By Hans Vogel

Now that the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force this week, it may be concluded that the social democrats have completed their handiwork by destroying the last remnants of European Civilization. The first blow was delivered by the governments that pulled their countries into a European Civil War in 1914. The “Great War” almost destroyed Europe. The second blow came from that other adulterated version of socialism, national socialism. By pretending to save Europe, the nazis delivered it another mortal blow, but still Europe recovered. The third and final blow to Europe was given by the social democrats. For the past decades, the social democrats have been betraying their voters while acting like vultures, raking in the crumbs from the collapsing welfare state. The state they had themselves been instrumental in building up.

Since the French Revolution, the core values of European Civilization have been individual and national freedom, equality and fraternity. One by one, all European nations eventually came to adhere to these values, that could be seen as a secularized condensation of the ten commandments. Needless to say, Europe’s elites mostly rejected these notions since they threatened their traditional political and economic supremacy. After its initial failures in 1848, Marxian socialism began to gain increasing numbers of adherents among the growing industrial masses of Europe. Some socialist leaders, however, were impatient and resented Marx’s postulate that socialists were to refrain from participation in regular politics. In 1875 one of these impatient men, Eduard Bernstein, succeeded in having the German socialists support the creation of a regular political party with the purpose of winning seats in parliament. This was the birth of revisionist socialism, and the social democratic party. But in fact, revisionism was an adulteration and like all adulterations, it only seemingly had a better taste to it. The real thing is always preferable. Who would not prefer butter over margarine, or a real charbroiled hamburger over one from McDonald’s?

Until 1945, the social democrats did not participate in governments long enough to make a real difference, apart from an occasional breakthrough such as Léon Blum’s introduction of paid holidays in France in 1936. The heyday of social democracy in Europe came after the end of World War II. In some countries, it was not the social democrats, but the christian democrats that became dominant (Italy), whereas in a few countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) christian democrats and social democrats jointly came to power and stayed there. Like the social democrats, the christian democrats were an adulteration, or rather, a mix of socialist and christian ideals and beliefs.

After the Red Army had defeated nazi Germany in 1945, the US maintained its military occupation of Western Europe. In order to secure the necessary political support for its occupation, the US turned to the social democrats in some countries and to the christian democrats in Italy. These parties were considered the best defense against communism. Until 1948, European communist parties enjoyed massive and growing popular support. Using every means at its disposal, ranging from threats and blackmail to the lavish funding of anti-communists, the US found the Western European social democrats and the Italian christian democrats to be its most loyal allies. From that moment on, these parties became the main conduit for US political influence. For decades, their leaders and promising new recruits were singled out for special treatment, receiving stipends and scholarships to spend time in the US, usually no more than a year. Anybody who stays in the US for more than a year begins to see the way the US political system really works and tends to develop a critical attitude. Once back in Europe, most young social democratic leaders became advocates of the so-called Atlantic partnership on the basis of values supposedly shared by the US and Europe. Thanks to the traditional social democratic preponderance in Western European media and universities, US influence became established very solidly, to the point that any profound criticism of the US and its policies were either impossible or else effectively silenced.

Europe’s social democrats made a serious error of judgment after the fall of the Berlin wall, the ensuing collapse of “real existing socialism” and of the Soviet Union: they scrapped any and all vestiges of socialism from their programs. Instead, they embraced the most reactionary kind of economic neoliberalism. However, they retained their socialist vocabulary and continued calling themselves “left wing,” “progressive” and above all “socialist.” In other words, they just pretended they were still socialist, whereas in actual fact they were just hard core reactionaries. This kind of political con artist is exemplified by Tony Blair, who has once again come under fire for unleashing a criminal war of conquest against Iraq.

During the past two decades, social democrats have joined Europe’s ruling elites on a truly massive scale. Disproportionately, they have been parachuted in the corridors of power, almost exclusively as unelected officials at all levels and all branches of government. In exchange for cash, dozens of these loyal social democrats were raised to the peerage by their crony Blair. Craving for recognition of their new status, anxious to line their pockets, and hurrying to shower benefits upon their offspring, the new caste of social democratic, parasitic office-holders has opened the gates widely towards mostly poor, muslim immigrants. They did so with the purpose of turning these underprivileged newcomers into a faithful electoral base to compensate for the loss of the traditional workers’ vote. At the same time the swelling ranks of the new muslim urban underclass could serve as an instrument to cower the impoverished remnants of the native working into submission. To this day, social democrats are still egging on rabid muslims to demand all sorts of special privileges. In all countries of Europe where social democrats have been introducing masses of muslim newcomers, basic democratic principles are under mounting pressure. The first victim, freedom of speech, will no doubt be followed by many others.

The socialists’ application of the adage of divide and rule, however, soon had pernicious, devastating effects on European societies as a whole. Today, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the muslim urban underclass will not be turned into a faithful voting public for the socialists. More and more they are seeing right through the social democratic scam and are in the process of organizing their own movements based on muslim fundamentalism.

As a matter of fact, the social democrats have first betrayed their own ideals, then their traditional voters and finally the muslim masses they brought in. This is hardly surprising, since the social democratic movement itself constitutes a betrayal to Marx’s original ideas. Once a traitor, always a traitor.

The collapse of social democracy also portends the end to an era in which the US exerted their rule over Europe through this group of traitors. If the US wants to extend their grip on Europe, as I suspect they would want to, they ought to start looking for a group to take the place of their trusted social democratic Quislings. They will need more luck in this pursuit than fate is willing to grant them. Fortunately.

In Russia, pensioners have long been respected for their role in the Soviet Union’s campaign during the second World War.

But the end of Communism also signalled the end of some of their benefits, and now many have fallen on hard times with some surviving on less than $6 a day.

Casey Kauffman reports.

The comprehensive Party Platform of the American Party of Labor represents one of the most fundamentally correct documents put forth by any contemporary progressive-left wing organization in the United States.

Party Platform of the American Party of Labor

Workers

1. We demand all means of production to be in the hands of the working class through the socialist state represented through worker councils or elected managers with production estimates provided by the state.
2. We support the right of all workers to organize.
3. We demand a 30-hour work week with at least six weeks of annual paid vacation.
4. We demand retirement pensions to be no less than 75% of a person’s pay at the time of retirement enacted after at least 15 years of work.
5. We demand the repealing of all laws designed to hurt and weaken the working class.
6. We demand the payment for the full value of labor for the working peoples of America.

Education and the Arts
1. We want libraries, museums and schools to be available as cultural centers for exhibiting the multicultural aspect of American culture.
2. We support art that reflects the struggles and achievements of the working people.
3. We strongly support free and quality education for all people which would include college, medical and graduate schools.
4. We believe in every child’s right to learn in a safe and clean environment.
5. We want fair and decent wages for teachers.
6. We are against private education and against corporate running of schools. We want education to be in the hands of the Community and the State.
7. We are against abstinence-only sex education and promote realistic sex education programs emphasizing protection.
8. We are adamantly against religion in schools which has manifested, but is not limited to religious schools, prayer in school, creationism, etc.

Health
1. We support a national healthcare system that will cover all Americans.
2. We support the emphasis of preventive care.
3. We support the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry.
4. We support government research of presently incurable diseases and oppose discrimination against people with those diseases.
5. We are adamantly against drug use in the Party and against the legalization of hardcore drugs. We promote the combating of drug addiction through use of proven medical treatments and preventive education.
6. We support the legalization of marijuana.
7. We support patient rights including the right to die with dignity and if a patient is incapacitated the decision should rest with his/her spouse or person designated beforehand to make the decision for the patient.

Housing
1. We support the right of all people to have quality and affordable housing.
2. We support low-rent for all homes not exceeding three days worth of pay per month.
3. We support future state funded construction of public apartment complexes as a means to support the growing population and to house those without homes.
4. We support state-funded broad renovation and remodeling projects for old homes and neighborhoods.
5. We believe it is a human right for people to live in neighborhoods that are safe, supportive and free of crime. Therefore we support the creation of fully funded Neighborhood Safety Committees with members coming exclusively from the neighborhood.

Civil Rights
1. We demand an end to all anti-homosexual, bisexual, and transgender discrimination in spheres of employment, education and society and we condemn acts of violence against them.
2. We support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Religious groups may or may not allow the practice but the State shall recognize and issue secular marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
3. We demand an end to police brutality and racial profiling.
4. We support Native American rights and call for full enforcement of all treaty rights and respect their right to secede and have a path to statehood if their needs are not met.
5. We promote the dismantling of walls erected both physically and socially that hinder people with disabilities to fully participate in socialist society.
6. We demand an end to discrimination, full employment and benefits for people with disabilities as well as quality education and job training programs.
7. We fully support the reproductive rights of women including access to free abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
8. We are against the intimidation of women and abortion clinics by reactionary “Pro-Life” Groups.
9. We support the prevention of violence against women and children and call on the State to actively protect women and children from battery and offenders.
10. We are against prostitution and the unjust exploitation of women as sex slaves.
11. We call for a minimum of 12 months paid leave for new mothers with access to fully funded and quality childcare centers.
12. We support the right of women to enlist in the military to defend their country.
13. We support the right of women to enter in any occupation without pressure to do or not to do so.
14. We demand equal pay for men and women for equal work.
15. We recognize that large immigration from Mexico is the effect of uncontrollable capitalism that forces millions of people to flee their homelands by the need to survive.
16. We support the rights of all immigrants to education, health, civil and legal rights.
17. We support amnesty for undocumented workers so long as they have no violent criminal records.
18. We are against police discrimination and raids against Hispanic citizens and immigrant communities.
19. We support access to citizenship after five years of residency with no criminal records.

The World
1. We demand a cancellation of all Third World Debt.
2. We support the right of all U.S. territories and Commonwealths to self-determination with the right to form an independent nation or to join the U.S. as a state with full representation.
3. We demand the abolition of all aggressive and imperialist wars and oppose all wars except the Class War.
4. We want an immediate American withdrawal from and expulsion of the United Nations from American soil.
5. We want an end to U.S. involvement in NATO and other imperialist alliances and demand an end to bullying and intimidating nations.
6. We call for an immediate cease of military and financial aid to the governments of Israel, Colombia, and other outposts of imperialism and capitalist oppression.
7. We demand an end to the U.S. occupation of Guantanamo, Cuba.
8. We demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
9. We support friendly relationships with nations with differing govt. systems so long as they are anti or non-imperialists.
10. We support mending our relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Syria for the sake of peace and prosperity.

The Economy
1. We oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and the future creation of more free trade agreements. We want an immediate American withdrawal from these agreements.
2. We want an immediate end of the exporting of American jobs overseas and demand full employment for the American people.
3. We demand that all financial institutions be commonly owned and directed by an American National Bank.
4. We want a maximum cap on wages with a ratio of 2:1.
5. We are opposed to payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and other regressive taxes.
6. We oppose all inheritance, and other things which are not earned through work.
7. We demand retraining programs, compensation and relocation for workers displaced by technological advances.
8. We want an end to American involvement in the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Agriculture
1. We demand the end to all corporate farms.
2. We support the establishment and encouragement of agricultural cooperatives and collectives.
3. We support state low-cost grants, loans and machinery assistance to farmers.
4. We support soil conserving farming techniques such as contour plowing, terracing, and no-till farming.
5. We support helping and encouraging farmers to produce staple foods rather than non-essentials.
6. We support the abolition of the current ‘factory farm’ style of production and the establishment of collective livestock farming.
7. We demand an end to current debts placed on farmers.
8. We support the cultivation of hemp for food, fuel, fiber and industrial uses.

Energy, Transportation, the Environment and Communications
1. We support the creation of a publicly-funded high-speed national rail system with low rates and access to all major U.S. cities.
2. We call for the nationalization and worker control of the automobile production industry.
3. We call for a reduction of private automobile production until a viable and clean alternative fuel is introduced on a massive scale.
4. We support the creation of light-rails and or subways funded by the state in every major city.
5. We demand common ownership of the airline and tourist industry.
6. We support the development of alternative forms of energy including solar, geothermal, nuclear power and hydropower.
7. We demand public ownership of all American natural resources and their conservation.
8. We support active recycling programs of paper, metal and plastic and their use in various construction projects.
9. We support low utility rates for working people with a total cost not exceeding 3 days worth of pay per month.
10. We are opposed to private ownership of newspapers, radio, magazines, television and the internet and oppose their hindrance of allowing the common people to show their opinions and viewpoints.
11. We are opposed to copyright laws.
12. We support public ownership of all internet bandwidth and support the providing of free internet access to the public at large and computers to school-aged children.
13. We demand that all communications that utilize public infrastructure and public maintenance such as the internet, phone service and cable television shall be provided free to the public and maintained by the State. The peoples’ right to communication should not be interfered with.
14. All communities that have supportive density and a population of 30,000 or more should have a public transit system, or be served by a nearby public transit system. Fares and service should be adequate, and riders should be involved in all matters of service.

Resources and Information on the American Party of Labor:

Website

The Red Phoenix, Organ of the APL

Wikipedia Article

h

Establishing political dialogue between the Party and the working class is inextricably linked to the victory of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing the foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The benefits of establishing close and direct relationships between the party and members of the working class manifest themselves in numerous ways; but it should be noted that the most important of these advantages is the building of a trusting relationship between the Party, its cadres and the working class, and fomenting this relationship to be strong and unbreakable in light of the efforts of the enemy classes to sow discord among the working peoples.

To that end, the duty of every communist party is to strengthen its relationship to the masses through agitation, political education and propaganda. Notwithstanding limitation of resources, every Party cadre should dedicate his time and commitment to becoming an excellent agitator and propagandist for the benefit of elevating the class-consciousness of all working peoples.

At the most basic level, strong development of direct agitation should be the responsibility of the Party to train cadres in effectively communicating and building direct, face-to-face relationships with workers on an individual basis. To do this, we’ll examine some aspects of successful direct agitation work that should serve as a model for directing agitation campaigns for any responsible Marxist-Leninist organization.

For starters, successful agitation must begin at the cellular level. Local cadres understand the issues relevant to the members of the working class in their respective towns, cities or regions. Depending on the extent to which the Party has cadres available, all efforts should focus on directing face-to-face agitation campaigns at the most basic local level possible, whether in specific neighborhoods, communities or municipalities. This provides the agitator with several advantages than what would be experienced by an “outsider.”

Secondly, successful agitators must ingratiate themselves in the environment of the workers themselves. Unlike ultra-leftist Trotskyites, genuine Marxist-Leninists don’t seek to “preach” from above at the workers, but instead, to communicate on a horizontal level among them. The disdain of so-called coffee-shop pseudo-intellectual Trotskyites for the common worker is testament to the anti-Marxist position of the leading ultra-leftist revisionists, whose actions demonstrate their disconnect from the concerns and plights of the working man. Therefore, successful agitation must be conducted at the level of the workers themselves, with co-workers, colleagues for whom the agitator and audience share a common interest.

Thirdly, each Party representative at the local level must assume the responsibility of accurately conveying the Party’s stance on given issues. The Party is the vanguard of the working class, and as such, it is the duty of all cadres to unequivocally promote particular areas of the Party platform on specific issues, while simultaneously selecting which issues are of most importance to the local members of the working class. This means that the agitator is the representative of the Party at the most local level, and is working to not only organize and ingratiate himself with the local workers, but also convey the attitudes, ideas and beliefs of Marxism-Leninism. The relationship between the central organs of the Party and the local cell and regional branches should be multilateral. In other words, the meta-messaging must be provided by the leading organs of the Party, and diffused and disseminated at the regional, local level in order to maintain consistency in messaging, while allowing adequate room for tailoring messages, as needed, for the local audience. Thus, the Party may find it beneficial to coordinate tasks at the central organizational level to take responsibility for Party and nationwide agitation-propaganda efforts, and create a unique and separate body responsible for managing these important tasks.

Fourthly, self-criticism in the work of direct agitation is fundamental, as it is elsewhere in the works of communists and Marxist-Leninists. Regular meetings to discuss the successes of particular campaigns should be evaluated at all levels: local, regional and national. Agitation campaigns that are ineffective in organizing the working class should be abandoned, and Party cadres should make all effort to keep the messages and communications of the agitator up to date, pertinent to the lives and thinking of the working class given his material conditions and consistent and reflective of the Party’s overall platform. Local functionaries of the Party should continue activities that promote the growth of building close ties between the Party and the working class, and discontinue those activities which are either inconsistent with the Party’s aims, or ineffective in mobilizing, organizing and raising the overall political consciousness of the proletariat.

The hype surrounding the film Katyn suggests that ‘we’ have been misled for years into thinking that it was not the Soviets but the German Nazis who committed the massacre of Polish officers at Katyn.

The opposite is the case. The most cursory examination of history books and the internet will prove that we have been told over and over again that it was the Soviets who committed this heinous crime – and in most cases the possibility that it could have been the Germans is not even mentioned.

The facts

The fact is that the bodies were shot by the Nazis and with German bullets. These bullets were still in the bodies when they were exhumed.

Goebbels, who masterminded the campaign to put the blame on the Soviets in order to cause trouble between the Soviet Union and Poland in a vain attempt to save the German fascist empire, wrote in his diary on 8 May 1943: “Unfortunately, German ammunition has been found in the graves at Katyn … It is essential that this incident remains top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.”

The German Nazis had killed the Polish officers in order to ensure permanent weakness in the Polish armed forces, which might otherwise have been able to resist them. According to Nazi propaganda, the Slavs, including the Poles, were an inferior race which had to give way to the needs of the Germans forLebensraum (the Nazi quest to expand eastwards to occupy new land and utilise the space and raw materials for Germany). All Slavs were expendable.

The historical context in which these events occurred arose out of the peace treaty that followed the first world war. After this war it was necessary to allocate disputed territories between various contending parties. To define Poland’s eastern frontier, recommendations made by Lord Curzon were accepted, but Poland laid claim to more territory than this, to areas largely inhabited by Byelorussians and Ukrainians (with very few Poles) to the east of what came to be known as the Curzon Line and which had been ceded to the Soviet Union.

Poland forcibly seized back this territory, and kept hold of it until 1939. The Soviet Union reoccupied it after the Nazis invaded Poland and the Polish government fled. Hundreds of Polish army officers who had resisted the Soviet advance were imprisoned at Katyn in the Ukraine, where they were given road-building and other such types of work.

Two years later, on 22 June 1941, Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union by surprise. The Red Army was forced hurriedly to retreat and the Ukraine was taken over by the Germans. During this hurried retreat, it was unfortunately not possible to evacuate to the Soviet interior the Polish prisoners of war, and they were left behind to be taken over by the Germans, who then massacred them.

Goebbels’ lies

The idea of blaming the massacre on the Russians did not arise until some two years later. This big lie was initiated by Goebbels in order to prevent Germany’s opponents from uniting. The Germans even purported to announce the names of the Soviet camp commandants who had been in charge of the massacre, attributing to most of them jewish names! All these names were fictitious.

Although there was plenty of evidence that it was the Germans who committed this atrocity, including the evidence of pathologists who examined the corpses and affirmed that the date of death had to have been during the time of the German occupation, this evidence has been suppressed, while Goebbels’ lies have subsequently been taken up by all powerful anti-communist forces, from the wealthy press barons, through Polish landlords, to Gorbachev, who has since admitted that he devoted his whole life to the surreptitious dismantling of communism.

All these haters of communism have joined together to put into effect the Goebbels maxim of repeating a big lie often enough because in this way people will believe it. These lies are disseminated through school and university textbooks, but, just in case this isn’t enough, now we are subjected to them in popular culture in the form of a film designed to play on emotions in order further to popularise fear and hatred of communism.

Why has this film appeared now?

It is surely no coincidence that we find ourselves at the start of what will probably be the worst recession the world has ever experienced to date.

This recession is caused by the fatal and irremediable flaw in the capitalist system, namely, that to maximise profits it is necessary to reduce the incomes of the vast majority of the people in the world. Relatively impoverished as they are, they cannot purchase the vast masses of goods and services that are today produced using less and less labour power.

But all capitalist wealth depends on being able to sell the products of capitalist industries. There is no shortage of people who want to buy, but a very dire shortage of people who can afford to buy.

Capitalism can never avoid its cyclical recessions because of this trap that it is helpless to do anything about. And the major recessions exact a terrible price in human terms – increased deaths from starvation, subhuman living conditions for the vast majority of humanity, more environmental degradation and, worst of all, the probability of a new world war.

The only way out of this vicious cycle is to deprive the multi-billionaires of their ownership of the means of production and to institute planned production aimed at directly satisfying the needs of the working people rather than allowing the economy to remain in the hands of multibillionaire capitalists who will only produce and distribute good if they can make a profit. This is the socialist system that the Soviet Union established, and which the lies about the Katyn massacre seek to discredit.

The severely increased misery and hardship that lies ahead for working people is bound to cause them to question the capitalist system of production and to realise that socialism is the only possible alternative. This is especially the case in the former socialist countries, where people are finding out the hard way how much better off they were under socialism.

The rich, powerful and influential of the capitalist world, however, stand to lose everything if the mass of working-class people are mobilised to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, because socialism deprives them of the wealth they have accumulated by exploiting the working class (ie, keeping for themselves a substantial part of what is produced through the labour of the working class).

The capitalist class will commit any crime to keep that wealth. To tell lies to avert the possibility that they will ever be required to hand it over is as nothing.

A film like Katyn, if it keeps or makes enough people anti-communist, or even if it neutralises them in the inevitable future struggle to put an end to capitalism and replace it with socialism, will have achieved its purpose of prolonging the agony of the vast majority of humanity so that capitalism can live to fight another day.

Katyn massacres – a Nazi, not a Soviet crime!

Translated Lyrics:

Praised be over the ages, my homeland,
The renewed hearth of heroes,
By the Great Party’s mind,
And Lenin’s wisdom you’ve been risen.

Your dreams came true,
For which you shed your blood,
A tireless hand of toiler
Has brought you to bloom.

Shining of the Great October’s banners
Has illuminated your ancient peaks,
Freedom, courage and doughtiness,
Have turned you into the sunny land.

In the fraternal family of peoples
You’ve reached singular heights,
With friendship and nation-wide strength,
You triumphed and triumph.

From time immemorial your
Mind, sword and courage were radiant.
Today Georgia’s serene future
Is forged by the generation of Lenin’s temper.

The sun of Communism is shining
Over you increasingly bright,
Praised be over the ages, my Motherland,
My native land!

First off, Marxism-Leninism doesn’t disregard, nor deny the existence of the ideal. As the author stated, the epistemological materialism characteristic of Marxism dictates that the realm of the ideal is dependent upon the material conditions for which any given individual, or collective of individuals, is subject. However, this is sharply in contrast to the assertion that “Marxism” exists “without ideals.”

Secondly, the expressed communication of ideals by the “extreme” left is not a contradiction to the materialist philosophy of Marxism-Leninism. Most importantly, this is a distinction between practice and theory.

On the theoretical level, Marxist philosophy abstains from the promulgation of ideals, principles or maxims. Clearly materialist in its composition, the works of Marx and Engels described a methodology for examining the way in which society is formulated on the basis of conflict, the struggle between social classes in which interests are diametrically opposed, and the realization that antagonisms eventually bring about revolutionary social change, as observed in both the social-political-economic history of mankind, as well as nature in general.

On the practical level – individual Marxist-Leninists may speak of generally accepted principles or ideals which may (or may not) be construed as ethical value judgments. For instance, many Marxists may condemn “exploitation” as morally indefensible, but this is little more than the practical expression of an individual (or group of individuals), and one that’s not going to be found in Marx or Engels’ works. Indeed, Marx took great care not to express his ideas in moral phraseology. Marx, Engels, Lenin and others certainly had their own given feelings towards capitalism, exploitation and morality in general, but this is not the basis for Marxism-Leninism.

Continuing on with the practical discussion, Marxist-Leninists are political actors involved in a contest with varying other parties and political entities all vying for some type of quantifiable end. That being said, in its organizational work, a Communist Party will employ slogans invoking the ideal for mass consumption. At the risk of sounding cynical, there is a very pragmatic rationale behind this. The fact that not every member of the working class or potential supporter is going to become an expert on Marxist dialectical materialism is simply a fact of reality; and likewise, any novice cadre with experience in propaganda work knows fully-well that you’ll attract more listeners to your message when it can aptly appeal to their own personal biases, prejudices and attitudes on any given particular subject. As such, this is inconsequential for Marxism-Leninism on a philosophical level.

Seeing, as I understand that living in the material world, I am the subject of forces I cannot control, pre-determined forces, I am certainly no libertarian, but that doesn’t mean I give up on all self-determination towards liberty, as small as I may be against the tide of economic determination. I have always been, therefore, a dualist of some sort, supporting both the individuals struggle for liberty, and the laws of determinism.

In regards to the author’s discussion of determinism, it should also be noted that Marx never explicitly wrote any text (that I’m aware of) on the issue of free-will vs. determinism, but we can make reasonable conclusion based on his analysis and existing works to estimate an approximate conclusion to the free-will question.

Marxism-Leninism is not fatalistic, but is deterministic. The very possibility of a free-will is dubious on grounds that the very notion of an “uncaused cause” cannot be proven, and can only be accepted on pure faith. This question was settled long before Marx, in the writings of David Hume who, despite every attempt by Immanuel Kant, still has the best counter-argument destroying the claims of the free-will.

However, Marxism-Leninism is equally against the vulgarized notion that every single manifestation of human behavior is pre-determined by social, economic forces (in other words an attempt to replace ‘fate’ with ‘material forces’ in order to justify some type of altered quasi-fatalistic worldview).

Do Marxist-Leninists realize, that although they might object to the Bourgois-liberal historian categorizing them as being no different than Fascists, that despite important differences, they do in fact, on a merely amateur level share much more in common with Nationalists, Fascists, Populists, Social-democrates, Trotskites, Left-Anarchists and the like?

Its only natural that the bourgeois-liberal historian may draw parallels between Marxist-Leninists and fascists, social-democrats, et al. It is immaterial and inconsequential, since the historian in question may be acting out of malice to draw negative conclusions about Marxism and its historical interpretation in various socialist states, or they may be legitimate. I for one don’t really care what the bourgeois-historian has to say, except for the task of countering hostile bourgeois propaganda.

Furthermore, why does it seem that the “Correct line” is so difficult for Orthodox Marxist-Leninists to uphold? Why is is, that even the successor of Enver Hoxha, the icon and symbol of anti-revisionism, Ramiz Alia, restored capitalism in Albania?

The restoration of capitalism in the People’s Republic of Albania was a bit more complicated than this. For starters, its foolish to attribute such grossly disproportionate roles to single individuals such as Ramiz Alia. True, Alia was pressured into relinquishing the Albanian Party of Labor’s dominant role in society, but this is also consistent with the material conditions necessitating changes as the entirety of the existing geo-political situation was undergoing dramatic changes. Likewise, as Comrade Winter noted in his response to MIM’s revisionist stance on Hoxha, the restoration of capitalism didn’t happen overnight, and in such a metaphysical sense as simply on the executive order of the First Secretary of the PPSH.

There’s no “cut and dry” response to why the “orthodox” (as you call it) line is generally difficult to uphold. It probably cannot be answered in such universal terms, but instead would depend on lengthy discussions evaluating individual historical cases. That being said, some typical developments which can certainly lead to the revisionist road are an overwhelming bureaucracy and failure to stress the importance of combating revisionist tendencies within leading organizations, neglecting efforts to properly monitor the Party’s leading role in developing and installing proper education in the youth and tightly monitoring how new cadres are brought into the leading organs are just a few.

Another area that has plagued some socialist states in the past is when leading Party and state apparatuses see themselves as fulfilling a purely administrative, rather than revolutionary, role. Stalin cautioned against this, when he emphasized the importance of keeping state and Party inextricably linked with the masses of the working class. In many ways, Stalin foresaw and warned the party against the future of revisionist tendencies, but unfortunately the vigilance and efforts to purge these were neglected in the post-Stalin era.

Similarly, historians have also appealed to Stalin’s “pervasive paranoia,” which they say led him to believe in a falsified document prepared by Nazi Germany’s counter-intelligence services which implicated Tukhachevsky as a collaborator with Wehmract officers and senior commanders in a plot to overthrow the Soviet Government.

Needless to say, the rumors, myths and outright lies regarding the 1937 case against Tukhachevsky are ubiquitous throughout Western-bourgeois historical accounts of the USSR and historical-biographies of Stalin. But, given the fact of the rise of fascism in Italy and Spain, ultra-militaristic imperialism in Japan and Hitler’s brand of national socialism and military mobilization in Germany (on top of the already existing and pervasive threat of capitalist encirclement), the case against Tukhachevsky is easily understood to be grounded in national defense interests in light of an inevitable clash.*

Despite his obvious talents, Tukhachevsky did indeed represent a questionable threat to the national security interests of the Soviet Union. This much was hinted at by none other than the disgraced traitor Lieb Davidovich “Trotsky,” who hinted as much in Revolution Betrayed that within the Red Army he still enjoyed support. And, in 1937 in Oslo, Norway, the disgraced Trotsky said in an interview that “Not everyone in the Red Amy is dedicated to Stalin. They still remember me.”

Tukhachevsky’s connection to Trotsky dated back to their time during the Civil War, and the latter’s role as People’s Commissar of the Army and Navy and his position on the Revolutionary Military Council. Similarly, Trotsky was also connected to Tukhachevsky through his policy of employing “bourgeois specialists,” (i.e. former commanding officers and high-ranking generals) from the Tsarist Army – Tukhachevsky was a 2^nd Lieutenant and decorated officers in World War I.

Likewise, further evidence is provided by the traitor Aleksandr Orlov, the senior NKVD operative who defected to the United States in 1938. In 1956, three years after the death of Iosef Stalin, Orlov wrote a piece for LIFE magazine in which he disclosed that several leading officers of the NKVD and Red Army had planned a violent coup d’etat against Stalin and his closest comrades-in-arms and establishing a Bonapartist military dictatorship.

While much of this may be circumstantial, it nonetheless shows that, given the chaotic nature of the contemporary geopolitical climate in which these events took place, the Politburo and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union indeed has reason to be suspicious of an attempt by leading commanders and high-ranking officers of the Red Army to overthrow the Soviet government.

*Throughout the 1930s and into the 1940s Stalin and the Politburo repeatedly argued that the purges and demand for industrialization were a preclude to an inevitable confrontation with Fascism and reaction, in addition to the worldwide contradiction that could erupt in all-out confrontation between the Soviet Union and capitalist countries.

Note: This is biased and unfair, but nonetheless I thought this was noteworthy in light of the fact that there isn’t much video footage of Nikolai Ezhov available online. Below is the English translation.

Automatic translation from Russian into English:
151 centimetre. Near to other members of the Central Committee, too not high, Yezhov simply seems the child. Jury Zhukov, the doctor of historical sciences: “It was, first of all, the dwarf if to speak seriously. This growth created an inferiority complex. 1 metre of 51 centimetre – is the pygmy literally words. Here, pygmies of equatorial Africa, pygmies on Amazon – such growth. And Yezhov in every possible way aspired to seize upon such power to dominate over those who above it: on growth, on knowledge, on mind.” “The bloody dwarf” – so it have nicknamed in the people. In the Soviet newspapers of that time it – the knight without fear and reproach. Here they, those “echinoid mittens” – smother counter-revolutionaries. About it wrote: “In a sparkling of a lightning you became familiar to us, Yezhov, with sharp-sighted eyes and the clever people’s commissar.” But, it in verses. In a life at “with sharp-sighted eyes and the clever people’s commissar” – one class of formation and work as a journeyman at the tailor. Across the Kremlin hearings about its drunkenness and numerous novels with women and men went. Nikolay Petrov, the historian, the author of the book “Stalin pupil – Nikolay Yezhov”:” Yezhov, really, was nonconventional orientation, but it was the bisexual. It had a wife, it had numerous novels with women. Even, in these novels, it too was primitive, too was uninteresting. It was drunkenness, it was sex, but in it there was no something romantic it was the grey boring person in every respect. Not only semiliterate and uneducated. It was the primitive person, sickly physically and is moral not developed person.”For Nikolay Yezhov’s first roles Stalin has deduced. In 1936 it appoints its people’s commissar of internal affairs, in 1937 appropriates a rank of the General commissioner of the state security, equal at that time to the marshal of Soviet Union. In a result – Yezhov receives the huge power. But, Stalin knew, it can charge to Yezhov the dirtiest work, and that will execute it, without doubting seconds. At first there was an indicative political show with exposure and liquidation of the main things аппонентов Stalin, so-called “Trotsky and Buharin’s group”. Later, total clearing has been put on the conveyor and Yezhov as anybody, approached for a role of the cleaner: near, has no command and it is completely operated.

Jury Zhukov, the doctor of historical sciences: “Has been solved, Berry to remove, make its people’s commissar, that is, the Minister of Communications, and instead of it to plant, like, the dark, semiliterate little fool, say, Yezhov. He listened spellbound. If to it spoke to dig one hole, it dug ten holes, just in case. Both Stalin and Stalin group believed that it simply will appear the executor of their will.” Stalin was not mistaken in the bloody dwarf, its sense of duty knew no limit. In the Kremlin joked: it is easy to Yezhov to order, but it is impossible to stop then. “It is valid, if to it allowed a command to search for enemies of the people, it found them everywhere. Nikolay Petrov, the historian, the author of the book” Stalin pupil – Nikolay Yezhov “:” I saw Yezhov Stalin’s some notes where the espionage organisations among collectors of marks were described, collectors of the butterflies studying esperanto, too after all, in not clear language talk and it is not known with whom correspond, among deaf-mutes, certainly because they among themselves all the same as – that communicate, and it is absolutely impossible to understand, as as they speak each other that is as they hand over the information each other, and whether they against are incited the Soviet system.”

The curious fact: Yezhov very well sang. In due time even dreamt of a scene, but to it have directly told – is short, any partner will be above you on a head so sing as – that… That it also did – since then in the companies with pleasure sang Russian national. Speak, especially cordially at Yezhov “the Black raven” turned out. During board cars named the population “The Blacks ravens” have taken away 1,5 million person. 700 000 of them have been subjected to death by firing squad. The Soviet repressive machinery did not know such scales neither to, nor after. Later, all it will be written off on Yezhov. To the people declare: “Stalin knew nothing about an arbitrariness of the people’s commissar, and when has learnt – has condemned”.Но historians are convinced, to death by firing squad Stalin confirmed all lists personally. Dig Medvedev, the historian, the publicist:” In 1937 Yezhov visited Stalin almost daily and sometimes Yezhov’s these visits, one Yezhov, to Stalin proceeded for 3 4 hours, that is Yezhov brought the list, any inquiries additional and Stalin solved, whom to leave whom to delete.”But, pressure of terror affected and the executioner. In the last years of life Yezhov deeply drank. It often could not find on a workplace. In 1938 people’s commissar did not leave hard drinking by days. Nikita Khruschev recollected: Yezhov has absolutely lost by then human shape. It so saws, as was not similar to itself(himself). He understood that Stalin uses it, as a bludgeon for destruction of shots and filled in the conscience with vodka”. However, there is also other estimation. Yezhov did not consider itself a bludgeon, that it the executioner. It was pleasant to it, when it named “our small Marat”, it was pleasant, what exactly it cleans party and the country from counter-revolutionaries. However, when all dirty work has been made, “small Marat” is not become necessary.

Nikolay Petrov, the historian, the author of the book “Stalin pupil – Nikolay Yezhov”:” Yezhov in any sense began to weigh Stalin. It not only the witness of those crimes and that lawlessness and which has been made, it still the person who should not live and which actually should be a lightning rod. That is, all should think that Yezhov in something is guilty that he has made something not that it was charged by Stalin and Stalin has shot it for it. So to Stalin it was more convenient.”Yezhov’s Elimination went under the debugged scheme: round it there are new assistants to which passes more and more powers. The first deputy becomes Berija, they companions, Yezhov names Berija – Lavrentie, that Yezhov – Kolia. When in November 1938 Yezhov has left from a post of the head of People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs, it was replaced with Berija, in 1939 it and took” documents Kolia “under the personal control. Him have arrested in April 1939 го. Charge the then traditional – to Yezhov have shown that it worked on English, Polish, German and Japanese investigations, prepared armed revolt and act of terrorism against Stalin. Also, on a consequence have recollected nonconventional orientation of the people’s commissar. Yezhov – the unique party head of such level to whom have officially brought accusation under 154 article, “Homosexuality.” On the closed court Yezhov swore fidelity of party and personally to Stalin. He has declared: “I have cleaned 14 000 security officers, but huge my fault that I have a little cleaned them.” It have shot on February, 4th 1940 го, next day after court. Speak, when it conducted on execution, he sang “Internatsional”, and its last words were: “Long live Stalin!” To the people neither about Nikolay Yezhov’s arrest, nor on its execution have informed nothing. His name has simply disappeared from newspapers. About it have ceased to speak, as if never and there was no this person. Joseph Stalin has started to write new page of the Soviet history, from a blank leaf, preliminary having cleaned the cleaner. (Irina Zubareva, Evgenie Poltev, Vladimir Sidorenkov, the analytical program “Postscript”)

From Red Phoneix

(online blog forthe American Party of Labor)

By Comrade Marcus Winter

Imperialist powers such as the United States, the UK, Russia and China have been eager to “condemn” the recent underground test of a nuclear device by the DPRK (North Korea). President Obama was quick to announce on TV that the DPRK was “a grave threat to the peace and security of the world,” while USA Today labeled it “an erratic, potentially dangerous regime.” The United Nations and France have already called for more imperialist sanctions against the legitimate and sovereign Korean nation. The capitalist governments of the world, led by the US, are trying to sanction and isolate the DPRK and to portray it as a “rogue regime” because it stands up to their colonial ambitions and demands independence.
While their President goes on TV and complains about the DPRK standing up to threats of invasion, the United States seems to have no problem with Israel’s huge stocks of nuclear and biological weapons, nor with their genocidal massacre against the people of the Gaza strip earlier this year, which killed over 1,400 and wounded over 5,000 Palestinians. It is the utmost hypocrisy for the United States and its cronies in the NATO bloc to criticize the DPRK for “aggressive” actions when currently a million people lie died from their wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their air strikes in Pakistan. Likewise, it is utterly ridiculous for the US imperialists to demand that the DPRK stop “disrupting peace” when it is the larger capitalist countries which are intensifying the calls for invasion and war against the nations of the world.
To date, the United States remains the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare. It is worth noting also that the United States posses enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over, and has massive stockpiles of smallpox, plague, mustard and nerve gas and other biological weapons. The use of napalm and chemical weapons in both the Vietnam and Korean Wars, both of which killed over three million people each, is also widespread and well-known. The United States government has no right to act as the ruler and emperor of the world, and has no right to dictate who has the right to nuclear technology and who doesn’t. The DPRK has the right to its own self-determination and access to modern technology without the interference of foreign powers.

Lies Concerning the DPRK
The American media has always endeavored to portray the DPRK as a “nightmare” or a “hell-on-earth,” a “dictatorship” which is ruled by an “insane kook” of a ruler. There is also non-stop talk of famine and foot shortages in the DPRK, which is never corroborated by facts. The DPRK has kept itself independent and self-reliant since being allied with the USSR. It currently has a planned economy, and provides its people with food, clothing and housing, free medical service and preventive care as well as free education up through college. Despite the fairy tales about its “prison camps,” the DPRK imprisons far smaller percentage of its population than the US, and then rarely for political reasons. In addition, charges of “poverty” are mostly superpower chauvinism, since the DPRK has a far better economy than other capitalist post-colonial nations such as Jamaica or Haiti. It is also important to realize the small country is not more than 50 years old, and does not have a history of slavery or genocide, nor has it invaded and occupied other nations.
The capitalist media, which parrots the ruling class, insists on talking endlessly about the “famine” in the DPRK and of the suffering of the people, when there has not been a famine in over a decade, and the original one occurred due to the massive destruction of the Korean peninsula during the Korean War, in which over 115,000 air raids were conducted and 600,000 tons of bombs were dropped. This lead not only to the destruction of most of the buildings and infrastructure, but also the trees and vegetation, causing flooding and agriculture failure. The DPRK is still dealing with these problems, and has mostly solved them. The 1954–56 three-year plan repaired much of the massive damage caused by the war and brought industrial production back to pre-war levels. By the 1960s North Korea was the second most industrialized nation in East Asia, trailing only Japan. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) would be in far worse shape than the DPRK today if it hadn’t received billions of dollars of aid from capitalist powers over the past few decades, which has lead the country’s economic success to be upheld as the myth of “capitalism’s superiority.” In reality, before economic aid was sent, the two states were running evenly, with the DPRK even surpassing the ROK at times.

The American Party of Labor maintains that Juche is a revisionist ideology that is devoid of the teachings of scientific socialism. As such, the DPRK was never a socialist society. For a more detailed look at Juche, read the polemic here:

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/letter-of-criticism-to-the-rural-peoples-party/

Nevertheless, the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea is a progressive and anti-imperialist force in the world. The American Party of Labor fully upholds the Korean peoples’ right to self-determination and its right to have access to nuclear technology.

Free Media Productions has continuously and consistently upheld a line of support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This much is apparent in our official Editorial policy in regards to Iran; but some readers have accused us of “revisionism,” and others have even gone so far as to accuse FMP of “crypto-fascism.”

However, these uninformed and misguided individuals, only pretending to analyze the current situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran through a scientific Marxist-Leninist lens,  fail to understand the very fundamental foundation of Marxist-Leninist thought. As Marxist-Leninists, we approach each and every situation with a view to understanding and applying the methodology of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin – not merely an abstract application of their conclusions.

To our assortment of critics and slanderers, this isn’t good enough. While we at FMP strive to assess the situation based on the application of the science of dialectics to the material conditions as they exist, they think profess a view rife with two particularly dangerous tendencies that have proliferated throughout so-called Western “Marxist” circles: ultra-left dogmatism and right-opportunist deviationism.

The ultra-leftists say that Iran needs a “proletarian revolution” against the Islamic government. According to these people, regardless of the current situation, no support ought to be given to any ruling government that is not explicitly Communist in its orientation or character. Likewise, the ultra-left camp condemns FMP for its principled stance in support for the anti-imperialist tendencies of President Mahmoud AHmadinejad.

As for the right-deviationists, they claim that Iran is ruled by an ultra-reactionary caste of mullahs whose theocratic-fascism must be opposed. From this it logically follows, according to the right-deviationists, that the petite-bourgeois reformist camp in the Islamic Republic of Iran – led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, deserves support for its liberal platform against the ruling Islamic Revolutionary government. The right-deviationists, operating under the mask of Marxism, claim that real progress can be made in Iran only through a more liberal, reformist policy alignment directed by the petite-bourgeoisie.

Free Media Productions wholeheartedly rejects both these claims as two-sides of the same coin of revisionist, unscientific and un-Marxist thinking. Instead, we endorse the view that the major contradictions facing the Iranian nation comes not from within its own society, but from outside, hostile foreign powers who seek to undermine Iran’s sovereignty and exploit its resources. International capital has a vested interest in reverting Iran back to its neo-colonial status under the Shah – and several Western foreign intelligence agencies have gone to task to subvert the regime to those very ends.

That much being said, Free Media Productions shows unwavering and unquestionable support for the Islamic Revolutionary government of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for their sincere ability and willingness to protect and defend the interests, independence and sovereignty of the Iranian nation. Furthermore, we believe that socialism can only be built when it is the expressed view of the majority of the working class. In the Islamic Republic of Iran the working masses have shown their support not for an insurrectionary revolutionary movement against the Islamic government, but instead voiced majority support for the recently re-elected President Ahmadinejad.

Finally, given Iran’s need to defend its interests against US and Zionist imperialism, the current material conditions (as they exist now) dictate that an internal revolutionary insurrection would only destabilize and threaten the overall security of the Iranian people. Such adventurism would be easily exploited by Iran’s enemies who eagerly wait on the edge of their seats for such a situation to arise.

Therefore, on these grounds, Free Media Productions will continue to show its support for the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran and the President of the Iranian people, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

May 28 – The so-called “Communist” Party USA (©PUSA) published an article today in its Political Affairs magazine denouncing the recent underground nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

In a shameful display of the ©PUSA’s unquestionable subservience to the ruling class, the author(s) of the piece (presumably speaking on behalf of the Party as a whole), borrowed rhetoric straight from the pages of liberal petty-bourgeois pacifism in an embarrassing display of American chauvinism, opportunism and revisionism.  Rather than recognizing the DPRK’s fundamental need to develop defensive nuclear capabilities as the only means of preventing a full-scale assault by hostile foreign enemies, the ©PUSA claims it condemns all development of nuclear weapons programs:

We are resolutely opposed to the use or development of any nuclear weapons by any nation.

This is a categorically foolish position to take, considering that the hostile imperialist camp will unlikely be deterred by anything short of a country’s possession of nuclear warheads. Likewise, the fact that two of the most aggressive terrorist states in existence (the US and its proxy Zionist-Israel) possess more nuclear weapons than they could ever use  only further justifies the intentions and ambitions of the DPRK.

It’s been widely known for years that the ©PUSA has been run by an elite leadership of aging revisionists, notably Sam Webb – who couldn’t’ even properly defend socialism when he was a guest on the Glenn Beck talk show. Being the opportunists that they are, the ©PUSA ineptly tried to mask its blatant revisionism with a contrived admission to the DPRK’s struggles with US imperialism, both past and present. Nonetheless, this insincere gesture is fundamentally meaningless when a self-described communist party becomes the mouthpiece of the Whitehouse.

But if there was ever any doubt as to whose line the ©PUSA towed, take a look at this excerpt:

Further, the results of the tests are in direct contradiction to the stated aims of battling imperialism. The general direction of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is at odds with that of any administration in the past 30 years, if not longer. While Obama has to navigate the political realities of the US, his administration has sought to reduce the nuclear threat, as well as the threat that the US poses to other, oppressed nations. Consequently, powerful sections of the U.S. ruling class have made their aim to derail the Obama administration altogether.

There’s no end to the errors committed in this one paragraph. Firstly, the ©PUSA would like us to believe that the Obama administration is progressive in its foreign policy, and should be supported against the “ultra-right” ruling class. These premises aren’t even un-Marxist, they’re borderline retarded and meant for consumption by the politically naïve who are innately attracted to the platform of the ©PUSA. Such statements of endorsement and flattery for the Obama administration is demonstrative of why nobody takes the ©PUSA seriously.

J.V. Stalin

by Ziad Shaker elJishi

3/15/2005

We have witnessed the US imperialist aggression on Iraq, its
occupation, and its attempts at creating a new Iraqi “nation”.

We have also witnessed the recent conspiracy waged against the anti-
Zionist resistance in Lebanon targeting Syria in the process and
fomenting conflict between the Lebanese and Syrian masses.

We have seen the active role of Zionism in all this; a Zionism that
works hard with US imperialism to increase fragmentation of the Arab
nation and to increase by virtue of this both the US and Zionist
aspirations of a “New Middle East” further dominated by a world
created and sustained by imperialist and Zionist oppression and
exploitation.

All throughout this we have contested the Zionist claims of a
national homeland in Palestine and of Jewishness being a religion or
lack of and that it is not a nationality.

Darfur Sudan and the Berber issue in Algeria all have shown the dirty
role of the US imperialist-Zionist alliance in further throwing the
Arab countries into a spiral of never ending separatist violence,
ethnic tensions, and internal conflicts.

All with the purpose of spreading division and increasing conflict in
favor of imperialist-Zionist domination.

A revisit to Stalin’s book Marxism and the National Question sheds
illuminating light on these important contemporary topics of interest
to us today.

What is a Nation?

We have heard of how US imperialism is trying to push forward its own
definition of what the Iraqi nation should be.

In one instance we hear of calls for federalism between the Kurds,
Shiites, and Sunni minorities, in other instances, we hear the US
imperialists and their Iraqi comprador agents speak of splitting Iraq
according to sectarian lines based on religion, this or that sect, or
along ethnic lines.

It thus becomes easy for the US imperialists and Zionists to weaken
through division and foment of inner bickering to control Iraq and
the region as a whole to steal its natural resources, dominate it
politically and militarily and turn it a stooge for US imperialist
plans in the area and for mostly the protection of “Israel”.

So what constitutes a nation? And how do we answer the question of
minorities in the Arab nation? Onto analyzing the national question
itself?

Stalin defines a nation as one in which certain factors must be
present.

These factors are contrary to the chauvinist and racist definitions
of what a nation is (as in those based on the backward ideas of race
and tribalistic blood lines) Stalin offers the Marxist definition of
a nation:

A nation is a stable community of people historically constituted
through a lengthy course of systematic intercourse. This community of
people shares a common language, a common territory, a common
economic life, and a common psychological makeup manifested in a
common culture.

So here are the necessary components of what constitutes a nation; a
dynamic definition that is comprehensive yet capable of allowing
change as in the fall and rise of nations away from fascist
tribalistic definitions that define race based nations.

This leads us to the important criteria for nationhood: language,
common territory, a common psychological makeup, a common economic
life, and history.

This is what constitutes a nation unlike what constitutes a tribe,
one based on a historical category not an ethnographic category as
Stalin explains.

A Jewish Nation?

It follows from this definition that the “Jews” are not a nation.

Because they do not posses a common language, nor ever had
territorial integrity (until the occupation of Palestine for a
portion of them), and thus did not share a common economic life nor
were historically existent for a prolonged period of time.

Jewishness is a religious identification and lacks the factors that
makeup a nation.

The Jews speak many languages from the countries they are part of as
well as the Yiddish and Hebrew. They are scattered all over the world
and belong to the territories they live in.

Stalin stresses the importance of having all factors present for a
nation to be called a nation:

“It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics is by
itself sufficient to define a nation. On the other hand, it is
sufficient for one of these characteristics to be absent and the
nation ceases to be a nation–it is only when all these
characteristics are present that we have a nation”.

As to the “Jews” Stalin criticizes the position held by a famous
Austrian Social Democrat by the name of O. Bauer that calls for the
Jews being a nation:

“Bauer speaks of Jews as a nation, yet they have no common language; but what “common destiny” and national cohesion is there, for instance, between the Georgian, Daghestanian, Russian and American Jews, who are completely separated from each other, inhabit different territories, and speak different languages”.

It becomes clear from this then why the Zionists wanted a territory
to encompass the nation they wanted to create and that they later
chose Palestine for.

This Stalin exposes indirectly when he shows what Bauer was saying on
the Jews lacking a common territory:

“In general capitalist society makes it impossible for them (the
Jews) to continue as a nation,” by causing them to assimilate with
other nations. The reason, it appears, is that “the Jews have no
closed territory of settlement” Stalin concludes.

So here are the early indications of the objectives of the Zionist
movement in securing a territory to encompass Jews of the world and
create a nation for them.

It is also important to note here how in the example of Bauer, the
Austrian Social Democrat, we see the early influences of the Zionists
in the Social Democratic movement in the West, its sabotage of the
Marxist movement, which would bring it to an end that supports later
Zionist claims in Palestine at the expense of the Arab nation.

If we apply the factors highlighted above to the case of the Arab
nation we see that the Arab nation on the other-hand satisfies the
definition provided by Stalin for a nation.

A nation that is under current attack and is in the process of
fragmentation from the creation of the state of “Israel”, to Iraq, to
Sudan, to the US’ constant attempts at creating minority, religious,
and ethnic conflicts amongst its people.

On the National Movement

Stalin concludes in his chapter “On the National Movement” that it is
capitalism that gives rise to nations.

“A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical
category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising
capitalism”.

He later continues:

“The fate of the national movement, which is essentially a bourgeois
movement, is naturally bound up with the fate of the bourgeoisie. The
final collapse of the national movement is possible only with the
collapse of the bourgeoisie. Only under the reign of Socialism can
peace be fully established”.

Yet Marxism as well as the Social Democratic movement in Russia
upheld the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination.

Stalin says:

“Social-Democracy in all countries therefore proclaims the right of
nations to self-determination.

The right of Nations to self-determination means that only the nation
itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the
right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its
schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to
repress its language or curtail its rights”.

Of course this applies strongly to the cases of Palestine and Iraq
and in general to the Arab nation fending off threats of liquidation
by Zionism and US imperialism.

The Jewish Bund

Early Jewish/Zionist infiltration of the Social-Democratic movement
came in the form of the chauvinist and exclusive Jewish Bund. A group
aimed at organizing Jewish workers while preserving a distinct Jewish
identity that encouraged separatism in the Marxist movement.

Stalin dedicates a chapter in his book to its exposition and it is
suffice to describe his position on the Bund in the following
quotation:

“Disorganization of the labor movement, demoralization of the social-
democratic ranks, that is whither the federalism of the Bund is
leading”.

The Solution

Stalin emphasizes that to answer the nationalist problem complete
democratization of the nation must take place. What that means is
providing the following essential components:

1.Calling for and achieving regional unity in the areas where regional unity can be achieved

2.Preserving the right to self-determination

3.National equality (for minorities that means drafting laws that
protect their own language, having their own schools, practicing
their own religion, having access to free mobility across the nation,
etc?)

4. All this while working for internationalism and defeating
tendencies for separation and sectarianism.

In Closing

Unfortunately Stalin himself would later succumb to Zionist pressure
and in 1948 would recognize the Zionist state of “Israel’s” right to
exist. Some say due to Zionist infiltrations some say due to Cold War
calculations whatever the case it was a serious departure form his
ideas in Marxism and the National Question.

His ideas written in 1913 however still hold as correct especially on
the topics of what is a nation, the national movement in general,
Jewish nationhood, the issues of minority rights, and the right of
nations to self-determination and it these ideas that we uphold and
apply today to the circumstances of the Arab nation and wished to
revisit and focus on in this article and not to offer a position on
Stalin which we know was incorrect in 1948.

So what we say in conclusion as applies to the Arab issues at hand;
that we must work to encourage Syrian-Lebanese regional unity. We
must stress the right of the Arab nation for unification and the
right to self-determination away from foreign intervention.

We must seek the liberation of Palestine by standing on the side of
the resistance movement and to resist the class collaboration with
the Palestinian comprador that the US imperialists are trying to
impose on the Arab/Palestinian masses.

We must refute the claims of a Jewish nationhood and return Palestine
to the ranks of the Arab nation where it opens the path for
unification of the Arab people and defeat of the New Middle East
imperialist-Zionist program.

We must preserve the unity of Iraq and its return to the Arab
nationalist-socialist path, to call for its liberation and in support
of its resistance movement.

We must work on exposing and combating the tendencies to encourage internal bickering and ethnic fights by allowing minority rights to be respected yet not conceding to secession, or calls for cultural- autonomy, or any form of federalism which ultimately defeats
internationalism by encouraging separatism.

Again we reiterate the need for Socialism for lasting peace and true
worker unity and against class collaboration on the nationalist issue
as far as the end goal is concerned and that is the goal of constructing socialism.

Even now 85 years after his death, the legacy of V.I. Lenin lives on, not only as the father of Marxism-Leninism; but also as an impeccable statesman and politician who helped build the foundation of the world’s first proletarian state and successfully guided it through some of its darkest times.

Lenin’s contributions thus cannot be restricted to the mere realm of Marxist thought. Rather, they provide an even greater lesson and model in the possibilities of establishing socialism in pursuit of the final victory of communism. Lenin the theoretician, while undeniably one of the most important thinkers of all time, pales in comparison to Lenin the helmsman of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

V.I. Lenin, to his contemporaries, was more than just the leader of the Bolshevik Party. He was the defender of the Revolution against reactionary, revisionist and opportunistic forces. Lenin, while politically a pragmatist at times, also understood the importance of maintaining iron discipline in the face of challenges both within and without the Party. Under Lenin’s leadership, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established and later reached its full potential under the leadership of his close associate and comrade in arms, Josef Stalin. Lenin not only formulated the theoretical contributions of Marxism in the age of imperialism; but also lent the intellectual foundations for what would later become the anti-Revisionist movement within Marxism-Leninism.

And for this reason, millions of people across the globe travel to Moscow every year to honor the legacy of Vladimir Lenin. And millions more, in the years to come, will once again take the words of Lenin and transform them into action, thus paving the way for their own victory of socialism.

For more information read the FMP News coverage of the leaked report.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was largely successful during the tumultuous struggle to end the explicit oppression of African-Americans because he was an acceptable icon and figure that the bourgeoisie had little to contend with. His ideas for peaceful transition and passive resistance relaxed fears of the ruling elites that armed, revolutionary struggle for national liberation would ensue. His anti-communist rhetoric was another fixture that made him an amicable figure for the White bourgeoisie.

MLK’s idealism puts him in the category of other emerging movements sympathetic to the ideals of bourgeois liberalism. The expression of bourgeois liberalism against more reactionary elements of the ruling classes was a natural phenomenon that precipitated the success of a sycophantic and bourgeois Civil Rights movement over more radical and determined revolutionary struggles.

It is precisely his acceptance amongst the liberal elements of the bourgeoisie that propelled Martin Luther King, Jr. into heroic stature. Why does the US not hail the work of revolutionaries such as Harry Haywood, who staunchly expressed the need for class-struggle as intertwined with the liberation of Africa-Americans, or Fred Hampton, who also saw the struggle against the oppression of African-Americans as inextricably linked with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism?

The type of movement embodied by Martin Luther King, Jr. failed to take into account the material conditions that defined African-Americans as a nation within a nation, something owed to Harry Haywood and Josef Stalin. Haywood developed the theory of a separate “Black Belt Nation” within the United States employing Stalin’s definition of a nation.

In contrast, Martin Luther King, Jr. ignored the material conditions facing African-Americans and gave no credence to dialectical materialism as the source of his understanding of how the movement for the liberation of African-Americans should proceed.

And what have been the resulted? The racial codes and explicitly oppressive regimes in the South have been replaced by liberal attitudes of racial coexistence between Whites and Blacks. This ultimately spelled the overall inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream economic system, i.e. wage-labor. But this development concurs with the natural development that capitalism operates more efficiently when not restricted by external forces.

This was the basis for the defeat and inevitable destruction of slavery in the South. Contrary to the American Civil War mythos – while some held slavery with the utmost moral contempt – the ruling elite and representatives of expanding industry saw it as an economically unfeasible and prohibitive system. Capitalism, as a far more advanced form of economy over slavery, was victorious precisely because of its inherently more efficient capacity for productions and distribution.

The inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream economic realm would necessarily result in more liberal tolerance in the political, social and cultural infrastructure. Racist legislation and prohibitions are cumbersome and prohibitive. They are inconsistent with the advancement of wide profit margins. The liberal bourgeoisie, bequeathed with enough foresight to recognize this, understood that de jure racial chauvinism manifested themselves in wholly negative forms in the economic sphere. As a result, African-Americans have slowly gained more mainstream acceptance into the broader American political, cultural and social realms.

The inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream American society was not the result of Martin Luther King, Jr. It was a development that would have occurred regardless. Whatever contributions MLK made to this advancement were only possible because the material conditions at the time allowed for it. That is why Martin Luther King, Jr., as an agent of the bourgeoisie, was widely accepted by the general public.

The biggest mistake most people make when analyzing political, social, cultural and economic developments is a tendency to trust idealism over materialism. Only materialism can adequately explain how society tends to move forwards – and does not depend on idealism or ideology, which is in fact dependent on the physical, material reality of our world.

The ideas of MLK were accepted because they were representative of the dominant force in American society – the liberal bourgeoisie. The cultural idealism of the “Great Society” was evident of the growing prosperity and power of the petty-bourgeoisie, who later would become one of the most powerful elements in imperialist countries like the United States. The petty-bourgeoisie in the US understood its alliance with the ruling bourgeoisie and acted accordingly, to the expense of exploited workers, both White and Black.

The information has spread all across the globe, in Western Europe, Malaysia, South Africa and even the United States.

McDonald’s spokesperson, Linda Ming, issued the following statement in response to the claim that McDonald’s was donating any profits to Zionist-Israeli military forces:

This is not something we have done, or would do. Please be assured that in countries where McDonald’s operates, McDonald’s is locally-run, serves local customers, employs local people, supports local charities and pays local taxes.

But many are not convinced. The allegations have caused many organizations to call for boycotts of the aforementioned companies, and causing many business owners to refuse to sell the products of corporations that might be financially supporting Zionist-Israeli aggression in Gaza.

Former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, even called on workers at Starbucks and McDonald’s in Malaysia to quit their jobs.

Capitalism has reached the pivotal point in its historic existence. As with all social systems that have existed, when the relations to the means of production no longer correspond or relate to the development of the productive forces, then the system begins to crumble from the inside out. When this happens, society cannot help but succumb to the material conditions dictating the natural progression that undermines the old, and sweeps in the new.

In conjunction with the distorted relations between exploiters and exploited, capitalism yields yet further contradictions that destabilize its foundation. The necessity for growth, to undermine competition and the formation of monopolies is always at hand; so too is the contradiction between the proclivity towards wider profit margins and the global exportation of capital to the super-exploited Third World.

It is impossible to try and explain away the mess of capitalism in such simplistic terms as that which dominates the discourse regarding the latest economic calamity. One event does not exist in isolation from all its precedents, and one cannot ignore the conflict within every system when society is composed of organized mass groupings with diametrically opposed interests. When you transform this into a global relation – it’s not fatalism, but only natural that such relations cannot sustain themselves forever.

The lumpenproletariat was defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as “the refuse of all classes,” and as a particularly counter-revolutionary force with no real motive for participating in any revolutionary struggles.

The fight against degeneration is as important to Marxism-Leninism as the promulgation of theory, practical work towards the liberation of the working-classes and ultimately the defeat of the bourgeoisie and its social-structure.

The struggle against gangsterism and other routes towards degeneration requires adherence to discipline, to recognition of one’s collective interests in the class-struggle and opposition to the hedonistic pursuit of self-interests. Gangsterism emerges amidst the most overtly oppressed peoples – even in imperialist nations dominated lacking any revolutionary force. Capitalism destroys hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and in the wake of staggering defeat, the “remnants” of society are left with desperation to gain some form of sustenance in order to live.

Thus, the struggle against gangsterism is a struggle against the degeneration of the remnants of working people into a counter-revolutionary, self-destructive entity.

Gangsterism is enabled by social liberalism that promotes the unquestionable value of the individual over the collective. The praise of the individual and the satisfaction of not only his needs, but also his most base wants, is the unremarkable climax of years of bourgeois propaganda emphasizing self-worship.

So what makes gangsterism incompatible with socialism and the liberation of the working classes?

First, it distracts the working class from attaining political objectives by averting their time, energy and resources into a lifestyle diametrically opposed to revolutionary progress. Joining street gangs, peddling drugs, fighting and dying for gang territory are objectively destructive to the working class and only secure the political and economic strength of the bourgeoisie.

Secondly, it promotes harmful behavior amongst the most oppressed people within society. There is no objective benefit to the use of narcotics and their promotion amongst working peoples should be wholeheartedly condemned. Abstaining from narcotics trafficking, dealing and recreational use is objectively beneficial to working people. However, this is not an endorsement of the bourgeois “war against drugs,” which is inherently anti-working class. The true enemy are the elements of the bourgeoisie that make harmful substances available to working people all over the globe, including organized crime syndicates, drug cartels, Wall Street and imperialist governments.

Thirdly, the use of narcotics is in and of itself selfish. Justifying one’s recreational use of drugs to escape the harsh realities of bourgeois society is not an acceptable excuse. Such attitudes reek with exceptionalism and self-interest. The working class can and only will achieve true liberation from the yolk of global capitalism if it is sober enough to do so.

While Marxism-Leninism is materialistic and scientific – that doesn’t mean its morally nihilistic in terms of individual and collective moral values. The morality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from a consequentialist understanding of what promotes the victory of socialism over global capitalism. This particularly applies to the international proletariat currently engaged in struggles for national liberation, self-determination and socialism.

]]> http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/01/06/struggle-against-gangsterism-and-degeneracy/feed/ 6 http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/01/05/fmp-videos-solidarity-with-hamas/ http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/01/05/fmp-videos-solidarity-with-hamas/#comments Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:57:10 +0000 Iron Bolshevik http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/?p=334 Free Media Productions video entitled “Solidarity with Hamas.” Uploaded to FMPVideoZone youtube channel on 1/4/2008.

The original question posed was:

Ok this question is to do with socialism and not communism. How do we ensure fully balanced media under socialism? Obviously at the moment media groups who are owned by people such as Murdoch etc pump out pro-capitalist propaganda and will print anything in order to sell papers. But with a state-owned paper you have the government controlling what information you receive. I can’t quite figure out the answer.

I haven’t posted at Soviet-Empire in years – but occasionally browse the site from time to time. Nonetheless, I found the discussion between Beso and users “Fallenraptor” and “Whitten” of particular interest, considering the media-oriented nature of our site and the Marxist-Leninist line.

…the major instruments and means of mass-communication will and must belong solely to state, and the message, information and content must be guided by the state/Party apparatus. This enables all major forms of mass-media (print, broadcast and online) to serve as important instruments in the cultural enlightenment of the people, political control of the population and provide the public with varying sources of information.

….there is no such thing as an “unbiased” media. It’s non-existent – nor would it be desirable. Every outlet or publication has editorial guidelines (that go well-beyond defining ‘house’ style and fact-checking policies). Rather than unrealistically trying to create a totally objective media; a socialist state should have no choice but exploit the power that comes with total control over the instruments and means of communications technology.

“Wheelchairmaniacal” said:

n a future socialist society, I can’t imagine it would be particularly popular in the west to make all media state-owned. One would hope that socialist governments would however bring the documentary formats back to state-channels like BBC or DR-TV in Denmark.

But I don’t understand the obsession with getting rid of freedom of expression. With the bourgeoisie gone (or well out of power), wouldn’t that mean for the first time you could ‘truly’ have freedom of expression? A freedom of expression in the best interests of society?

Besoshvili:

I didn’t say all media would be state owned – I said the means and instruments of mass-communication. Obviously, with technology, it wouldn’t be feasible or effective to try and control all forms of media. However, state ownership of communications is a basic necessity of socialism. To allow private ownership would not only be a contradiction – it would be ridiculously wasteful to simply discard such opportunity to reach the masses and consolidate a substantial power base.

Allowing trade & labour organizations to print, publish and write their own content would obviously be permissible – but even that has to have some restriction/limitation. Clearly we wouldn’t want another “Solidarity” movement to arise – hence the need for some degree of oversight from Party/State/Security organization(s).

As to the rejection of a completely objective media (as it relates to even the existence) – there are also numerous individuals (also highly educated) who reject the possibility that even basic information can be disseminated objectively. Jacques Ellul wrote that the belief that basic information dissemination can be objective is the biggest fallacy that has made modern day propaganda (whether state or private) so effective. Most people take for granted the way in which messages or information are conveyed. The language, the format, the chronological order, the medium, public bias, cultural norms, inherent prejudice, political climate, changes in material conditions all influence the way in which information is delivered and received by an individual.

The most effective propaganda is often times the most objective in content. Simply changing the structure of a message can have a great impact on how an individual (much less the masses) understand the message. Even changes as trivial as replacing articles, “a” with “the” in a sentence has proven to influence people’s minds to a great extent, and can reaffirm confidence in something that may or may not have happened.

Everything, from what I’m writing here to the messages you get on your TV or Radio, have an influence and attempt to frame your mindset in one way or another. Hence, the effort that would be required to even work towards establishing a *truly* objective form of information/news media would be a waste of time, and even more important, politically and economically inexpedient.

Not to mention – on a practical level the advantages of consolidating the means and instruments of mass communication far outweigh whatever disadvantages might arise. To weaken the dictatorship of the proletariat, in favor of pluralism and liberalism , would be a disservice to the Party and the working class.

“Whitten” said:

WCM is correct. In a stable socialist state media should be mostly uncensored. Free from private ownership information and opinion can be truly independent. This freedom is a pre-requisite of real public development in (socialist) understanding. The enlightenment of the masses cannot be attained by enforcing a regime of selective ignorance.

I would advocate the state/party disseminating crudely selective information that risks credibility. Lenin said on the subject that it was important to be as truthful as possible, and that transparency is not only important as a means of being open and honest with the masses, but also necessary to preserve credibility. After all – propaganda necessarily has to be subtle. If people assume you’re lying, assume you’re trying to influence them, then they simply shut you off or are now selectively biased against what you have to say. Thus, the ideal isn’t to keep the masses selectively ignorant; but rather, consolidate their support, raising them to a higher level of consciousness and framing them for a particular end/objective: communism.

You can’t raise someone’s level of consciousness by filtering their information supply. State ownership isn’t the only form of public ownership. Organisations can be publicly owned yet still completly independent.

Under socialism, the state is at the hands of the Party, which is inextricably linked with the masses of the proletariat. As such, it is the master of the revolutionary theory that guides and instructs the masses and puts them on the path of the victory of socialism, and finally, communism. The problem with independent (yet public) organizations also having a stake in such processes are the opportunity to deviate, distort or outright oppose the direction of socialism. Too great a risk. The sole purpose of the state is entirely entrenched in means, not ends. Thus, Marxist-Leninists should use the state accordingly. Not to sound the alarm for a slippery slope – but pluralism is as dangerous as outright counter-revolution.

The proletariat cannot censor themselves, that’s a logical absurdity. Only with unlimited access to information can they know for themselves what to accept and what to reject and only through this process can people develop true socialist consciousness.

I never said anything to the contrary; in fact, I specifically stated that state-run/Party-run media should be transparent and open.

Nor did I say that state/party organs should completely dominate the media – but rather the major instruments and means of mass-communication. This would mean media companies responsible for the publication of Tier 1 Media Outlets in print and broadcast need to be expropriated by the state. The Tribune Company, CBS, NBC, et al. would cease to exist as privately run corporations with private capital – and in turn would become public property vis-a-vis state ownership.

Again, lying to the masses is politically disadvantageous – nothing is more detrimental than losing your audience on the basis of lack of credibility. But, what does matter and what can be controlled is context, framing and spinning information to promote and reflect values in concert with the construction of socialism.

If the end objective is to increase the general consciousness of the masses – then it’s well known that it’s going to take work and will not be achieved over night. Furthermore, just because the masses are proletarian doesn’t make them communist. Putting the masses on the path to socialism and then communism can be supplemented by other means – in addition to the natural elevation of consciousness resulting from revolutionary changes in their relations to the means of production and material conditions.

Last month the People’s Weekly World (the newspaper of the revisionist ©PUSA) reported the celebration amongst the party’s top leadership, including Chairman Sam Webb and Vice Executive Chairman Jervis Tyner, for the election of the imperialist Barack Obama. This doesn’t make them unique, as most liberals were (at least temporarily) overjoyed by the Obama victory.

However, most liberals don’t refer to themselves as MARXIST-LENINISTS or refer to their organization as the COMMUNIST Party of the U.S.A.

The revisionist ©PUSA no longer follows the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism. In fact, it can barely call itself socialist. If you look at their updated platform – The Road to Socialism USA:

“The Communist Party aims for a peaceful transition to socialism, based on all forms of mass democratic expression and social action, electoral and non-electoral, to win and maintain working people’s power.”

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin all believed that history has shown that the struggle between the classes in bourgeois society cannot end in a peaceful transformation; but rather, transformation by its very constitution (from capitalism to socialism) will require the use of force – to smash the bourgeois state machine and usher in a new era of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Instead the revisionist leadership of the ©PUSA maintain an “exceptionalist” line to the question of evolutionary vs. revolutionary socialism, a byproduct of the labor aristocratic and first-world chauvinism espoused by pseudo-Marxists, particularly in the United States. It holds that, by virtue of their development, socialists can abandon the necessity of armed struggle and pursue a peaceful transition from capitalism and socialism.

Such an analysis is full of rotten liberalism to the core – and throws dialectical and historical materialism – the scientific basis for Marxism-Leninism, completely out the door.

There ©PUSA might as well do itself a favor and simply merge with the “progressive” caucus of the Democratic Party (not that anybody would even notice); but they have no business parading themselves as Marxist-Leninists or communists when they abandoned such an outlook a very long time ago.