Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought: Part Three

Greetings,

My apologies for not posting in awhile. Maintaining an online presence through this blog has been difficult in the past several months due to circumstances that has been taking place. Maybe in the future this will be rectified, but I make no promises.

Anyways, I have returned to the issue of the Chinese Revolution, Mao Tse-Tung Thought in the context of Contemporary Marxist-Leninist Thought. As part of my research into the issue of Mao Tse-Tung Thought, I have read Enver Hoxha’s highly recommended book Imperialism and the Revolution, as it presents the issue of Maoism in the historical context of fighting against revisionism of all hues, particularly Krushchovite and Titoite revisionism. Even before reading Hoxha’s Imperialism and the Revolution, I had set out to collect as much material on the subject as I could find, especially sources from 1976-1979. In essence, I found myself examining the issues that were confronting the Communist Marxist-Leninist Movement at a critical time soon following Mao’s death and the events in China, in which the Chinese Social-Imperialists and Revisionists usurped political power in China. One of the other sources I am currently reading, is the response and comments of the RCP, USA to Hoxha’s book, entitled “Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought” by J.Werner. Another source I am currently reading is Bob Avakian’s speech Conquer The World? The International Proletariat Must and Will. I am particulalry looking at the RCP’s publications on these questions because I want to familiarize myself with their arguments and counter-points.

As such, Enver Hoxha’s main focus in Imperialism and The Revolution, is to explain the context of the then present period in which the International Communist Marxist-Leninist Movement found itself among the contradictions of imperialism and the social-imperialists. The section in which Hoxha actually addresses Mao Tsetung is a small section, compared to the others, but within this context of fighting revisionism as part and parcel to waging the class struggle.

I’ve only just started to read the Werner article and Werner hardly addresses the context of which Hoxha is talking about, in fact he dismisses it out of hand as distortions, which he won’t address. Instead, he focuses on Hoxha’s third section entitled “Mao Tsetung Thought - An Anti-Marxist Theory”.

In any case, Hoxha and Werner both bring up the year 1935 and the individual Wang Ming. In fact when Hoxha brings up Wang Ming, it is only to quote Mao Tsetung in criticizing Stalin. So the question that comes to the fore is what was taking place in 1935? In China? In the Soviet Union? What was the international situation? Secondly what was the issue that was being dealt with? Who was Wang Ming and what was his role? No doubt, I know it from Werner’s, and the RCP’s, and even Mao Tsetung’s point of view, but neither do they sufficiently answer the question. Because I’ve not heard of Wang Ming, nor do i know what the issue was regarding this critical time period of the Chinese Revolution in 1935, nor any information of the stand of the Comintern, I will be researching more into these questions.

After doing some research on Wang Ming, I have found that the online journal Revolutionary Democracy carries some excellent articles regarding the Chinese Revolution, the Comintern and Georgi Dimitroff. Also among some sources I will be investigating are the reports that were submitted and published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International, during this time period. I am still in pursuit of some sources, but it has been very interesting exploring and investigating the events taking place. As a result of the 1979 arguments, I now find myself examining events and questions that were taking place leading up to 1935 and beyond.

So far this is the direction I am going, and will provide other thoughts and insight to these questions in a later post - hopefully.

Yours,
S R

* * * *

Resources:
Imperialism and The Revolution, Enver Hoxha, 1979

Revolutionary Democracy, Georgi Dimitrov and the Chinese Revolution
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv2n2/dimitrov.htm

Revolutionary Democracy,Georgi Dimitrov and the United National Front in China 1936-1944
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/dimitrov.htm

Speech on the Chinese Question by Georgi Dimitrov
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1937/china1.htm

CONQUER THE WORLD? The International Proletariat Must and Will by Bob Avakian
http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/conquerworld/

The Communist, Number 5, Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought, by J. Werner, RCP Publications, 1979

Lesson from the Great October Socialist Revolution

My apologies this isn’t much of a post coming from me. Since I am away from the computer, I thought this was important to share. Bear in mind, although the article is from the standpoint of Indian context and conditions (of which I remain very ignorant of, but still learning about), it speaks volumes for the Communists abroad and in other countries on the necessity of their role and tasks in taking up organizing work for the fraternal unity of nations and peoples in their respective countries.

This article is from the Communist Ghadar Party of India.

Fraternally yours,

Joshua

* * * * *

Lesson from the Great October Socialist Revolution:
The Working Class must prepare to become the Ruling Class in order to ensure peace, prosperity and progress!

Ninety years ago, the workers and peasants of Russia became the masters of their country by carrying out a revolution which became known throughout the world as the Great October Socialist Revolution. This world historic act heralded sweeping changes in Russia and the whole world.

The imperialist powers of the world – US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and others – were at that time embroiled in the First World War for the redivision of the world. The treacherous leaders of workers in different imperialist countries justified the imperialist war. They asked the workers to line up behind the bourgeoisie of their own countries, against the workers of other lands. The working class and the people of the imperialist countries and their colonies were made to pay with their blood for this war.

With the slogan “bread, land and peace”, Russia’s workers and peasants overthrew the Tsar, the rule of the capitalists and landowners, and established their own rule. The Bolshevik Party led by Lenin gave the call “war against war”. It led the workers, peasants and soldiers in converting the imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war ending with the victorious socialist revolution. The Russia ruled by workers and peasants withdrew from the imperialist war.

Capitalists and imperialists worldwide spewed venom at Russia’s workers and at the communists who organized and guided them in the struggle. They hurled all their forces to try to defeat the revolution and overthrow socialism. The workers and oppressed of the whole world applauded the victory of the workers and peasants of Russia. They intensified the struggle against “their own bourgeoisie” for the victory of the revolution in their own countries, and supported this same struggle all over the world.

The workers and peasants rule in Russia began to reorient the economy from the old one geared to fattening the pockets of capitalists and imperialists, to the new one geared to fulfilling the needs of the producers of wealth, the workers and peasants. The colonies groaning in the prison house called Russia were granted full freedom and a voluntary union of consenting nations and peoples was created, called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). All the constituent nations and peoples of the USSR enjoyed the full right to self-determination.

Within a relatively short time the Soviet Union took giant strides in all fields of social endeavor. The incomparable superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist system was brought forth in stark relief before the whole world.

Poverty, unemployment, ill health, and illiteracy were eradicated in a very short period of time. The workers and peasants’ state ensured the emancipation of women, by enabling them to work and participate as equals with men in political and social life. The Soviet Union became the first country in the world that granted women the right to vote. Maternity leave was made a right – again for the first time in the world.

The State took on the responsibility of bringing up children, including providing them education, as well as care for the aged and the infirm. Free education and health care were provided to all. All the languages of the peoples were encouraged to be developed.

The Soviet Union became a beacon of peace, progress, prosperity, and enlightenment, for people the world over. The 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union remains todate the most advanced constitution world over in terms of affirming human, democratic and national rights.

The strength and superiority of socialism, of the rule of workers and peasants, was revealed before the people of the whole world during the Second World War. When Hitler’s hordes invaded the Soviet Union, the people united as one to resist and eventually defeat this onslaught. Despite suffering the greatest human and material losses of the War, the Soviet Union made a decisive contribution to the liberation of Europe, and the world, from Nazi fascism.

The world’s first socialist state is no more. Sixteen years ago, the open rule of capital was formally reestablished in Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union. The capitalists and imperialists of the whole world rejoiced at the downfall of socialism in the Soviet Union. Today, Russia is an imperialist country, where workers and peasants are savagely exploited, and unemployment, prostitution, drugs and other evils of capitalism are flourishing.

We communists have been studying why and how capitalism returned to the Soviet Union and other countries. We must ensure that when the working class comes to power in India, we remember each and every one of the lessons learnt from this study of the successes and subsequent downfall of the Soviet Union. The class struggle must continue, and mechanisms put in place to ensure that political power remains in the hands of workers and peasants.

The degeneration of socialism in the Soviet Union began in the fifties of the twentieth century, with Nikita Khrushchev coming to the head of the Bolshevik Party after the death of JV Stalin. Khrushchev refused to address a number of problems in the fields of political theory, philosophy and political economy, which emerged at that time. Instead he supervised the transformation of the socialist Soviet Union into a social imperialist country – a country that was socialist in words, but capitalist and imperialist in deeds.

It attacked Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and contended and colluded with the US for world domination. The Soviet Union, increasingly, was no longer the source of inspiration it had once been to the workers and oppressed of the world. The economy was reoriented towards militarization and achieving global imperialist aims of a new emerging bourgeoisie. Within the Soviet Union, Great Russian chauvinism was encouraged and national oppression of various nations and peoples was restored.

All this was carried out in the name of communism and the working class, which was systematically marginalized from the political system and process. The militarized and crisis-ridden economy could not satisfy the needs of the populace. At the same time, the new bourgeoisie which had emerged over the years was impatient to get rid of the shell of socialism which was hampering its growth. In these conditions, the bourgeoisie rode on the discontent of the working masses to dismantle this shell, and restore capitalism.

Ever since the victory of the workers of Russia 90 years ago, the principal aim of capitalists and imperialists around the world has been to destroy socialism and to prevent the triumph of proletarian revolutions. With the destruction of socialism in the Soviet Union and some other countries, world imperialism regained the initiative. Revolution went into retreat.

However, the fundamental contradiction of the epoch remains between capitalism, the old system, and socialism the new. The contradictions between capital and labour, between imperialism and the peoples, as well as the inter-imperialist contradictions are all sharpening.

The workers and oppressed peoples and nations of the world are waging fierce struggles against globalization, liberalization and privatization, against imperialism, fascism and imperialist war. It is a matter of time before the tide of revolution changes from ebb into flow. Communists must prepare the conditions so that when the tide turns in the favour of revolution, the working class comes to power.

In the period since the end of the Cold War, the question of democratic renewal has come to the fore in India as well as in other capitalist countries. It has become clear that the system of rule in a majority of countries including India, the parliamentary system of representative democracy, keeps the working class and broad masses of people out of power. The working class and people are showing everywhere that they are not satisfied with a political system that marginalizes them.

Replacing this representative democracy by direct democracy, in tune with the conditions of India is the challenge facing the workers and peasants of India. Blocking this transition are the bourgeoisie and imperialism, as well as political parties that represent their interests. Building the alternative, direct democracy, is the task that communists and workers and peasants of India have taken up. This struggle for democratic renewal, for replacing representative democracy with direct democracy, is the form in which the contradiction between capitalism and socialism is being played out at this time.

As we mark the 90th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the challenge facing India’s working class and communists is clear. The rule of the bourgeoisie needs to be replaced by the rule of workers and peasants. Only then will India march on the road of peace, prosperity and progress for her people! The struggle for democratic renewal — the struggle of the working class led by the Communist party to replace representative democracy with direct democracy — is opening the way to the establishment of the rule of workers and peasants on Indian soil.

http://www.cgpi.org/pages/latest/0710030-Great_October_Socialist%20Revolution.aspx

. . .

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted. Lately things have been busy in my life, certain changes taking place. I am curently working on a literary visual project which is important to me. I am also in a new relationship with a most amazing woman!  Blogging has taken a backseat for now. However with that said, the situation in the U.S. is getting much grimmer for U.S. imperialism and monopoly capitalism. 

More recently, there has been quite alot of movement for the Louisiana Jena Six, (six African Americans who stood up against segregation and racism in their school and community and who are being targeted by the state and government for their resistance), and the movement to Return and to Rebuild New Orleans, in which the International Tribunal on Katrina and Rita shows the failure of the US state in actually providing assistance to the people of New Orleans and exposes the criminal activities of the US state and government against the people. For more information on this please visit www.usmlo.org:

Justice After Katrina
http://usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-09/VR070919.htm#oa

Katrina “Shoot to Kill” Orders Gave Green Light for Jena
http://usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-09/VR070921.htm#1

Katrina, Jena, Iraq Show Necessity
http://usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-09/VR070930.htm#01

In addition to this, is the ongoing activities of the U.S. imperialists to militarize the society. Part of this is the role of the police, of which the NYPD, is trying to establish as a standard for all police throughout the country. Here is the report and analysis of this:

NYPD Report on “Homegrown Terrorism”

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-09/VR070925.htm#03

The NYPD report in .pdf format:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/files/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf

Another part of the militarization of society is the military excercises of NORTHCOM [Northern Command] and NORAD known as Vigilant Shield 2008. Here is the article: http://www.usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-09/VR070925.htm#02

* * * * *

In the world of art, I am currently impressed by the work of Matthew Woodson, whose work can be found here: www.ghostco.org His illustrations are awesome!

Also check this little vid out:

The Question of Building a Political Party in the United States

The issue of building a Marxist-Leninist Party in the United States is a critical and important one. Defending principles and upholding principles is a vital matter of state and the issue of the Party is crucial to this end. The question of what kind of society do we want is very much related to what kind of Party are we to have?  Furthermore it points to what organization is needed to uphold and defend rights and principles and why present organization of society is incapable of organizing to meet and defend such rights and principles.

As things stand right now, in my view, there is no genuine Marxist-Leninist Party in the U.S., no genuine Vanguard Party of the Proletariat and no genuine Mass Communist Party to lead, defend and assist the working class and people to become an independent sovereign and political force, with the aim and goal of building new arrangements of society that will defend their interests - to build socialism and communism. As contradictions in society are accentuating more and more along class lines and the wrecking of society is being consciously organized by the bourgeoisie and ruling class, the necessity for such a Party exists. 

Recently, a comrade shared with me an article they were especially interested on The Question of Building a New Type of Party by Baburam Bhattarai of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). This must of course be seen in the context of the CPN(M) document of Problems and Propsects of Revolution in Nepal This exchange of ideas can be read in the comments to my Dear Memnoch post.

Although, overall, I still need to examine Bhattarai’s documents and statements and investigate it more and thoroughly before coming to any conclusion, I simply do not agree with his introducing the notions of how the Party in the Soviet Union under Stalin could be seen as an end to itself and overlooking the aims and goals - and the aspirations of the working class and people towards constructing and building socialism and communism. This is how Bhattari presents the issue:

“…As an objective necessity to lead the war and construct socialism (which is by its very nature planned and centralized) in the period of worldwide fierce revolutionary upheavals prior to and just after the Second World War, this over centralized and militarized structure of the Party became a need and an inevitability, and it was indisputably established throughout the world through the Comintern. However, as Mao was to evaluate later, due to some metaphysical weaknesses inherent in Stalin the Party was seen as a monolithic and uniform object rather than as a unity of opposites and a basket of contradictions, and in the absence of a mechanism and process to continuously proletarize the Party with the participation and supervision of the class and the masses a new bureaucratic capitalist class was born and raised within the Party… [QBNTP, Bhattarai]

From what I can observe, Bhattarai targets the word “monolithic” and “uniform” in relation to the concept of the Party.  Never does he decsribe the role of the Party and it was in these terms and context that the concept of the Party of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin can be seen as monolithic, solid and uniform on the basis of upholding political principles - a solid foundation for assisting the working class to rise to power and for addressing problems and contradictions as they arise in social life, but never as something that is eternal, forever and an end to itself, without an aim or a goal.  Without upholding and defending principles, the fight against bureaucracy, against revisionism and opportunism, will weaken the role of the Party in defending and assisting the working class.  By strengthening the Party on principles and to actively defend and assist the working class and people to become a political and sovereign force, it will draw the working class and people to further proletarianize the Party.

In response to this document on the issue of Party Building by Bhattarai, I am presenting the document What Kind of Party that was presented by Comrade Lal Singh on behalf of the Central Committe of the Communist Ghadar Party of India to the Second National Consultative Conference held on Dec 29-30, 1993, and was realeased for discussion in DISCUSSION: Quarterly Review of Contemporary Marxist-Leninist Thought.  Although the document is within the context of India’s circumstances and situations during this period of the early 1990s, the basic concept of the role of a Communist Party and furthermore What Kind of Party is needed for the development of the working class and people in their fight for sovierein political empowerment is vitally important for comrades in the U.S. to think about. 

What Kind of Party?

(Document adopted at the Second National Consultative Conference of the Communist Ghadar Party of India, held on December 29-30, 1993.)

Preface

We are standing at a very particular time in history, a time when the world bourgeoisie and reaction are launching their greatest offensive against the livelihood of the people and against the progress of society. There is a great offensive against Communism and many parties have turned their backs on the ideology and vision crucial for the working class to emancipate itself. This is a period of the retreat of revolution, the ebb of revolution, a period when the forces of counter-revolution are on the offensive.  

The Second National Consultative Conference was organised by the Communist Ghadar Party of India (CGPI) as part of the struggle to preserve the progressive forces and expand their ranks, to extend the space where the doctrine of communism can flourish and to prepare for the time when the working class and people will launch their own offensive against the world bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie in India has launched an unprecedented attack on the livelihood and rights of the people. It is blocking the path for the progress of society. At the same time it is caught up in a profound crisis, especially in the political sphere. To say that this crisis is because of the refusal of the working class and people to go along with the political system as it exists in the country today will be to state the obvious. It cannot be denied that the present economic and political system just does not work. It does not provide for the people. The system cannot benefit society and is only exacerbating the contradictions inherent to it. It is also doing the same internationally.

It will be another truism to say that the reason why the people of India suffer such problems as poverty, communal and other forms of violence, state terrorism, national strife and every kind of diversion, is because they do not have power. Hence the most important question which presents itself is how to provide the people with power. This is the key question of modern democracy and it is a challenge to the communists, to the working class and all those who are genuinely concerned about the plight of the people in India to provide a solution to this problem. Such a question cannot be answered without the clearest possible enunciation of the theme, What Kind of Party? 

Addressing the problem of how people can come to power poses a number of burning questions. There is the question of dealing with the existing parliamentary system, especially the role of the political parties; there is the question of the political process and the question of empowerment of the people. In reality, these problems are organically linked with one another and its is within this context that the questionwhat kind of party is needed to ensure the empowerment of the peoplehas emerged as the most important problem requiring immediate theoretical and practical answers.  

The CGPI has organised itself as a political party of the working class. However, the reality is that the vanguard of the Indian working class is split into many parties and groups. This is the single most important subjective factor holding back the revolution. To build the unity of the working class, and to restore the unity of its vanguard communist party, is the need of the hour. The discussion on unity can no longer be delayed because, even in such critical times, various factions of the fractured communist movement are sending entirely different and contradictory messages to the class. The time has come to elaborate these matters in full view of the class and answer the question, What Kind of Party? Once such a question is elaborated, all those in whose interest it is to build such a party will join together while those who persist on the path of disunity will part company. 

It is for this reason that for Party estimates that the work initiated by this conference is one of the most important tasks of the present period. No party can carry on the basis of an outmoded programme or obsolete tactics. The communists of today must have the resilience to deal with the present problems of the movement and of society, as was done by the communists before within their own conditions.  

In the course of elaborating the question What Kind of Party? the CGPI will work for the restoration of communist unity as the main means of strengthening the working class movement, while at the same time uniting with all the political forces for the empowerment of the people.

Read the full document:

What Kind of Party?
http://www.cgpi.org/pages/documents/wkp.aspx

Bush Executive Orders: Impunity Cannot Crush Resistance

A repost from the Buffalo Forum! 

Bush Executive Orders: Impunity Cannot Crush Resistance

President George W. Bush has issued yet another executive order aimed at resistance in the U.S., particularly against all who oppose the Iraq war. Titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” it directly serves to criminalize the anti-war movement, its organizations, those that support them, as well as individuals. It gives the executive the sole power to decide who is guilty. Those branded by the government will have all assets taken, including funds, membership lists, equipment, buildings, and so forth. As with previous executive orders and terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, the language of the order is so broad it could apply to anyone. Indeed, the language is “any person determined” by the executive, to pose “a significant risk of committing” acts of violence that threaten the “peace or stability of Iraq,” or economic reconstruction or political reform of Iraq. The order also targets those who “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act.” The desperation of the government to stop resistance is such that one could simply know someone planning an action the government deems might have violence — which is pretty much any demonstration — to be targeted (see article below “New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests” for more specifics). Resistance is a right that cannot be crushed with such orders. It is the government impunity such orders unleash that is criminal.

The significance of this particular order is that it is geared toward those opposing the Iraq war and that it so broadly sanctions impunity. It could for example, be used not only against the movement but against rival factions within the ruling class, such as at the upcoming Democratic convention. It is also coming at a time when Bush has systematically put in place other executive orders and directives allowing the president to usurp the power to declare a national emergency and then take over all governance. One such order states directly that “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government” in an emergency, declared again, by the president alone. As well Congress, far from rejecting these orders, adds to them. Last year’s Defense Authorization Act, for example, allows the president to use the military inside the country for law enforcement against Americans and to take over the National Guard of all 50 states without the approval of the governors, both illegal at that time.

These fascist arrangements must all be rejected as part of the struggle for rights.

http://buffaloforum.org/2007/08/impunity-cannot-crush-resistance.html

FYI:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Reject the SPP, Tool of U.S. Annexation and War!

Reposting article from Voice of Revolution! 

 

One Humanity, One Struggle

Reject the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Tool of U.S. Annexation and War!

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), is a tool of U.S. annexation and war. It was created by executive dictate, with the U.S. bringing together the heads of state of Canada and Mexico and making certain they agreed on the SPP. There have been no laws passed, not even debate on the SPP by the legislative branches of government in any of the three countries. The U.S. decides, the executives of Canada and Mexico agree, then all three announce the decisions. The legislature and courts play no role, despite the fact that the decisions commonly are contrary to existing law and standards.

The content of the SPP is openly being directed by the top U.S. monopolies, which lead the National American Competitiveness Council (NACC). These include oil giant Chevron, GM, Ford, Lockheed Martin, GE, Merck pharmaceutical and WalMart. The NACC prepares reports and recommendations, which are implemented by President George W. Bush and imposed on Canada and Mexico, completely against the peoples of all three countries.

The meetings are held in secret with a huge military and police presence to protect these elected officials from the people. The next summit is taking place August 21-22 in Quebec and numerous actions are planned. And already, the SPP is showing its true colors — with the U.S. Army dictating that a planned public forum by activists, at a public community center located several miles from the summit, cannot take place. Instead, the U.S. military decided the community center would serve as its command center, in Canada. Thus the character of the SPP as a tool of U.S. annexation, war and repression is clear. We say U.S. Military and Police Forces Out of Canada! And Stay Out of Mexico!

The aim of the SPP is to create a North America of the Monopolies. The hope is to provide the U.S. with a stable and secure “homeland,” that includes all of Canada and Mexico. This will include integration and use of Canadian and Mexican military and police forces into the U.S. Northern Command, (NORTHCOM), all for use against the peoples at home and abroad.

It should surprise no one that right as the summit is being prepared, the head of NORTHCOM, Air Force General Victor “Gene” Renuart, is claiming, with no evidence of any kind, that al-Qaida is again building “cells” in the U.S. and that the military needs to triple its “response teams.” These teams are to be used inside the U.S. against the people. And President Bush recently issued an executive order allowing such use of the military in an “emergency.” The military already has a team of 3500 troops and Renuart wants two more of similar size.

NORTHCOM also issued a report called “NORAD, USNORTHCOM Plan for ‘Borderless Threats’ with Vision 2020.” As the title implies, the plan does not recognize borders but only U.S. dictate, claiming today’s world is “not a world of borders, but it’s a world of borderless threats, a world of cyber threats, a world of natural disasters on a fairly large scale that can cause substantial damage to our citizens and to their property.” The report also emphasizes that “the commands will partner with civilian agencies, the military Reserve components and the National Guard even more than they have in the past.” (NORAD is the military arrangement that already puts Canadian armed forces under U.S. command.)

The SPP, NORTHCOM and the concrete arrangements they have put in place indicate that the U.S. ruling circles are finalizing their arrangements for war and fascism, and that both require annexation. Additional indicators are recent executive orders by Bush that make the president the government, without Congress and the courts. One executive order puts the president in charge of government in the event of an “emergency”— one the president can declare at any time, claiming “terrorism,” or “natural emergency” or a health-related “pandemic-flu,” and so forth. He also issued an order that essentially targets anyone and any organization that opposes the “war on terrorism,” and war in Iraq, giving the government the ability to confiscate all resources.

The SPP is also designed to control and regulate the workers and natural resources of all three countries for the benefit of the top U.S. monopolies. Immigration is being used as a means to impose common identification cards on all, and to regulate who does and does not work and where. And while the government is giving every appearance that is trying to “close” the borders, in fact, as General Renuart indicates, the aim is to essentially eliminate the borders running east to west and create a single North American perimeter along the oceans.

The border fencing mainly serves militarization and provides an excuse for the U.S. military to get into Mexico, something it so far has not succeeded in doing. It did already manage to build portions of the fence on Mexican territory.

The disinformation and hateful laws and actions in the U.S. against immigrants have as a main aim whipping up antagonisms in the hopes of getting U.S. workers to side with their imperialist masters. It is also being utilized to integrate U.S. forces under the military, including state and local police and governments, as well as those of Mexico and Canada. This integration includes development of detention camps for tens of thousands, for use against immigrants now, against all who resist in the days to come.

The workers of all three countries are striving for fraternal relations of unity and cooperation. They despise these efforts to pit the peoples against each other, as the May Day actions and many others have shown. This drive of the working class for unity and cooperation, with the vibrant struggle to create Another World, is the biggest problem for the monopolies. The monopolies are using immigration and threats of “terrorism,” to try and neutralize unity and cooperation and split the workers into warring factions. We say no! Let all together carry forward the fight for political empowerment and work to strengthen our ties, people to people, organization to organization! We are One Humanity with One Struggle for a new world!

http://usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-08/VR070807.htm#01

Dear Memnoch,

Dear Memnoch,

A good introduction of the role of the Soviet Union played under the guidance and leadership of Lenin and Stalin can be found in the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) statement “Propaganda for Global Competition is Propaganda for War”.  It won’t answer all your questions about Stalin and the Soviet Union, but it does give a great outline of its role, duty, and responsibility it had in the world. It is an important statement because although it speaks of the Soviet Union, the context of the message is what is happening right now (even if it is from a Canadian perspective).

Propaganda for Global Competition Is Propaganda for War
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2006/D36023.htm#1

Here is also an excerpt from the late Hardial Bains founder and leader of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in 1994:

“Historically, communists have stood at the head of all movements for profound social transformations nationally and internationally and at the head of all movements for enlightenment and it is necessary that they play the same role at this time. It is the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 which put an end to the First World War and led to the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), as the condition for harnessing Russian-chauvinism so as to guarantee the sovereignty of member states. During the 1940s, the Soviet Union and the anti-fascist fighters all over the world were the decisive force which put an end to the Second World War.”
(http://www.mlpc.ca/briefs/19940615foreignpolicy.html)

Investigation into the Soviet Union, Lenin and Stalin requires a lot of work, patience, and perusal of literature and sources(which are not made easily accessible by historians in the service of imperialism). Majority of the time, the historians omit the primary and necessary sources from the public, and the public simply relies on what the historians have to say, without even realizing there is a vast amount of information out there that gives quite another picture of reality.

The point being is not to take things for granted, nor rely on other people’s conclusions (including this one), but to use it as an opportunity to rely on your own research and thinking and draw your own conclusions.

The Soviet Union is often presented by the monopoly press and media where millions died and were imprisoned under the direct guidance of Lenin and Stalin.  Millions did die in the Soviet Union, through revolution, famine, civil war, and the enstranglement of imperialist and fascist powers against the Soviet Union. The historical context of the events must always be known. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution (1917)  in Russia was in response to the brutal nature of Tsarism and to the brutal reality of the First World War. In the First World War (circa 1914-1918), the Tsar led millions of Russians, mostly made up of the peasantry to their deaths in an imperialist war for annexation of other lands and territory. The First World War can be characterize as a global war between contending imperialist powers, known as the Great or Central Powers. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, with support from the Russian people and peasantry, along with many elements of the military, they withdrew Russia from the War, which assisted in ending the First World War. (In the US there was broad resistance to the US entering the war.)Even then however, Soviet socialism and what the Bolsheviks stood for and represented, posed a serious and grave threat to the imperialist powers who had annexed much land, terrority etc.  After the October Revolution, the young new Republic faced a civil war, which resulted in millions of deaths. Many reactionary trends of socialism (such as the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries etc) within Russia began taking up a stance against the New Republic and collaborated with the White Army who were opposed to socialism in Russia. These groups sought international financing and backing from foreign imperialist powers to smash the new Soviet state, an opportunity that the Imperialist encirclement (The Entente or the Intervention) could not ignore nor refuse. The traitors (for that is what they were) also resorted to terrorizing the countryside and committing atrocities against the people in waging their war of aggression the new Republic and against the popular will of the Soviet people. The Soviet state had to act in defense of the people and continued to strengthen the people’s army, the Red Army. Along with this period of civil war, the new Soviet state also had to face a famine which resulted in many deaths of its citizens.   As the late Mark Jones puts it in his letter to a certain David Johnson, “So Lenin won, because the alternative was not a native, home-grown Russian capitalism; it was colonial plunder, the dismembering and death of a nation. The Civil War was death made visible; the Intervention, when eleven states from Japan to the USA, showed them what to expect if they could not defend themselves. Seven million died, and many of those by the catastrophic mistakes Bolsheviks themselves made, mistakes which Bolshevik indifference made into crimes, as famine came to be seen as one more weapon in the war to defend the Commune, even against its own recalcitrant peasantry. “ (Dear David Johnson)

The “recalcitrant peasantry” Mark Jones is referring to were the rich peasantry, as opposed to the middle and lower peasantry, who enjoyed the exploitation of the lower peasantry and resisted the sovereignty of the Soviet people, especially during harvest season and the distasrous famine that shook the young Republic. They were also known as the kulaks, which monopoly presses make a lot of hoolaboo about, but without context. The monopoly presses go on about how the Soviet state crushed the kulaks who were standing up for their “rights”, when this wasn’t the case at all.  The reality and danger of international imperialism, terrorists, famine, and the scarcity of resources was the situation facing the Soviet people and its leadership. The Soviet state had a role and responsibility to its people and sovereignty. They had to be defended, even in such a situation as this, which could very well mean losing all that they had gain. In a blog on a review of the film “La Commune” one blogger pretty much characterizes the situation that faces majority of countries who have decided to go the way of socialism:

“Several years after the Sandinistas were ousted, Carlos Vilas, an Argentine sociologist and supporter of the revolution, spoke at a meeting in New York. I will never forget how he characterized it. It was like doctors in a delivery room with no electricity during an earthquake. When working people try to take power, they are not only faced with their own inexperience as masters of society, they are faced with the immediate hostility and open sabotage of the old ruling classes.”
(http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/la-commune/)

A good introduction to this history can be found again from the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in their article commemorating the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, 1917
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2006/D36178.htm

A good film on the subject of this period is the 1981 movie Reds starring Warren Beatty, which also provides a window into the problems of the early communist movement in the US in trying to form a party of a new type. I would really like to elaborate more on everything else, but there is simply so much to say, so I will leave you with some reference material to check out for yourself.  Again, please rely on your own thinking and investigation and draw your own conclusions.

* * * * *

Some of the best things I ever read about Stalin comes from sources outside the Soviet Union, sources that actually visited the Soviet Union many times during Stalin’s leadership of the Union. One of them comes from the African-American civil rights and black freedom fighter, W.E.B.DuBois in his euology of Stalin in March 1953. It is relatively short and provides quite another view of Stalin than is commonly portrayed.

W.E.B. Dubois, On Stalin
http://www.mltranslations.org/Miscellaneous/DuBoisJVS.htm
You can also read it at my site as well:
http://soilride.com/duboisStalin.html

I also recommend Reverend Hewlett Johnson, who was a member of the British clergy, who visited the Soviet Union many times in his lifetime, especially in the period of the 1930s where the real danger of fascism was reaching towards a feverish pitch across Europe. I recommend the book “The Soviet Power” by Rev. Hewlett Johnson. It was published in 1940, just before Germany invaded the USSR. Since he was a member of the clergy and represented the religious community, he also had many things to say about religion and socialism drawing his experience from the Soviet Union during the leadership of Stalin, whereas the monopoly presses always say that the Soviet Union and Stalin suppressed and crushed people who were religious, often citing the destruction of the Orthodox Church. I only have one chapter from Hewlett Johnson online concerning religion in the Soviet Union, but it is important:

Religion and Soviet Socialism
Rev. Hewlett Johnson, Love is the Fulfilling of the Law, taken from “The Soviet Power”
http://soilride.com/ReligionSovietSocialism.htm

I consider the late Mark Jone’s essay on Stalin and the madness leading up to the Second World War to be an excellent starting point. It is a lengthy read, but it is a good beginning to understand the period and the events taking place in the Soviet Union and on the international scene.

Stalin, Appeasement, and the Second World War by the late Mark Jones
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htmFinally, for now, I will post the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) links to this period as well.It is also lengthy, but just as important also for the context and for the role the Soviet Union played.Causes and Lessons of the Second World War
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078.htm#1Supplement:

Act of Military Surrender May 8, 1945 
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078a.htm#1

The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078a.htm#2

I hope this helps. Would love to hear your thoughts and comments.Sincerely yours,

SR

Upholding Principles is a Vital Matter of State

The Crisis of Fourth-Generation War (4GW) 

In William Lind’s July 11, 2007 entry “Not Fourth Generation War” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/lind/lind_7_12_07.htm ] on his Defense and National Interest website, Lind claims that Western culture and therefore society faces a grave threat by not addressing two things: that U.S. and the military itself are 1) not grasping the realities of what in military theory is known as Fourth Generation Warefare (4GW) and 2) not grasping the danger in which, “cultural Marxism” [and those who follow and advocate the Frankfurt School] represent in the United States and Western society. Advocating that Western society and culture must be defended in order to save it, Lind, turns to fascist and racist solutions.

“In larger part, they [national governments, Western states] ignore the reality of 4GW because it contradicts their ideology, commonly known as “multi-culturalism” but actually the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. That ideology says that all the world’s cultures are wonderful, happy, peaceful cultures except Western culture, which is oppressive and evil and must be destroyed. In fact, Western culture is one of only two cultures in human history that has succeeded over millennia (the other is Chinese). 4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.” (William S. Lind, Not Fourth Generation War)

What Lind is describing here is bourgeois liberalism and neo-liberalism and the problem with anything bourgeiois, that is the ruling ideology of the ruling class, is that the issue of culture and people can not be seen nor acknoweldged as equal, in the context of a modern definition of what a right means, on the basis of one’s being. All nations, peoples and languages are equal. How best a society guarantees the right to defend the right of equality should be the question put forth under examination, for it is vital matter of state.  It is precisely for this reason that the state, including 4GW theorists themselves for the most part, also reject this ideology.  Bourgeois liberalism, can not recognize the equality of nations and peoples, nor can it defend this principle.  Rather, bourgeois liberalism tries to conceal their contempt for the equality of nations and people through the keyword “toleration”, but never through upholding and defending rights.

Lind also asserts that because Western culture has existed and succeeded over millenia, it has exclusive monopoly on what a culture is and should be.  There is no examination nor effort to understand how cultures come into being in history and society. In the article, the case is made that immigrants should assimilate to the dominant culture, and because they maintain their own culture it poses a serious threat to Western culture.  The demand that they submit and assimilate crosses another principle - that of peoples right to concience.  The main issue here is that of American identity, an identity which is forged from not “western culture”, but from the development of society and arrangements of that society. Unable to recognize these developments and to adapt to them in context of defending and upholding principles, the thinking of fascism is to stop this development by attacking people, which in the end, will utterly fail.  What poses a threat to sovereignty of the U.S. are not immigrants, nor is it other cultures.  What has compromised the sovereignty of the U.S. is monopoly capital, in other words, imperialism, the state in the service of monopoly capitalism. It is time for the new wine to be poured into new bottles, that is to say, another U.S. must be created to uphold and defend the people and guarantee their well-being. In the context of “western states”, or rather the advanced capitalist countries in the world, the same analogy applies and that this task of creating the new nation [the new bottles] is the task of the consciously organized proletariat and people.

The November 2005 article from The Marxist-Leninist is very insightful on the nature of the ruling ideology of many a western state:

“…Today, the ruling ideology takes the form of neo-liberalism, which is fascist ideology. The ruling ideology serves the striving of the most powerful monopolies to dominate all economic, social, cultural and political affairs. Fascist ideology is anti-worker, anti-communist, racist and anti-social. It has replaced scientific argument with sophism and is reintroducing all the discredited notions and concepts of medievalism and clerical obscurantism including even official religious explanations of the origin of human beings and evolution of species.

All of this is aimed at justifying a return to medieval relations of indentured labour, barones regis (barons of the king), fealty and patronage. Collective action to affirm rights are outlawed while forms of banishment and civil death are enacted and made law. All relations are to be between individuals and their master, priest, lord or official who holds the power of dispensing punishment, selling forgiveness (corruption) or conferring positions of power (patronage appointments). In economic and political affairs, it is the concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands where the anointed ones decide and the people must obey with severe measures taken to smash all previous arrangements.

The more a nation and people break free from the ruling ideology and worldview, the more employees denounce the backward notion that the human factor represents a labour cost; the more the workers put themselves at the centre of the economy and politics and at the centre of their nation-building project activating the human factor/social consciousness and encouraging all the people to stand with them, the more the people and nations will prosper and thrive economically, socially and politically. The more the people participate in the full breadth of social life especially political affairs at their workplaces, neighbourhoods, educational centres and seniors homes, the more they participate in taking decisions and carrying them out in the interest of the public good; the more they participate in nation-building, the more they open the door to progress and prepare conditions to move their nations and social economies to the next level of national and social development…” ( http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35192.htm )

On Fourth-Generation Warfare

The theory of Fourth Generation Warfare is interesting, but not at all surprising when we look at the developments of societies since time immemorial and how each generation of warefare also reflected the deep going changes in society itself, economically, politically, and socially.

Echevarria gives a succinct summary of what 4GW theory entails in his article “Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths”:

“In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) firepower, 3) maneuver, and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available networks - political, economic, social, military - to convince an oppenent’s decisionmakers that their strategic goals are either unacheivable or too costly.” ( Antulio J. Echevarria II, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub632.pdf )

Along with this, there is currently discussion among the 4GW theorists that another generation of war is emerging. To read more about it, here is Col. T. X. Hamme’s article “Fourth Generation Warefare Evolves, Fifth Emerges” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/pdf/hammes_5gw.pdf ] An interesting article, one in which I would like to address fully at some point. 

Having read various materials on the Fourth-Generation Warfare, most of which are supplied by William S. Lind, I’ve concluded that even in the scope of seeing the problem of waging a struggle [militarily] with those who take up 4GW, what can not be recognized in any of these analysis reports is the principle of the right of nations and people to resistance. For instance, when people resist against U.S imperialism and monopoly capitalism, the ruling class, it’s lackeys and such, have no real way of addressing resistance as a right, nor are they in any position to defend and uphold this principle. Therefore when nations and people resist, this right can not be addressed proper. This right is not addressed by the ruling class, nor is it addressed by the circles of military theorists, such as those who are very cleverly analyzing a phenomenon they have only been able to classify as Fourth Generation Warfare. The main aim however besides this on-going search for a definition of Fourth Generation Warfare is how to defeat the “enemies” who employ it. That is to say, the aim of finding a way to defeat 4GW and the “adversaries” of the so-called “west”, is to refuse and deny the right to resistance of those who take it up.

Lind argues that the state, in the face of a crisis of legitimacy, is unable to come to terms with the facts of 4GW, and the failure to do so, is costing the US in terms of dollars and bodies in its ventures abroad etc. The US military is not on a 4GW-footing, nor is it in a position to understand the strategy and tactics of 4GW, and if it was, and equipped itself to adapt to this environment and situation then western states will be on a much better track in defeating the “enemy.”

Yet the theorists and intelligentsia, including both the bourgeioisie and military, are unable to come to terms with the facts of resistance as excercised by nations and peoples to defend their right to sovereignty, as an excercise of sovereignty itself. One of the major weaknesses of these various trends of military and bourgeois thought is that it is incapable of calling things as they are. As in the cases of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, what is genuinely known as the resistance of a people against occupation and state-sponsored terrorism is called, in one fell stroke, without any discussion nor examination, “terrorist”. Resistance [or rather all that resists or moves is terrorism] is the problem, according to the 4GW theorists, because of the variance of forms it takes that is alien to the tactics and methods of conventional warefare by those who excercise it.

September 11, 2001 was no act of resistance as an excercise of a people. It was an act of terrorism no doubt. Even in such a situtation as this, mechanism and channels have been provided to persue individual criminals and terrorists who commit crimes such as these. The failure of the U.S. and the ruling class to excercise this right, and instead opted to goto war to sort the matter out against entire nations and peoples is the problem and creates an atmosphere in which individuals and groups, isolated from the mass number of people, to commit more crimes of terrorism unleashed against other people and states, especially the “western states”.

Again, the problem of the military, is not the resistance nor how a people take up that resistance, but the state in which the military is the physical arm. Not just any state, but an imperialist state, that is to say, a state in the name of defending a country and nation yet engaged in empire-building. It is the U.S. state that has failed militarily in Iraq, in Afghanistan, wherever they go, precisely because the principle of the right of nations to self-determination is not upheld nor is it defended. Just as the U.S. state has failed abroad, it has failed internally, especially in the case of Hurricane Katrina and the sealed fate of the people of New Orleans under the dictate of monopoly capital rule. Imperialism is the biggest threat to all nations and peoples and the fight against imperialism is the order of the day.

Another U.S. is necessary!

Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-Tung Thought: Part Two

The aim of this blog entry is to raise some questions that have come up in the course of researching and investigating Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Mao Tse-Tung Thought) versus contemporary Marxist-Leninist Thought.

On May 1, 2007 while taking part in the NYC immigrant anti-war demonstrations and march I got to meet and talk with a member/supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.  I had hundreds of Voice of Revolution (VOR) newspapers which I was distributing, carrying them in my shoulder bag and my alice backpack.  I was also carrying one of the USMLO flags which was strapped to my alice pack as I was distributing. In any case, as time wore on I was getting a bit exhausted.  The march itself was dwindling out near Foley Square about late in the evening [It started out from Union Square in the afternoon] and I decided to sit down for a bit.  I found a sidewalk bench not too far away and I sat down next to a man who just happened to be sitting there. 

He looked like he was in his forties, had greyish hair and wore glasses.  He was wearing the black “Wanted” T-shirts that many members and supporters of RCP were wearing. He apparently saw the red USMLO flag because as I sat down he asked if I was associated with the organization. I said yes and handed him a VOR in which he looked at briefly and then kindly thanked me for it.  We then had a brief conversation. 

Two main questions came out of this discussion, both of which address the theory of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-Tung Thought.  In the course of discussion, he asked me why I didn’t accept Maoism and also asked “didn’t at one time your organization used to be Maoist?” The answers to which I gave I felt were less than satisfactory, not very well-stated nor thought out to assist with his inquiry.  It also revealed the dullness of my knowledge concerning ideological theory and communist history. It was a sensible question. It is true that many organizations during the 1960s and 70s described themselves as Maoist in their theory and their work.  So what happened that some organizations broke with Maoism altogether during the 1970s and 80s - in particular organizations that now base their ideology and organizing work on Marxism-Leninism and not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?  Although this is essentially the question he had asked me, it was also my desire to understand this question as well and the question I was in fact slowly up until this time investigating for myself. 

The other question centered on the question of Mao’s criticism of Stalin.  Up until this point, I had read only one book by Bob Avakian - “Phony Communism is Dead Long Live Real Communism”.  I had a question concerning a section of Chapter One entitled “Mechanical ‘Historical Materialism’ and Dialetical ‘Historical Materialism’ “ - a section that dealt with the need to fight revisionism and opportunism, especially in the aftermath of the US imperialist war in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. (In fact this entire book is a response to that particular period of the collapse of the bipolar division of the world and the continuation of revolution in retreat) Here is the passage I am referring to:

“Stalin was on the right side in these struggles both in the sense that his line, as opposed to the others, was consistent with and the ‘logical extension’ of Lenin’s position and, more fundamentally, because of Stalin’s (and lenin’s) line corresponded to reality* Whatever errors Stalin did make in implementing this strategic orientation — and he did make a number of errors, some of them quite serious (even grievous), as we have already summed up — nevertheless on this fundamental point of forging ahead with the building of socialism in the Soviet Union he was correct, and in practice he did lead the masses in the Soviet Union in carrying out socialist transformation and construction.”

(Avakian, Phony Communism is Dead, page 7

My question for my RCP friend - what was Avakian referring to when he wrote on the “grievous errors” of Stalin?  The only indication I could find in Avakian’s book was a footnote on the previous page on how Stalin dealt with the issue of “Socialism in One Country” a bit critically (another point worth investigating). Other than that I could not find anything else that pointed to Stalin’s “grievous errors”.  In fact the book leaves the question open. 

When I asked my newly acquainted friend about this question, I accidently attibuted Mao’s criticism of Stalin’s “errors” as “crimes”.  He corrected me on this and responded to my question that Mao in a speech quoted Stalin on the theory of classes. That is, Stalin advocated that a classless society could exist in one country, or that socialism in one country could lead to the elimination of classes, or something to that affect (I cannot remember the exact wording of how this response was presented).  He also said that Mao was citing a speech that Stalin gave in 1939. Furthermore, he said that Avakian does talk on these things in other publications and recordings.  Unfortunately, our conversation abruptly ended with an interruption from another person who was admiring the USMLO flag.  My newly acqainted friend told me he had to get going and that it was great talking with me.  We said goodbye and shook hands.  Then he left. 

So as part of my investigation, I would like to find when and where Mao makes this citation from Stalin and his criticism of it, along with the actual 1939 speech that Stalin gave on the theory of classes.  I was told that on Bob Avakian’s website, he has recordings, which when I have time will look for.  Currently, I am reading a 1978 speech by Bob Avakian entitled “The Loss in China and The Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tsetung” that was given at the Mao Tse-Tung Memorial Meetings concerning the October 1976 revisionist coup in China. 

The other part of my research is to also understand the parties and organizations who were affected by events taking place in China at the time and how that has affected their position on Mao Tse-Tung, his theoretical contributions, etc. This includes the analysis by Enver Hoxha, Party of Labour of Albania, and Hardial Bains, Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). I am in the process of gathering information on this critical period. 

Since I was born in 1978 and grew up mainly in the 1980s without so much of a clue as to what was taking place around me, most of these arguments, stances, etc, no longer speak to current conditions today.  It reminds me of Comrade Sandra of CPC(M-L) who said that solutions come from the present, not by bringing up past controversies.  Ever since my conversation with this RCP member/supporter I felt there is an urgency for Communists to communicate with one another and address the problems facing us today and together.  One of the unfortunate features of the Communist movement in the U.S. is the factionalism and its splitting consequences.  There is no doubt that the state had its role in shattering and discouraging unity among the progressive forces, but it is also time for communists and the progressive forces to unite a political basis for unity and to provide leadership and coherence to the working class and people to fight for their self-emancipation from capital rule and dictate.

In a later post, I will try to address the former question in more detail. I will aslo keep those interested posted on what I find out regarding the speeches of Mao and Stalin.  

To be continued…