of its economic basis, and concerning the Soviet Union, in particular, he refers to the phase after the Constitution of 1936 was voted when Stalin pointed out that in this phase “all the exploiting classes were liquidated, leaving the working class, the peasants and the intellectuals” (I.V. Stalin “Questions of Leninism).

Stalin in his report on the Draft Constitution of USSR (1936), having scientifically analyzed the new economic, social, class reality of the socialist Soviet Union, rightly concluded that the country’s class structure had changed since the 1924 the year the then Soviet Constitution was established: “The landlord class, as you know, had already been eliminated as a result of the victorious conclusion of the Civil War. As for the other exploiting classes, they have shared the fate of the landlord class. The capitalist class in the sphere of industry has ceased to exist. The kulak class in the sphere of agriculture has ceased to exist. And the merchants and profiteers in the sphere of trade have ceased to exist. Thus all the exploiting classes have now been eliminated. There remains the working class. There remain the peasants. There remains the intelligentsia”.

The above extract from the report should convince even the most recalcitrant opportunist that Stalin doesn’t talk about “absence of classes” or “elimination of classes” in the Soviet Union of that period but only about elimination of the exploiting classes, of landlords, capitalists, kulaks, merchants-profiteers whereas the classes of workers, the peasants, and intelligentsia remained.

It is necessary to emphasize that Stalin’s analysis of the Soviet Union’s society at that time is the only one carried out on Marxist lines and its scientific conclusion is absolutely correct, that exploiting and antagonistic classes neither existed nor could exist since they had been deprived of the means of production: there are no that exploiting and antagonistic classes without the existence of capitalist property on the means of production. “With the term bourgeois class we mean the class of modern capitalists who own the means of social production and exploit wage labour. With the term proletariat we mean the class of modern wage labourers who sell their labour power in order to survive since they don’t possess no means of production at all” (Engels).

In the Soviet Union of that period, there were no antagonistic classes but remnants of exploiting classes and the new bourgeois elements that inevitably appear during the transition period from capitalism to communism. Of course, it is perfectly possible that the numerous remnants of the exploiting classes and the bourgeois elements (which are not classes according to the Marxist since they had lost their domination in the means of production) can form illegal organisations and wage their struggle against socialism-communism in a coordinated way and in increasingly acute forms.

It is therefore obvious that when the revisionist L. Martens attacks Stalin blaming him that he hasn’t formulated a “theory on how the classes persist” in socialism, in essence, he criticises him for applying the Marxist theory on liquidation of the exploiting classes in the course of socialist construction instead of the bourgeois theory on the “persistence of the classes” (in other words, of the exploiting classes)!

The class struggle during socialism. L. Martens falsely claims that Stalin didn’t formulate a theory explaining “how class struggle persist in a socialist society” when, as known to everybody, the theory maintaining the continuation of class struggle in socialism had already had already been enunciated by Lenin – “the dictatorship of the proletariat is period of class struggle which is inevitable as long the classes are not liquidated” – and it was defended and further developed by Stalin who stressed that “the progress we make, the more successes we achieve, the sharper forms of struggle these remnants (of the exploiting classes) will adopt, the more harm they are going to cause to the Soviet State, the more desperate methods of struggle they are going to employ, as the last resort of people doomed to disappear”.

Consequently, the further development of the theory maintaining the continuation of class struggle in socialism by Stalin lies in the thesis that the more socialist construction advances, the sharper the class struggle becomes, a thesis that was fully confirmed by the historical course of USSR when, following Stalin’s death, the dictatorship of the proletariat was overthrown.

When the opportunist L. Martens claims that Stalin “thought that the class struggle in the ideological sphere would continue for a long time”, he distorts his thesis even more: first because he restricts the class struggle only in the ideological sphere and second because he rejects the thesis of the sharpening of the class struggle with the advance of socialist construction.

But this is not sufficient for L. Martens since, as we saw, he makes the provocatively false claim that Stalin allegedly didn’t even have a theory on “how class struggle persist in a socialist society”, obviously implying that he allegedly deviated from Leninism, that is, he had abandoned the theory of class struggle already formulated by Lenin!

Another claim made by L. Martens is that “this struggle was not done to the extent that was necessary” and that “after 1945, the struggle against opportunism was restricted to the highest circles of the Party”, rendering, thus, Stalin responsible for the appearance of revisionism which is refuted by the activity of the Bolshevik Party during that period: first, during the war and afterwards, the Bolshevik Party headed by Stalin waged a continuous ideological-political struggle against the bourgeois-revisionist ideology and the various degenerate phenomena; there are the well-known party decisions and wide discussions held on questions of art-literature (1946), philosophy (1943 and 1947), political economy (1947-1952), music (1948), linguistics (1950) etc. Second, the revisionist counter-revolution didn’t prevail during Stalin’s lifetime but after his death. Stalin’s great historical contribution to the construction of socialism lies in the scientific analysis of the competitive and the non-competitive contradictions in the soviet socialist society and the successful and victorious waging of the class struggle against the internal and external enemies, preventing thus the restoration of capitalism.

We conclude with two brief observations: the one has to do with Martens’ claim that Stalin “was not able to formulate a theory about the struggle between the two lines in the Party” and the other with the claim that he “had not completely understood the dangers emanating from bureaucracy”. Regarding the first claim, we note that Stalin as a Marxist could have never formulated a revisionist theory “about the struggle between the two lines in the Party” which presupposes the existence of two factions in a party and, as a result, leads to the negation of the revolutionary party of a new type defended by Stalin. A revolutionary, communist party has only one line: the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist line and fights all revisionist, opportunist deviations. As for the second claim, there is nothing to be said except that it emits the unpleasant odour of Trotskyism.

The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As all the “anti-Khrushchevian” versions of contemporary revisionism, Ludo Martens doesn’t raise the issue of the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat after Stalin’s death and in combination with the 20th Congress of the CPSU – the first and absolutely necessary condition for the gradual restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. It is more than obvious of every Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist that the open, official domination of the Khrushchevian revisionist counter-revolution was preceded by the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement with a bourgeois-revisionist dictatorship. Domination of the Khrushchevian revisionist is tantamount to the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the ousting of the working class from power, the beginning of the capitalist restoration. The overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat was ratified by the 20th Congress and the counter-revolutionary, social-democratic line it adopted.

Question of the capitalist restoration. L.Martens, just like the “K”KE leadership, regards the period of Khrushchev-Brezhnev, the period of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, as a period of “socialist construction” and believes that the breach with socialism took place in the Gorbachev era. He writes that it is only the 28th Congress, on July 1990, that “clearly affirms a rupture with socialism and a return to capitalism”. At the end of his book, after having quoted an excerpt from the “History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the USSR” in which, among others, is mentioned that “it is from within that fortresses are more easily captured”, Martens makes the following comment: “thus Stalin had foreseen what would happen to the Soviet Union the day a Gorbachev or a Yeltsin entered the Politburo”. This comment is quite indicative and revealing because it confirms the fact that L. Martens is identified with “K”KE leadership on this important issue.

But the communists, the Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists, know very well that the fortress was captured from within not in the time of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who are anyway legal “heirs” of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, but almost 40 years earlier, after Stalin’s death, by the agents of international imperialism Khrushchev, Mikoyan, Brezhnev, Kuusinen, Suslov and others. Moreover, contrary to the claims of the Belgian revisionist “the breach with socialism” – first in the level of political power, and subsequently in other levels – didn’t take place in the 28th Congress (1990) but shortly after Stalin’s death and this breach was officially inaugurated in the 20th Congress which paved the way for the gradual liquidation of the socialist productive relations, through the introduction of capitalist reforms, and restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.

There is nothing paradoxical that the parties of Khruschevian revisionism – including “K”KE – have published and promoted the book of the Belgian revisionist L. Martens. Essentially, it expresses their own views on the questions of Stalin, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without abandoning any of these views, they found an opportunity to wear a “pro-stalin” mask. The “K”KE in particular, was unmistakeably carrying out its class mission – as it was when it funded the publication of D. Volgogonov’s anti-Stalinist abortion “Triumph and tragedy” in 1989 – assigned one of its chief ideologues, Eleni Bellou, to conclude the book review in “Rizospastis” with a lengthy presentation of the infamous “mistakes theory”.

Even within the current of contemporary revisionism – expressed in the “mistakes theory” – the views L. Martens are clinging to the right. This is shown by the criticism that these views received by a party that belongs to the same ideological current as L. Martens’ Workers’ Party of Belgium, namely the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD). Stefan Engel writes:

”To pose the question of power – dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat – is tantamount, for L. Martens, to the “scholastic restriction of reality. In this way, he rejects the ABC of Marxism. Lenin clearly emphasized that “there can be nothing intermediate between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any dream for something else is a petty bourgeois attitude. The vacillating character of the petty bourgeois thinking is typical for neorevisionism, When Gorbachev appeared in 1985, the petty bourgeois immediately promoted him. In total euphoria, L.Martens got attached to this current writing, in 1991, that “in this ideological confusion comrade Gorbachev emerged; he unleashed himself like a hurricane all over the hibernating country to steer up the dormant consciousness of the people” (Ludo Martens, “The USSR and the velvet counter-revolution”).

“The bedazzled L. Martens used this chance in order to introduce a new appraisal for the Soviet Union after 1956 and to revise the programmatic basis of the Workers’ Party of Belgium declaring that: ”New appraisal means also to take into account that the economic basis and the core of the political structure remained socialist despite the influence of the dominant revisionism. New appraisal means, finally, to take into account the possibility of a positive development, of a Marxist-Leninist rebirth”(ibid)

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, neorevisionists regarded Gorbachev as the main culprit. But Gorbachev didn’t bring the restoration of capitalism, as the Workers’ Party of Belgium argues. Rather, it is the restoration of capitalism itself that brought Gorbachev. He completed the capitalist restoration and took openly the side of the international social democracy. Neorevisionism covers up the fact that the restoration of capitalism started in Khrushchev’s time”.

“According to L. Martens: it is possible today to get over the divisions among the Marxist-Leninist parties, broken up in pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese, pro-Albanian and pro-Cuban factions and achieve their re-unification”. Such a conglomeration is doomed to fail” (Stefan Engel: Der Kampf um die Demkweise in der Arbeiterbewengung, Essen)

“Concerning the defeat of socialism, the contemporary revisionists reproduced the bourgeois propaganda: For Erich Honecker, it was “the greatest defeat of the worker’s movement in global scale”, for the former president of the German Communist Party Herbert Mis it was “the greatest defeat of socialism” and for the president of Workers’ Party of Belgium Ludo Martens it was “an important regression for the communist and progressive forces al over the world” (Stefan Engel: Der Kampf um die Demkweise in der Arbeiterbewengung, Essen).

In a speech in Wuppertall (May 9th, 2002) Stefan Engel underlines that: “A variety of multi-colored currents of revisionism exists all of which we have summed up under the term neo-revisionism.

Thus the leader of the Party of Labor of Belgium (PTB), Ludo Martens, in an adventurous explanation, says on the times subsequent to the Twentieth CPSU Party Congress:

This great strength of the socialist system could still be felt even when the party leadership chose the path of revisionism, that is, the path of the progressing renunciation of Marxism-Leninism. In 1975, the Soviet Union had reached the peak of its power …, but this power was already thoroughly undermined by the ideological and political currents which were soon to destroy it. Breshnevism is the continuation of a great strength inherited by Stalin and, simultaneously, an ideological and political degeneration which deepened progressively and which resulted in the complete destruction of socialism under Gorbachev. (“Leonid I. Brezhnev and the National-Democratic Revolution,” p. 1; our translation from the German)

What an absurd theory!

On the one hand, the CPSU party leadership is said to gave gone the path of revisionism since 1956. On the other hand, the Soviet Union, in spite of this, could remain a socialist country and even gain strength until 1975. This means: socialism can exist and take a positive development even on the basis of revisionism.

This is not a Marxist-Leninist analysis, this is saying farewell to Marxism-Leninism, Mr. Martens!”

Concluding, we want to underline once again that Ludo Martens is a neorevisionist, anti-Stalinist (“mistakes’ theory”) that has developed as a prima ballerina of the international Khruschevian revisionism and supports counter-revolutionary reactonary positions such as that “Parties who used to belong to different tendencies, who support the positions of Mao Zedong or Brezhnev, of Che Guevara or Enver Hoxha, can unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and the struggle against revisionism” (Speech of Ludo Martens in Leningrand Conference, 1997).

Movement for the Reorganisation of the
Communist Party of Greece (1918-55)

Benin Marxist-Leninists are not allowed to participate in elections

Flag of the Communist Party of Benin (PCB)

Thanks to Roach for translation.

In the cadre conference held on the January 22th, it was determined that the Communist Party of Benin would run in the countries elections and Professor Philippe Noudjenoume, the parties first secretary, was designated as its candidate candidate.

Those who attended the conference decided to immediatly handle those informations to the people of Benin through propaganda in the countries TV stations. To cover the expenses, a campaign was started and a comission was formed to fulfill our more nescessary goals, the network Golfe-TV accepted the request and aired the announcement of the running of Philippe Noudjenoume to the office of President in the same day on the 22th. Channel 3 also accepted air it, but thanks to the lack of proper techinical personnel, the annoucement was not aired until the 24th.

On the national network, ORTB, the public relations director, without no further explanation, rejected the annoucement (even though being paid) in which content is: Presidential Elections 2011: ”All power to the workers ! CPB presents its candidate Philippe Noudjenoume. Support his candidacy !”

What kind of problem the following paid ad can bring to those responsible for an national TV network, intented to public serve, problem enough to deny us our candidacy ? The CPB denounces this arbitrary act that, under the certain circunstances, can incite the actions of bandits conected to Boni Yayi.We cannot accept that, in the end of the day, ORTB spreads propaganda about the ”works” of Boni Yayi- in a clear violation of the lawn- and in contrast, rejects a paid announcement of CPB’s candidacy to the presidential elections.

We call all workers and democrats to take ORTB back to the people and to fight for its liberation and emancipation.

Down with Boni Yayi tyrannical power !

Communist Party of Benin

Source: PCR Brazil

Revisiting the Gaza Genocide by Israel

Crimes of Zionism & Imperialism in Gaza

by the communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)

June 1, 2010

The premeditated armed attack in international waters by Israeli Zionism materialized against the occupants of a humanitarian fleet is another heinous act of a State and a genocidal government, is another link in the chain of crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people.

Zionist hordes were joint military exercises with NATO in the days of the assault, so one can speak of the complicity of the Yankees, we know that according to military plans approved by Obama in late May among its objectives includes “preparing the ground” for future attacks on U.S. troops or their allies. That is, only changed the words but in fact is the “perpetual war” against peoples struggling for national liberation and social. Hence, the United Nations declarations do not pass the formalities, you know that Washington was appointed Israel gendarme of the Middle East.

The “Freedom Flotilla” are eight boats with 750 people on board, belonging to different nationalities and solidarity organizations, including the European Parliament. Internationalist solidarity plan set sail to break the unjust and illegal naval blockade of the military occupation of the Gaza Strip, ordered from Tel Aviv to pursue the Hamas movement, which remains under the legal Palestinian organization is deemed “terrorist” for failing to reconcile with the imperialist-Zionist plans to deny independent territory and the Palestinian people. They had ten thousand tons of food, medicine, surgical supplies, etc. To alleviate the suffering of about a million and half Palestinians under siege and humiliated by the boot invasion in late 2008.

The Israeli government claims “self defense from terrorism” clumsy and laughable arguments that challenge the so-called international community, which provides refuge to let injustices of the bourgeois governments of the world.

Now there are 10 dead, over 60 injured and 700 arrested but the Zionist military operation Cast Lead began in December 2008 with the slaughter of civilians in Gaza which caused 1,300 deaths, thousands injured, destruction of homes and basic infrastructure but had no more than rhetorical sanctions. On this pattern of impunity, the hawkish State of Israel has been building its physical expansion, and its occupation of Palestinian territory trampling international law.

Citing “safety” and the right to protect “of terrorism,” Israeli Zionism took over territory, destroying Palestinian houses and crops, burst water reservoirs, converted large areas into concentration camps to fully support the Zionist Jews Wall Street financial oligarchy that sponsored the candidacy of Obama. The history of crimes have the “justification” for the Americans and British unconditionally accompanying Israeli criminals.

In various cities and towns there are demonstrations against the pirate assault and slaughter of civilians. People unanimously condemning Israel while calling buddies research. Always the case when these barbarians make his usual mischief.

The real “international community” is formed by the peoples and nations that support the injustices of a capitalist-imperialist system incapable of guaranteeing the existence, food, education and health of the inhabitants of the globe. The Zionists have taken too much the feeling of solidarity of the people with the horrors of the Nazis against the Jews, that is used today to act like Hitler and Mussolini. Enough!

Long live the heroic people of Palestine! Long live international solidarity!
Down with Zionism and imperialism!
Fighting Unidos Venceremos!
Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)