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…

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

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.

My ignorance on the Chinese Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the theory of Mao Tse-Tung Thought has been my starting points - points that need to be addressed if any formulation of opinion is to follow. 

A reading of Comrade Raven’s excellent blog on the need for a new Communist International on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and the subsequent comments that followed, I realized that I was sleeping on the various trends and movements that is currently taking form and shape in the world. The issue of a new Internationale is a vital and critical issue as it presents before the Communists overcoming the split in the International Communist Movement and taking up the task of uniting and organizing the communists and the progressive forces, along with the main and central task of uniting and organizing the working class and peoples of all countries. How can this be done without an inkling of the various movements taking place now?  Of course there are many trends and many movements taking place now, remniscient of the period of the First International.  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or rather Mao Tse-Tung Thought is only part of that.  In any case, I’ve chosen to become more acquainted with Maoism.

After reading Comrade Raven’s “The Internationale Shall be the Human Race”  I began researching a bit on the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM).  Along with finding out more about RIM and its role, I also started to read some writings of Mao Tse-Tung, although historical reference and context is still largely missing.  In addition I’ve been trying to find more literature by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP), whose theoretical ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the U.S.

For quite awhile I have been following and reading RCP’s “Revolution” the tabloid-sized publication that I receive from having attended numerous anti-war demonstrations. I also receive their updates online.  I have somewhat of mixed feelings on their views.  I do look forward to reading what they have to say - and the stances they take regarding the war and imperialism is a very positive stand. I appreciate the stands that they take on war, imperialism, the need for socialism and communism. They have an eloquent and simple way of getting their view and points across which I find to be extremely helpful.  I am not always in agreement with the conclusions they draw however. With the realization of the need for a new International and a new society based on modern definitions, I find it important and necessary for me to investigate more into Mao Tse-Tung Thought, not only from the works of Mao, Bob Avakian and the RCP, but also from the works of Enver Hoxha, Hardial Bains and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).

To be continued…

Happy International Workers’ Day 2007!

Here is the latest from The Voice of Revolution Online, report and photos [ http://usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-05/VR070503.htm#1 ] of the May Day 2007 actions across the country and abroad. 

* * * *

First of all wishing everyone, all my comrades and friends a great May Day, the day to honor the Unity and Struggle of the International Working Class.  This is a short post for now, but will be writing a longer one soon on some questions of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism that I’ve been having lately since reading from Raven’s Resist blog, and even more so when I met an RCP member at the May Day 2007 demonstrations.  Investigating sources is becoming more an issue now than ever.  Investigating for oneself is the best defense for when someone is counting on you to not investigate and to simply take them for their word.  

 If there is no investigation, you have no right to speak! As the saying goes…

 Voice of Revolution
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2007/2007-04/VR070423.htm#01

The Marxist-Leninist Daily
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2007/D37069.htm#1

Worker’s Daily
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wdie-07/d07-019.htm

DISCUSSION: “Attitude Problem” and The Right To Conscience

I am posting an article from the  March 16, 2007 issue of Voice of Revolution*, which speaks to the issue of peoples’ Right to Conscience which is currently being attacked by the forces and defenders of monopoly capital, and in particular, attacking this right by attacking youth, national minorities, workers and immigrants on the basis of having a “bad attitude” and exhibiting “bad behavior.”  The reason I am placing this article and this post under the issue of Adoption issues is to orient the reader to how the world outside of ourselves, independent of our thoughts and feelings affect our thoughts and feelings. For adopted persons, their thoughts and feelings can not be separated from their direct experience. For many parents of adopted children, I hope this article may give some food for thought on how displacement with regard to society, family, social and cultural identity plays a major role in the development of the individual who is adopted, even if one does not agree with the politics of “attitude” and “behavior”. 

In general, I feel this discussion article is very important in terms of how we are to organize politically ourselves and that of society.  First however we need a definition of what attitude means and how the ruling classes uses this to crush political attitude of the working class and people.  - SR]

DISCUSSION

GOVERNMENTS MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL BEING
OF THE PEOPLE AND ENSURE THEIR BROAD PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS

Reject the Notion of “Attitude Problem” as an Attack
on the Right to Conscience

One of the broadest forms of wrecking now being unleashed by the failed U.S. state is its attack on the notion of social responsibility. Public programs for the health, education, and the cultural well being of the people are being eliminated. Almost the entire social product is being handed over to the monopolies under the banner of “fiscal responsibility.” In an attempt to mask this attack, the ruling circles have stepped up their ideological offensive stating that all social, political and economic problems emanate from individual failings — not the failings of the U.S. state. The people, and particularly the youth, are branded as having an “attitude problem” and exhibiting “bad behavior” when they do not “adapt” to the chaos unleashed by the increased attack on their communities, their schools, their healthcare and cultural centers, their economies. This branding serves not only as a basis for their punishment, as in the past, but now also their civil death, mass detention and imprisonment in ever larger numbers.

The current notion of “attitude problem” promoted by the bourgeois politicians, academicians and monopoly media shows the limits of bourgeois rule for affirming the human person and politically empowering the people. As a class, the bourgeoisie has never been able to affirm the right to conscience or the right to be of either individuals or their collectives, as increasing attacks, especially on minorities and immigrant workers, attests.

As the effects of a failing state tear asunder the social relations that bind people, the ability of the people to unite and contend with the wreckage left in the wake of failure — the violence, the social, cultural and political degradation — is of the utmost importance. Taking up broad discussion on the reactionary essence of the notions of “attitude problem” and “behavior problem” will contribute to a politics that empowers and unifies.

The Notions of Attitude and Behavior
In the course of social living, human beings develop thoughts and feelings towards one another and the work they undertake together. Over time, these thoughts and feelings become stable, reflected in a person’s behavior, even their posture. Today, attitude is defined as the “settled behavior or manner of acting, as representative of feeling or opinion.”

Attitude falls in the domain of conscience. The way that society understands the nature and origin of this dynamic is central to its ability to unleash the human factor/social consciousness for the resolution of problems that emerge in the course of living, in the course of advancing society and the interests of all its members.

Beginning in the seventeenth century, thoughts and feelings that are reflected in an action were named “attitude.” Originally, attitude was the studied object of artistic expression for figures in paintings or statues. Attitude was given as the “posture of the body proper” such that it implied “some action or mental state assumed by human beings.”

The notion of behavior was also emphasized with the rise of the bourgeoisie. It is a conception intrinsically connected to one’s being in public, in that behavior is defined as the “manner of conducting oneself in the external relations of life.” That the word behavior is suggestive of the word manners derives from the bourgeoisie’s need to divide the society into social classes, where etiquette distinguishes the “gentleman” from the “masses.” In this sense, etiquette stands as a symbol of class membership and political rights.

The bourgeoisie originally set limits on participation in governance based on social criteria, such as owning property. The people have fought and won the right to participate in public life and politics irrespective of any consideration other than membership in that body politic.

Like attitude, behavior is thought to reflect the internal life (thoughts and feelings) of the individual, his or her conscience, and in this way, attempts to control behavior are in fact attempts to control thinking. A brief review of twentieth century social science in the U.S. will reveal that the “Orwellian nightmare”, “behavior therapy” and “thought control” are not inventions of communism, but rather “modern” bourgeois psychology! Behavior therapy (commonly used against youth and students) is in fact defined as training an individual to adapt to the status quo or “function in society.”

But, for its time, the bourgeoisie’s emphasis on individual actions, thoughts, and feelings was progressive, and served to create space for the fight for the right to conscience and ultimately for collectives of workers and people to organize in their own social interests. Giving place to individual thoughts and feelings legitimated demands of the people to improve their social, political and economic conditions, and gave place to direct experience in informing their action. It served to counter the medieval arrangements that negated and degraded personhood and it fostered a role for the public and public opinion in governance.

The Logic of Making Attitude the Problem
People express their thoughts and feelings regarding what is right and wrong, what is and what ought to be, when they reject their marginalization, oppression, and exploitation. This is an expression of the right to conscience and serves to advance the social interests, To label the problem as one of attitude is to demand that one separates their thoughts and feelings from their conditions of life, to demand that one change their attitude absent change in their conditions of life. It is tantamount to saying that no one has the right to challenge his or her conditions of misery, of oppression, of exploitation.

Such a notion calls on human beings to deny their direct experience of the operation of cause and effect, of their origin of their misery in the present political and economic arrangement, of rule by monopoly capital. The disinformation of the notion of “attitude problem” is found in its effort to disassociate the conditions of life from the thoughts, feelings and actions of human beings that correspond to those conditions of life and their desire to change those conditions.

Thus the problem rests, not with people’s attitude, but with the conditions of life that spark discontent, frustration, and rancor. In this way, it can be seen that attitude plays a crucial role in advancing the society as it represents the conclusions of human beings stemming from their direct experience, including the experience of the necessity for change.

The Notion of Attitude Problem Negates Rights
and the Aim of the Revolutionary Transformation of Society
The notion of “attitude problem” that emerged during the 1970s signaled the bourgeoisie’s complete rejection of its earlier progressive stand and its counter-revolutionary program, especially targeted at the youth. The notion is consistent with tyranny and fascism, and an outright rejection of individual conscience and the struggle to affirm the rights of all. Underlying the notion of “attitude problem” is the claim that having an attitude that is not supported by the existing authority is a crime. Attitude is increasingly being treated as a crime, as can be seen in the fact that students are routinely punished in schools on the basis solely on their attitude. Who is it that is consistently identified as “having an attitude”? It is those oppressed and marginalized by the present set-up. Who is never identified in this manner? But the real point is that no one, no official, no government has the right to make attitude a crime.

The notion of attitude problem thus works to justify criminalization of youth, national minorities, immigrants, protesters, workers, all those who resist current conditions. This aims to block their fight to improve their conditions of life. It aims to justify the civil death of entire sections of the people and the elimination of a role for public opinion — the general feelings, attitudes and views expressed especially in respect to decision-making in the body politic.

The notion of attitude problem is anti-political. It presumes no legitimate interests of the holder of the attitude and questions on principle the right to conscience, the right to disagree, to resist. it dismisses the claims of members of society to participate in the affairs of society. It challenges the right of individuals and collectives to redress wrongs and participate in developing solutions.

Attitude can never be the source of the problem since it is by definition a response to definite social conditions. How dare the bourgeoisie promote the notion that if only people correct their “attitude problem” all would be fine. On the one hand, their media increasingly promotes the wary iconoclast, the “bad boy,” the individual with an “attitude problem,” and on the other hand, their policies increasingly criminalize any expression of discontent with the present social arrangement. One’s career in Hollywood is advanced by the degree of “attitude” one can muster, while schools outlaw rap music and punish youth for expressing frustration with police attacks, the “war on drugs,” the so-called opportunity of joining the U.S. military.

Youth are often labeled as having an “attitude problem” when they mock, jeer and refuse to respect a social system that offers them no future but that of war and repression. Does reason not call on everyone to join with the youth in opposing such a dire situation? Do not those in positions of authority have the responsibility to defend the youth and represent their interests? Is the youths’ refusal the problem, or the beginning of the solution? Who is served by efforts to criminalize this refusal by fixating on its form without examination of its content?

The Need for Political Attitude
and the Defense of the Right to Conscience
The peoples’ organized forces identify the need to adopt a political attitude as a key ingredient to solving problems and to advancing the political aim of empowering the people. This is evident at demonstrations where people collectively take up their social responsibility for food, transportation, housing, medical support and more. All is done with a spirit of broad participation and taking decisions together.

While it is incorrect and reactionary to identify a person’s attitude as the problem, it is also misguided to ignore the role of attitude in advancing struggle for the new. What is needed is a political attitude toward problems emerging from life. Concretely, this means placing struggle to defend the right to conscience at the center of political work as a main means by which to unite all the political forces in the interests of advancing humanity and averting the dangers ahead.

A political attitude affirms, first and foremost, the right to conscience. It means, on the one hand, working to harmonize all the various interests; on the other hand, it means targeting the class enemy and not the people’s attitudes as the root cause of social problems. Taking a political attitude means assuming that neither the source nor solution of problems is to be found in individuals, but rather in remaking the social relationships human beings enter into the course of living. A political attitude recognizes the rights of all as a basic premise of sorting out conflict and finding solutions.

Getting workers, youth, and so on to adopt a political attitude is an important task, but it must be understood that adoption of this attitude is voluntary and occurs in the course of organizing and conscious ideological struggle. To affirm individuals and their collectives, change in attitudes must coincide with change in their conditions of life and the manner and basis upon which they are brought into solving problems. The use of coercion must be soundly rejected, as it negates the very idea of conscious participation as a basis for solving social problems.

Thus while it is correct to render the absence of a political attitude as a problem to be solved, it must be understood that the presence or absence of any attitude turns on the existing social relations. The political attitude targets the social relations, not individuals, as the source of the problem and the basis for finding solutions. Thus the absence of a political attitude, and in particular, the bourgeoisie’s effort to eliminate political attitude among the people as part of its wrecking of public opinion, is a problem of the absence of attitude.

Just as problems emerge in the course of social living, so too problems emerge in the course of organized political work. The way in which the political forces understand and approach this dynamic is key to their ability to survive in the present period of retreat of revolution and the increasingly fascist character imposed on everyday life.

*Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

The Tragedy at Virginia Tech is a Tragedy for Everyone

My condolences and sympathies to the families and people who are suffering now from the Virgina Tech tragedy. 

For those who are following violent school incident after violent school incident, my view is that, these violent and disturbing incidents will not let up, nor will they go away of their own accord.  In fact it is my opinion that without a reorganization of society as a whole for the advancement of society and its members by the working class and people, these features of a society gone awry will only increase. 

All this talk and movement towards more security, more metal detectors, more police and guards at the schools, more repression has not solved the problem one iota.  I feel, rather, all these “security” measures contribute to this very atmosphere of fear, anxiety, uncertainty.  It is tearing apart the fabric of society and community itself. 

Very recently, within the past six months, school shootings have taken place in Montreal, Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Washington.  (Timeline: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) There are a number of indicators that measure the grave and dangerous situation confronting the youth today.  There has been much discussion in my neck of the woods of the tremondous pressure being placed on school officials, teachers and faculty, and most of all students. For example in the high schools, teachers are expected by school authorities, to police youth and students in a “law and order” fashion.  I was reading this passage from an article by a Buffalo teacher who writes:

“I was in the cafeteria for lunch duty. Even though the cafeteria is a public place within the school and really the only place the youth are allowed to talk with each other, our school requires that students be silent for the last five minutes of their lunch period.  The justification given for this is that it helps to ensure ‘a quiet and orderly dismissal’ as students make their way to their afternoon classes.  This rule is pretty strictly enforced, often with the use of collective punishment — if a few students or one table is talking everyone is punished.  No one is supposed to question why imposing silence on the youth is acceptable, nor why ’silence’ and ‘order’ are equated. Why aren’t silence and repression equated?” (Buffalo Forum Vol. 11 #12)

Many of the youth in our discussions have spoken of their experience in which the role of teachers and faculty have been reduced to that of police in watching and regulating the students throughout the school day.  This, as well as the students and youth concerned with the increase of actual police in the schools and military recruiters. 

Why this increase of police and military recruiters in high schools and college campuses?  This question can not be answered without looking at the objective reality that exists today.  The anti-social offensive of the forces of capitalism and imperialism are not only destroying nations and peoples abroad, but are wrecking society and those who live right here at home. 

With cutting funds for social programs and services, the degradation and rejection of human rights for all, with increased militarization of society and the schools, the rule of entropic monopoly capital clearly can not provide a coherent future for members of society, especially for the youth, who are most vulnerable to aggression and attacks.  In fact, the situation is getting worse and worse for the youth and the rule of monopoly capital takes advantage of this situation by placing before the youth an “alternative”:  “Fight my wars and you will have privileges, rights, safety, security, money for school, citizenship, a place in society. Enlist and reap the benefits.”

One only needs to look at U.S. crimes against humanity in the present period (not to mention the war crimes in other periods of history as well) in its imperialist and aggressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the “war on terror” to know that this “alternative” provides no future for the youth either.  While atrocities are being commited by U.S. imperialism against peoples and nations with impunity, there is pressure on the people by the State to not look at these atrocities as crimes, but to accept them in the most pragmatic way, to accept their notion of the “ends justify the means” approach to problems taking place in the world. 

For the youth whose active role in determining their future is being decimated and wiped out, what recourse can they have and what measures do they turn to?  This is how the Buffalo teacher places it:

“The very core of the existing social, political, cultural, economic set up is rotten. It demands renewal. It demands change. Is it any wonder that the youth reject this? What future do they have other than more poverty, more war, more repression at every turn? The problems are huge, but not unsolvable. And the youth play a vital role in changing the situation.” (Buffalo Forum, “Target the Inhuman Conditions of Life”)

I am re-posting an article I commented on before from another blog I used to have when the Dawson shootings took place in Montreal not too long ago.  Although it speaks to that incident, I think the CPC (M-L) statement on such tragedies are important now more than ever. 

22 SEPTEMBER 2006

Some Thoughts on the Situation Facing the Youth
I was reading reports of the Dawson College shooting that took place recently in Montreal and hearing about this I was quite bothered by it.  I was talking to a friend of mine about the shooting and we agreed that it was a tragedy for the nation of Canada.  It is also a tragedy for all of us non-Canadians too.  The recent shooting was being related to the U.S. tragedy of Columbine.  Canada, as far as I know, is not usually marked with school shootings as their neighbors to the South.  Yet this has been a second or third incident of this taking place in Canada.  For me, the tragic incident indicates that something terribly wrong is happening to society.  This is not a new incident as there has been a train of such incidents in so-called “western civilization”, predominately in the United States.   As a particular feature of “western civilization” this is not a surprising or unique phenomena.  It is, in my view, an abberation and very much related to the politics that are being carried out by the state.
 
One of the things that needs mention is the failure of linking between incidents like these that happen on the local and national level - that is incidents much closer to what we consider “home” - and the incidents taking place abroad. Canadian Prime Minister Harper has declared the incident as a “cowardly and senseless act of violence.” Yet, it needs to be reminded that Canada and the United States are engaged in these very acts upon other nations and people in their “global war on terrorism”.  My comrade and friend pointed out, just because an act or incident appears to be “senseless”, it is our human duty to make sense out of the situation in order to find resolution and to move forward.  I couldn’t agree more. 
 
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in their “We Must Together Avert Such Tragedies” analyzes the situation in this way:

 “The events at Dawson show how some youth are being driven into a disconnect, leading to truly crazy and barbaric acts. We are not surprised that such things are taking place when the leaders in the U.S. and Canada act in the same fashion in the name of the highest ideals. In the case of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, these leaders openly promote torture and mass killings as acts of great courage and valour. They declare that they will continue doing this because they can. When the tragic consequences of such a culture are revealed, they declare that some individual has a behaviour problem and refuse to take social responsibility.”

After having read this statement, it brought the issue into a more clearer and focused context.  I could not help but think of Columbine and how the question of what happened and why remained, to this day, a mystery.
 
The critical and core issue is what world and conditions the youth are facing, in particular, the youth in the United States.  A large number of youth are concerned by what is happening in the world. A great example of this is when the hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth walked out of school in response to the mass immigration demonstrations that shook the U.S. recently.  Another great example were the mass demonstrations of youth who took to the streets in France taking place around this same time. 
 
But the question that remains is what happens when there are sections of youth who are guided by leaders who have the most backward principles and refuse to take up social responsibility? 

FYI:

The Marxist-Leninist, CPC (M-L)
“We Must Together Avert Such Tragedies”
http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2006/D36132.htm

Buffalo Forum, a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization
“Target the Inhuman Conditions of Life”
http://buffaloforum.org/2007/04/target-inhuman-conditions-of-life.html 

“Stop Vindictive Punishments against the Youth”
http://buffaloforum.org/2007/04/stop-vindictive-punishments-against.html
 
“How To Intervene Without Denying the Needs of the Youth”
http://buffaloforum.org/2007/04/how-to-intervene-without-denying-needs.html

The Internationale

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation! Arise, ye wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation, A better world’s in birth.
No more tradition’s chains shall bind us,
Arise, ye slaves no more in thrall! The earth shall rise on new foundations,
We have been naught, we shall be all.

‘Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place.
The Internationale
Shall be the human race.
‘Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place.
The Internationale
Shall be the human race.

We want no condescending saviors to rule us from their judgement hall.
We workers ask not for their favours, let us consult for all,
To make the thief disgorge his booty, to free the spirit from its cell.
We must ourselves decide our duty, We must decide and do it well.

Toilers from shops and fields united, The union of all who work.
The earth belongs to us the workers, No room here for those who shirk.
How many on our flesh have fattened, But if the bloody birds of prey
Shall vanish from the sky some morning, The golden sunlight will stay.

BREAKDOWN

Two nights ago - another dream.  In this dream, you came to me, looking lost and confused.  I came over, by your side, in a private corner of an incoherent world.  We looked at each other and then, in that moment of us together again, I felt that historic fear which fell upon me like a dagger in my heart - my last moment ever with you.  I leaned over to you and whispered in your right ear what I’ve been wanting to say since our kiss goodbye: I Love You.  I said it twice.  I Love You. You continued to look at me, your eyes full of fear. 

Up until this time, my Armour has weighted me down - I was unable to speak, unable to move, unable to communicate.   Yet now I feel I have been set in Motion.  My Armour - My Love for You - is becoming a Formidable Force.

My dream ended quickly yet Breakdown has begun. 

State of the Union, 2007: Part II

…continued from Part I 

State of the Union, 2007: Part II

Buffalo Forum*
Bush State of the Union
Plan for Expanded Military and Civilian Corps

It is well known and admitted by the Pentagon that U.S. military forces already stretched thin are simply losing in Iraq. Yet Bush plans to escalate war to Iran and elsewhere.  To do so, he is demanding to increase the Army and Marine Corps — the occupying ground forces in any war — by 92,000 troops, over the next five years.  But it is clear that this is not enough, especially given the increasing resistance among the youth to be cannon fodder for imperialist war. So Bush is also calling for a “Civilian Reserve Corps.”

According to Bush, this Civilian Corps “would function much like our military reserve.   It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.” This is an effort to entice yet more youth into war, while claiming to do otherwise.  It very likely will also be directed toward undocumented immigrant youth, with the promise of citizenship for “civilian service.” It could also be used to justify hiring “civilians with critical skills,” from other countries. 

This Corps would be in addition to the existing mercenary army in Iraq, utilizing forces like Blackwater, Inc. There are an estimated 100,000 private “contractors” in Iraq, including at least 48,000 soldiers. Blackwater, with hundreds of millions in government contracts already, also provided mercenaries to occupy New Orleans after Katrina. 

The government mercenaries in Iraq have been responsible for torture and other crimes.  They are considered outside any law and have not been subject to any punishment for known crimes. Given this existing reality, it is very likely that such a Civilian Corps, once established, would serve to create a private army directly controlled by the President. It likely will not come under the authority of Congress, or even the military. And it could be used as a fascist force of the executive inside the country as well.  It represents a significant and dangerous development in government arrangements.

Alongside the call for this Civilian  Corps, Bush proposed what he called a Congressional “advisory council.” Emphasizing the power usurped by the Office of the President that reduces Congress to a consultative body, Bush said “Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It’s why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We’ll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.”

The proposal for an “advisory council,” if implemented, represents an effort by the president to complete new arrangements of governance whereby Congress and the Courts have only an advisory and consultative role, and all power resides with the president. Bush has continued to emphasize that he, and he alone, is the “decision-maker,” and that Congress cannot stop him. He has made the decision about sending more troops to Iraq. By implication, he will also decide about bombing Iran.

A serious clash is underway on this matter. But Bush and the ruling circles generally do not want an open constitutional fight if it can be avoided. An advisory council is a possible means to do this. It could serve to keep Congress as an elected body, but essentially eliminate any power it has.  It could also eliminate the current role of Congressional committees and concentrate them in this “advisory council” of top leaders. This select few would be in on the deal making and decision-making and the rest would simply be consulted with.  It is a significant proposal that bears watching, especially as the current battles over bills and resolutions on Iraq and Iran unfold.

Americans met Bush’s speech with a massive outpouring on Janurary 27, demanding an end to the war now. The action also put Congress on notice. Americans do not want a pro-war government. The failure by Congress to act, like Bush’s failure, will be met with determined resistance, including working step by step to create an anti-war government of the people themselves. 

*Buffalo Forum is a local publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization