http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/
With the partition of the Indian Sub-Continent came the arduous task
for the Communists of the region: to set up and strengthen a Communist
Party in the newly formed country Pakistan. The enormity of the task
demanded a man with multifarious talents, yet one with such dynamism that
could galvanize and lead the path to the emancipation of the
proletariat in this country. The man who set out to complete this task: Sajjad
Zaheer.
It was while studying at Oxford and London universities that the then
young Sajjad Zaheer organized a group of left-minded Indian students to
work for the national freedom struggle in 1927 and developed contacts
with the British Communist Party. He convened the founding conference of
Progressive Writers’ Association (PWA) in London in 1935 and prepared
its manifesto. Coming back to India in November 1935, he started
practicing law at Allahabad High Court and was appointed secretary of the
Allahabad Congress Committee and worked in close cooperation with Nehru,
K.M. Ashraf and Z.A. Ahmed. He came into contact with the leaders of the
then underground Communist Party of India. Later he became the
Secretary of the U.P. State Committee and a Central Committee Member of the
undivided Communist Party of India. He was the chief architect of the
historic first conference of PWA in Lucknow in1936 inaugurated by
Premchand.
With such credentials to his name, it is easy to see why Sajjad
Zaheer was chosen as the first Secretary General of the Communist Party of
Pakistan when it was established among difficult conditions in 1948.
Though a small party, the CPP was well disciplined and tightly organized.
The CPP set up many frontal organizations. Amongst the most prominent
was the Progressive Writers Movement inspired by Sajjad Zaheer and Faiz
Ahmed Faiz. The party laid the foundations for the Railway Workers
Union (RWU) and the Pakistan Trade Union Federation. Similarly the
Democratic Students Front enjoyed substantial influence in the student
movement.
But continuous persecution by the pro-imperialist establishment of
Pakistan adversely affected the nascent and fragile Communist movement
forcing it underground. The so-called Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case in 1951
in which the top leadership of the CPP, including Sajjad Zaheer,
Mohammad Hussain Ata and Lenin-Prize winning poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz were all
implicated and also imprisoned, dealt a heavy blow to the Communist
movement. After his release in 1954, Sajjad Zaheer continued to lead the
left cultural movement through PWA, Indian Peoples’ Theatrical association
(IPTA) and Afro-Asian Writer’s Association in India. The PWA
influenced and galvanized writers, poets, and artists in diverse branches of
creative activity. It played a gigantic role in the literary field in
almost all the major languages of the subcontinent. It was virtually the
nursery for political activists, trade unionists, cadres of the peasant
movement students and leaders.
The Sino-Soviet split in the international communist movement in the
late 1960s also adversely affected the movement in Pakistan.
Nonetheless, in Pakistan all elements retained a comradely attitude towards each
other and continued to wage a joint struggle against their common
enemy. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, owing to the betrayal
Marxism-Leninism by the post-Stalin leadership, caused even immense confusion
and vacillation. In these circumstances those organizations that
firmly defended Marxism-Leninism decided to put aside their differences and
unite as one party. Thus, the Communist Party of Pakistan led by
Comrade Imam Ali Nazish and the Mazdoor Kissan Party (founded by Major
Ishaq) led by Ghulam Nabi Kalu committed themselves to a historic merger in
1994 to form the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party. The first chairman of
the united CMKP was Imam Ali Nazish (1994-98) followed by Comrade Sufi
Abdul Khalik Baloch (1998-present). Two splinter groups that could not
grasp the significance of this historic union parted company for
opportunist reasons or personal ambitions. Despite these tribulations the
CMKP remains steadfast to its principles of Marxist-Leninist unity.
The CMKP stands for a peoples’ democratic revolution to create the
conditions for a socialist society. The party has boldly championed the
right of nations to self-determination, fought against military
dictatorships, struggled against religious extremists, upheld the rights of
women and minorities, and championed the cause of the oppressed. We feel
that it is our historic duty to build meaningful, firm, and lasting
relations with the leftwing and communist parties of South Asia. This is
necessary not only to initiate a dialogue within the left but also to
fight against imperialism and win true national sovereignty and economic
independence. The ruling-class of India and Pakistan has perpetually
kept the region in an economically destructive state of continuous
militarization. In these circumstances, the growing cohesion of the left
across South Asia is the only real guarantee of eliminating the
possibility of war. The CMKP is working to bring about a broad-based alliance of
left-wing parties and anti-imperialist forces in Pakistan as well as
meaningful affinity with the Marxist-Leninist parties of South Asia.
Sajjad Zaheer dedicated his whole life to the communist movement and
the emancipation of the working-class. The fighting unity of all
Marxist-Leninists, the broad alliance of secular-democratic anti-imperialist
forces, and peace between the peoples of South Asia, this is the
inheritance of the Communist Party of Pakistan built and led by Sajjad
Zaheer. We salute Sajjad Zaheer whose pioneering work for the communist
movement in its formative stage in the most difficult post-partition
conditions continues to inspire the next generation of revolutionaries.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Stalin
`Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.'
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Imperialism
(Excerpt from Hassan Nasir's article "Imperialism and Awami Jamhori Forum" presented to the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party email list. Complete text of the article is present at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3865)
Lenin says:
"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist combines of industrialists; and, on the other, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which
has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolistic possession of the territory of the world which has been completely divided up."
Lenin provides further clerifications:
"[A] definition of imperialism will include the following five of its basic features:
1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital," of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves; and 5) territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the
international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."
Therefore, Imperialism does not mean militaristic or aggressive behaviour. That can be done by any power (feudal, capitalist, religious, or fascist). Lets be very clear on this. Imperialism is
not behaviour, or a policy, or a personal habit of this or that ruler. Imperialism is a social system that has the following five characteristics:
1) monopoly
2) domination of finance capital
3) Export of capital
4) International capitalist combines (cartels)
5) Territorial division of the world
Is India a society that has reached monopoly capitalism, where the big banks dominate, that exports capital, and has divided the world within its own capitalist combines, and engaged in the territorial division of the world. Hardly.
In fact, its quite clear that India is a country that is dominated by monopoly capitalism from US and Europe, is dominated by foreign big banks, is receiving international imperialist capital (MNC's), has been captured by capitalist combines and cartels (coke, Levi's, Pepsi, Gap), and has been territorially dominated during colonial times (British Raj).
So to characterise India as an Imperialist country is not only preposterous, in fact, it only seeks to serve the interests of the Pakistani bourgeoisie. Whosoever characterizes India as an
Imperialist country will automatically come to the conclusion that war between India and Pakistan is a "National Liberation Struggle" on the part of Pakistan and that the workers should support the Pakistani bourgeoisie against the imperialist Indian bourgeoisie. This is class capitulationism and pure opportunism. It would imply that leftist rhetoric is being utilised to support the foreign policy of the Pakistani bourgeoisie over and above the international interests of the working class.
Therefore, the view that India is an Imperialist country is entirely incorrect. The correct view is that India is a neo-colonial society. This is historically and scientifically correct.
Next was the Soviet Union an "Imperialist" country.
Again I want to come back to Lenin's definition of Imperialism. Imperialism is not aggressive behaviour. Just because the Soviet Union invaded Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1980 does not imply that the USSR was an imperialist society. Although all three invasions hurt the "nationalist" sentiment of people in those countries, but the invasions in and of themselves do not prove that the Soviet Union was a society dominated by 1. monopoly capitalism, 2. finance capital, 3. the desire to export capital 4. the USSR had divided the world among its capitalist cartels, 5) Had engaged in a colonial territorial division of the world.
Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have made a strong case in their respective books to show that the process of the restoration of capitalism had begun in 1956 and had been tremendously accelerated in 1965, but having read their books in detail, I'm still not convinced that they have been able to conclusively prove that the Soviet Union was DOMINATED BY MONOPOLY FINANCE CAPITAL. For example, even Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have to admit that the move to fully restore private property was begun under perestroika under the advice of Leonid Abalkin. And the complete restoration of Private Property in the USSR (which occurred with Gaider's so called "shock therapy" in 1993) required the 1991 Boris Yeltsin counter-revolution as a pre-requisite. Therefore, given that private property was only fully restored in 1993 under the shock therapy reforms of Gaider, given that these reforms could not be implemented without the complete overthrow of the rule of the communist party (which had by this time
degenerated into a completely revisionist party) which occurred in 1991 under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, how is it possible that the Soviet Union had already come to be dominated by Monopoly Capitalism, Finance Capital, Export of Capital, Cartels, and Territorial Division back in 1956 or 1965.
The answer is that it is not possible. The theory of Soviet Social Imperialism that was accepted at the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China and also accepted by the Labour Party of Albania was a counter-revolutionary theory. The principle proponent of this theory was Lin Biao who despite his great contributions in all other respects made a serious error with respect to this particular piece of analysis. Comrade Sam Marcy has correctly stated that the theory of Soviet Social Imperialism was NOT a product not of a dispassionate scientific appraisal of the actually existing social system in the Soviet Union but a knee jerk reaction owing to the fear of a Soviet
invasion of the PRC. Furthermore, the CIA did its best to aggravate these differences by "leaking" incorrect information to the Chinese that the Soviets were preparing for a surgical strike against China's nuclear instalments. The end of the Cold War has definitively proved
that this was a piece of deliberate misinformation to worsen the Sino-Soviet split in order to weaken both the USSR and China.
Furthermore, what conclusion can we reach if we believe that the Soviet Union was indeed an imperialist system.
1) All nationalist struggles in the USSR were struggles
for "National Liberation" and should be supported.
2) All struggles for "democracy" were struggles against an
imperialist system that should be supported.
In a word, all counter-revolutionary struggles such as Sajudis in Estonia, Solidarity in Poland, Democratic Russia in Russia, the pope all over Eastern Europe were all struggles against an imperialist system. Well it later turns out that these were all struggles to restore a capitalist system. And those communists who were mislead by the slogan of Soviet Social Imperialism ended up supporting all of these struggles thereby weakening their own forces.
Conclusion, India, China, Soviet Union are not imperialist countries. USA, Britian, France, Germany, and Japan are imperialist countries (there is sufficient proof that they are dominated by monopoly finance capital etc. etc.). An imperialist country is entirely different from a socialist society that has degenerated owing to the influence of opportunism. A socialist society that has
degenerated owing to the influence of revisionism may engage in certain actions that are militaristic, chauvinist, and actions that hurt the "national sentiments" of other countries. Even this unjustified militaristic action in and of itself, however, in no way implies that that country is now an `imperialist' society.
I hope this clears up the position of the CMKP with respect to imperialism, the Soviet Union, China, India and so on.
In solidarity
Hassan Nasir
Lenin says:
"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist combines of industrialists; and, on the other, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which
has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolistic possession of the territory of the world which has been completely divided up."
Lenin provides further clerifications:
"[A] definition of imperialism will include the following five of its basic features:
1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital," of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves; and 5) territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the
international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."
Therefore, Imperialism does not mean militaristic or aggressive behaviour. That can be done by any power (feudal, capitalist, religious, or fascist). Lets be very clear on this. Imperialism is
not behaviour, or a policy, or a personal habit of this or that ruler. Imperialism is a social system that has the following five characteristics:
1) monopoly
2) domination of finance capital
3) Export of capital
4) International capitalist combines (cartels)
5) Territorial division of the world
Is India a society that has reached monopoly capitalism, where the big banks dominate, that exports capital, and has divided the world within its own capitalist combines, and engaged in the territorial division of the world. Hardly.
In fact, its quite clear that India is a country that is dominated by monopoly capitalism from US and Europe, is dominated by foreign big banks, is receiving international imperialist capital (MNC's), has been captured by capitalist combines and cartels (coke, Levi's, Pepsi, Gap), and has been territorially dominated during colonial times (British Raj).
So to characterise India as an Imperialist country is not only preposterous, in fact, it only seeks to serve the interests of the Pakistani bourgeoisie. Whosoever characterizes India as an
Imperialist country will automatically come to the conclusion that war between India and Pakistan is a "National Liberation Struggle" on the part of Pakistan and that the workers should support the Pakistani bourgeoisie against the imperialist Indian bourgeoisie. This is class capitulationism and pure opportunism. It would imply that leftist rhetoric is being utilised to support the foreign policy of the Pakistani bourgeoisie over and above the international interests of the working class.
Therefore, the view that India is an Imperialist country is entirely incorrect. The correct view is that India is a neo-colonial society. This is historically and scientifically correct.
Next was the Soviet Union an "Imperialist" country.
Again I want to come back to Lenin's definition of Imperialism. Imperialism is not aggressive behaviour. Just because the Soviet Union invaded Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1980 does not imply that the USSR was an imperialist society. Although all three invasions hurt the "nationalist" sentiment of people in those countries, but the invasions in and of themselves do not prove that the Soviet Union was a society dominated by 1. monopoly capitalism, 2. finance capital, 3. the desire to export capital 4. the USSR had divided the world among its capitalist cartels, 5) Had engaged in a colonial territorial division of the world.
Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have made a strong case in their respective books to show that the process of the restoration of capitalism had begun in 1956 and had been tremendously accelerated in 1965, but having read their books in detail, I'm still not convinced that they have been able to conclusively prove that the Soviet Union was DOMINATED BY MONOPOLY FINANCE CAPITAL. For example, even Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have to admit that the move to fully restore private property was begun under perestroika under the advice of Leonid Abalkin. And the complete restoration of Private Property in the USSR (which occurred with Gaider's so called "shock therapy" in 1993) required the 1991 Boris Yeltsin counter-revolution as a pre-requisite. Therefore, given that private property was only fully restored in 1993 under the shock therapy reforms of Gaider, given that these reforms could not be implemented without the complete overthrow of the rule of the communist party (which had by this time
degenerated into a completely revisionist party) which occurred in 1991 under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, how is it possible that the Soviet Union had already come to be dominated by Monopoly Capitalism, Finance Capital, Export of Capital, Cartels, and Territorial Division back in 1956 or 1965.
The answer is that it is not possible. The theory of Soviet Social Imperialism that was accepted at the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China and also accepted by the Labour Party of Albania was a counter-revolutionary theory. The principle proponent of this theory was Lin Biao who despite his great contributions in all other respects made a serious error with respect to this particular piece of analysis. Comrade Sam Marcy has correctly stated that the theory of Soviet Social Imperialism was NOT a product not of a dispassionate scientific appraisal of the actually existing social system in the Soviet Union but a knee jerk reaction owing to the fear of a Soviet
invasion of the PRC. Furthermore, the CIA did its best to aggravate these differences by "leaking" incorrect information to the Chinese that the Soviets were preparing for a surgical strike against China's nuclear instalments. The end of the Cold War has definitively proved
that this was a piece of deliberate misinformation to worsen the Sino-Soviet split in order to weaken both the USSR and China.
Furthermore, what conclusion can we reach if we believe that the Soviet Union was indeed an imperialist system.
1) All nationalist struggles in the USSR were struggles
for "National Liberation" and should be supported.
2) All struggles for "democracy" were struggles against an
imperialist system that should be supported.
In a word, all counter-revolutionary struggles such as Sajudis in Estonia, Solidarity in Poland, Democratic Russia in Russia, the pope all over Eastern Europe were all struggles against an imperialist system. Well it later turns out that these were all struggles to restore a capitalist system. And those communists who were mislead by the slogan of Soviet Social Imperialism ended up supporting all of these struggles thereby weakening their own forces.
Conclusion, India, China, Soviet Union are not imperialist countries. USA, Britian, France, Germany, and Japan are imperialist countries (there is sufficient proof that they are dominated by monopoly finance capital etc. etc.). An imperialist country is entirely different from a socialist society that has degenerated owing to the influence of opportunism. A socialist society that has
degenerated owing to the influence of revisionism may engage in certain actions that are militaristic, chauvinist, and actions that hurt the "national sentiments" of other countries. Even this unjustified militaristic action in and of itself, however, in no way implies that that country is now an `imperialist' society.
I hope this clears up the position of the CMKP with respect to imperialism, the Soviet Union, China, India and so on.
In solidarity
Hassan Nasir
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Discussion on Orkut community: "Islam Socialist Revolution"
Z said, “If the USSR departs from the Marxist policy by brutal policies during the Stalinist era and afterwards as well, it is all OK...Marxism remains a valid concept!”
My reply,
This is not my double standards but your complete failure to comprehend Marxism. Marxism is beyond any single individual. ‘How did Stalin do to defend the precepts of Marxism’ is a topic for another discussion. Nonetheless, in my opinion he did a wonderful job.
Z said, “But when Islam is taken over by monarchist enemies of the people, Islamic Socialism as a concept seems to become invalid. Why?”
My reply,
The communist doctrines were abused Modern Revisionists of SU, not Stalin, for a period extending from 1953 to 1991. If my mathematics is not wrong then that is for 38 years. In case of Islam, the period of abuse was roughly 1300 years. Keeping everything else constant, Islam seems to be much more capable of ‘internal abuse’ then scientific socialism. There is no room for revisionism is Marxism, as it is brought to practical world. It is a principle of Dialectical Materialism, as formulated by Karl Marx, not Islam, that a society can not step from an advanced stage to means of production and productive relations to an ‘old’ one. The effect of the principle is not that that cannot happen, but such an attempt would result in a catastrophe, that we have seen as the economy of Russia became smaller than that of Norway as it marched into capitalism.
Z said, “Vidrohi, this clearly shows that religion is something that Marxists suspect and fear.”
My reply,
What clearly shows that? Your assertions based on incorrect logic and reason let alone true historic facts.
Z said, “a) you will never have the mass support needed to fulfill your purpose.”
My reply,
Wrong. This is never the response of people, if that is all you fear. Workers understand they are divided on religious grounds by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat appreciates messages of solidarity that is beyond the limitations of religion. Your assertion emerges from distrust towards the mental incapability of workers. Few hours among the proletariat, if at all that happens, would be enough for you revise your ‘a proiri’ principle.
Z said, “you will be following a system devised by someone like Marx who was an intellectual sitting and writing in a library in England...he was not exactly a revolutionary, was he?”
Lets see. Esmod Wright writes about Marx for the book “Great Europeans”:
“In any event he (Marx) was never-unlike Hegel- an Ivory Tower philosopher; he always sought to combine the theory with organization and action; he was always a man of two worlds, the study and the forum. By nature combative, he turned towards politics and journalism and abandoned his dream of becoming a university teacher.” (Page 366)
Wright’s article is highly critical of Marx’s personality. Yet he affirms the revolutionary character of Karl Marx.
Z said, “Marxism alone does not have enough vitality as an idea... ”
My reply,
Perhaps you, like me, have not studied Marxism thoroughly.
Z said, “Do you think that the imperialist powers of today will even allow you to carry on peacefully after your revolution?I do not think so! ”
My reply,
Just like your previous assertions, this is wrong as well. I recognize that imperialist powers of today would practice all their might to cause a counter-revolution.
Z said, “Your idea is to tell them that Marx said so-and-so, so it must be right. ”
My reply,
You have started to degenerate. This is not the scientific approach. The people once assured that their well protected by socialist regime, would provide the state all the support that it needs to fight an anti-imperialist war.
Z said, “We prove to the people that GOD commands them to bring about a socialist system. Who sounds more convincing to them? You or us? You do not understand the power of Islam as an idea... ”
My reply,
I would like to know when Lenin invoked a god to gather support from the people of SU to fight a Civil War in which six imperialist powers were directly involved. Which religion Ho Chi Minh referred to fight against two imperialist powers, France, and US successively in the Vietnam War, where thousands of Vietnamese peasants sacrificed to ensure a better future for their children. Which divine command has the Fidel Castro and his fellow Cubans followed while fighting an economic war against imperialism for the past forty years? You don’t understand the power of Marxism and proletariat…
I don’t need to answer any question, as I can say straight away, to inform you that we do not share the same platform.
Workers of all religions, Unite!
My reply,
This is not my double standards but your complete failure to comprehend Marxism. Marxism is beyond any single individual. ‘How did Stalin do to defend the precepts of Marxism’ is a topic for another discussion. Nonetheless, in my opinion he did a wonderful job.
Z said, “But when Islam is taken over by monarchist enemies of the people, Islamic Socialism as a concept seems to become invalid. Why?”
My reply,
The communist doctrines were abused Modern Revisionists of SU, not Stalin, for a period extending from 1953 to 1991. If my mathematics is not wrong then that is for 38 years. In case of Islam, the period of abuse was roughly 1300 years. Keeping everything else constant, Islam seems to be much more capable of ‘internal abuse’ then scientific socialism. There is no room for revisionism is Marxism, as it is brought to practical world. It is a principle of Dialectical Materialism, as formulated by Karl Marx, not Islam, that a society can not step from an advanced stage to means of production and productive relations to an ‘old’ one. The effect of the principle is not that that cannot happen, but such an attempt would result in a catastrophe, that we have seen as the economy of Russia became smaller than that of Norway as it marched into capitalism.
Z said, “Vidrohi, this clearly shows that religion is something that Marxists suspect and fear.”
My reply,
What clearly shows that? Your assertions based on incorrect logic and reason let alone true historic facts.
Z said, “a) you will never have the mass support needed to fulfill your purpose.”
My reply,
Wrong. This is never the response of people, if that is all you fear. Workers understand they are divided on religious grounds by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat appreciates messages of solidarity that is beyond the limitations of religion. Your assertion emerges from distrust towards the mental incapability of workers. Few hours among the proletariat, if at all that happens, would be enough for you revise your ‘a proiri’ principle.
Z said, “you will be following a system devised by someone like Marx who was an intellectual sitting and writing in a library in England...he was not exactly a revolutionary, was he?”
Lets see. Esmod Wright writes about Marx for the book “Great Europeans”:
“In any event he (Marx) was never-unlike Hegel- an Ivory Tower philosopher; he always sought to combine the theory with organization and action; he was always a man of two worlds, the study and the forum. By nature combative, he turned towards politics and journalism and abandoned his dream of becoming a university teacher.” (Page 366)
Wright’s article is highly critical of Marx’s personality. Yet he affirms the revolutionary character of Karl Marx.
Z said, “Marxism alone does not have enough vitality as an idea... ”
My reply,
Perhaps you, like me, have not studied Marxism thoroughly.
Z said, “Do you think that the imperialist powers of today will even allow you to carry on peacefully after your revolution?I do not think so! ”
My reply,
Just like your previous assertions, this is wrong as well. I recognize that imperialist powers of today would practice all their might to cause a counter-revolution.
Z said, “Your idea is to tell them that Marx said so-and-so, so it must be right. ”
My reply,
You have started to degenerate. This is not the scientific approach. The people once assured that their well protected by socialist regime, would provide the state all the support that it needs to fight an anti-imperialist war.
Z said, “We prove to the people that GOD commands them to bring about a socialist system. Who sounds more convincing to them? You or us? You do not understand the power of Islam as an idea... ”
My reply,
I would like to know when Lenin invoked a god to gather support from the people of SU to fight a Civil War in which six imperialist powers were directly involved. Which religion Ho Chi Minh referred to fight against two imperialist powers, France, and US successively in the Vietnam War, where thousands of Vietnamese peasants sacrificed to ensure a better future for their children. Which divine command has the Fidel Castro and his fellow Cubans followed while fighting an economic war against imperialism for the past forty years? You don’t understand the power of Marxism and proletariat…
I don’t need to answer any question, as I can say straight away, to inform you that we do not share the same platform.
Workers of all religions, Unite!
Friday, December 09, 2005
Another View of Stalin
These days I am reading "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. It is a very thorough study of propoganda, emerging from the right-wing and Trotskyists, against the great leader of socialism. The rich contributions of Stalin must not be ignored, let alone misunderstood. An online copy of the above mentioned book is present at: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html."
Have a good reading!
Have a good reading!
Monday, December 05, 2005
Venezuelans vote for Congress
Venezuelans vote for Congress
CARACAS (Venezuela), Dec 4: Venezuelans voted on Sunday in a congressional election with lawmakers allied to left-wing President Hugo Chavez looked set to sweep most seats after the main opposition parties boycotted the poll.
Hours before voting began, an oil pipeline in the west of the country was damaged by a small blast the government branded a sabotage attack on the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.
"This is a miserable terrorist attack," Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told state television.
Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said the explosion at a pipeline supplying the country's huge Amuay-Cardon refinery had not affected fuel supplies or exports and that firefighters had controlled a subsequent fire and oil spill.
The damaged pipeline carried 150,000 barrels per day to the refinery, state news agency ABN said. Authorities said the explosion was caused by a home-made pipe bomb, but they stopped short of directly accusing Chavez opponents, blaming only "radical groups."
Chavez, a former army officer opposed to Washington, has accused US officials of orchestrating the boycott to trigger a political crisis. - Reuters
http://dawn.com/2005/12/05/int8.htm
CARACAS (Venezuela), Dec 4: Venezuelans voted on Sunday in a congressional election with lawmakers allied to left-wing President Hugo Chavez looked set to sweep most seats after the main opposition parties boycotted the poll.Hours before voting began, an oil pipeline in the west of the country was damaged by a small blast the government branded a sabotage attack on the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.
"This is a miserable terrorist attack," Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told state television.
Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said the explosion at a pipeline supplying the country's huge Amuay-Cardon refinery had not affected fuel supplies or exports and that firefighters had controlled a subsequent fire and oil spill.
The damaged pipeline carried 150,000 barrels per day to the refinery, state news agency ABN said. Authorities said the explosion was caused by a home-made pipe bomb, but they stopped short of directly accusing Chavez opponents, blaming only "radical groups."
Chavez, a former army officer opposed to Washington, has accused US officials of orchestrating the boycott to trigger a political crisis. - Reuters
http://dawn.com/2005/12/05/int8.htm
---
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Revisionism and de-Stalinization
A very careful and gradual process took the process of “revisionism” forward. It was evident to the revisionists that they cannot attack socialism directly or else they would face popular opposition. So instead of attacking the idea, that would have invited hostility, they attacked the person who developed socialism in USSR. They attacked Stalin.
During the last decade or so of Stalin's life the western media, controlled and run by bourgeois-imperialist states, was vomiting every possible criticism against Stalin. “Stalin killed 50 million people in USSR”, was the slogan of the every imperialist.
The revisionists deployed a shrewd and evil tactic. Khrushchev, in his four hour long speech in 1956 in the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of SU, if I am not mistaken, accepted all the blames against Stalin. He accepted that Stalin was the “evil-doer”, getting in coherence with the western media. The repercussions of such a statement on the people can be thought of but must be researched. The people were told that it was not socialism that is bad, but it was Stalin who made it bad. The effect of the propaganda done at that time is even present today when every second newcomer in socialist struggle disowns Stalin.
Thus started the process of de-Stalinization, better known as “revisionism”. The revisionists, while taking steps against the name of Stalin, made arrangement to end socialism in the Soviet Union.
During the last decade or so of Stalin's life the western media, controlled and run by bourgeois-imperialist states, was vomiting every possible criticism against Stalin. “Stalin killed 50 million people in USSR”, was the slogan of the every imperialist.
The revisionists deployed a shrewd and evil tactic. Khrushchev, in his four hour long speech in 1956 in the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of SU, if I am not mistaken, accepted all the blames against Stalin. He accepted that Stalin was the “evil-doer”, getting in coherence with the western media. The repercussions of such a statement on the people can be thought of but must be researched. The people were told that it was not socialism that is bad, but it was Stalin who made it bad. The effect of the propaganda done at that time is even present today when every second newcomer in socialist struggle disowns Stalin.
Thus started the process of de-Stalinization, better known as “revisionism”. The revisionists, while taking steps against the name of Stalin, made arrangement to end socialism in the Soviet Union.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Communism collapsed in USSR
This is a discussion that took place on the orkut community of CMKP.
I asked, "Don't dare to think that it is me who thinks communism collapsed in USSR."Communism collapsed in USSR", is usually the first statement that you would listen from a non-communist. Almost all of us know the frequency of this statement in the non-communist circles. I would like to know how comrades, on this community, answer this ignorant statement.I will also give my reply soon."
Asad said, "Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.As China is making probleems for USA and just look at North Korea.Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan.Communism was not a factor in tht breakup. "
My reply to Asad, "Well, this was not an answer I was expecting. Please allow me to ask you few further questions to continue the discussion. In the mean time, other comrades should come forward to give their views on the topic.
Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.
So, do you mean to say that collapse of Soviet Union was the collapse of Soviet socialist model, which was presented by Lenin and stregthened by Stalin?
Is Maoism different from marxism-leninism?
Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan
How? USSR defeated fascist/nazi super powers during the WW2. How could it not bear the Afghan war? USSR emerged as a military super power after WW2, thanks to the leadership of Stalin and CPSU, and was in a position to easily bear any military pressure from anyside.
Clearly, Afghan war was not a major factor in Soviet Union disintegration at a time when USSR.
Communism was not a factor in tht breakup.
Alright. But what was the major factor? Where is Revisionism?
After the death of great communist leader, Stalin, in 1953, revisionist powers took control of the USSR, under a imperialist conspiracy. So, the collapse of USSR was not of communism, but a collapse of this revisionist philosophy.
The last leader of USSR, Gorbachev, said in an interview in 2001 that "my aim was to bring an end to communism in USSR".
So, the phenomenon that caused disintegration of USSR was not socialism but revisionism. Had the USSR followed the soclist legacy of Stalin, USSR would have been a super-power. The propect of a disintegration under Stalin was out of question because of his strategy of dealing with nationalities, approved by Lenin in 1913.
So, the moral of the story is Down with Revisionism"
Bhagat Singh said, "The process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Khrushev and his gang of revisionists started this counter revolutionary process in the name of "De-Stalinization". In the name de-stalinization he and the group of revisionist leaders after him(Brezhnev and Gorbachev) succesfully purged the Soviet Union from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism. Mao said in 1963:
"I believe there are two swords. One is the sword of Lenin, and the other is the sword of Stalin. The Soviet Union has thrown away the sword of Stalin, and has thus also thrown away the sword of Lenin. We Chinese, have not thrown these swords away, and are continuing to build Socialism on the principles of Marxism-Leninism."
A series of Economic, and political reforms, coupled with a radical change in the foreign policy of the CPSU led to a gradual process of degeneration in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the process of capitalist restoration was completed in 1991, when capitalism was firmly established in the Soviet Union, and replaced the remnants of Socialism in that country. This transition pushed over 20 million people into the poverty trap, and today Russia has been transformed from a Super power, into a third world country.
However, all is not lost. The Communist movement is gaining strength each day in the former Soviet Union. The Communist party is once again the largest party of Russia. It got the most votes in the 2000 local elections. In a recent protest it managed to bring millions of people to the streets, with the Red Flag raised over their heads, and pictures of Lenin and Stalin hailed with pride.
Marxist-Leninists the world over are waiting patiently for the revival of worker's power in the Soviet Union.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism!
Long Live the Workers Struggle!
Death to Imperialism!
Death to America!"
I agree with Bhagat Singh's reply.
Raza said, "In the 1940s and 1950s within the international Communist movement, revisionism was used to describe Communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry, accepted national differences and encouraged capital reforms.
USSR was under authoritarian rule. Isnt that revisionism enough? And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down? Communism never collapsed and never will. USSR did not have the flesh to bring communism down with it."
Bhagat Singh reply to Raza,
"Comrade,
I seriously disagree with you, over various points. Firstly, I disagree with your definition of Revisionism. Modern revisionism refers to a tendency which arose within the Communist movement. It was a regressive movement, which began a process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union under Khrushchv, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
However, to say that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state(and hence revisionist) is doubly incorrect in my opinion.
Firstly, I disagree with the statement that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state, on the grounds that the U.S.S.R(despite its revisionist tendencies) continued to be a Socialist state albeit in a revisionist form. The political and socio-economic framework of the U.S.S.R continued to adhere to the principles of socialism in one way or the other, and hence, to suggest that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state is to give in to the propaganda of the imperialists.
Secondly, authoritarianism is not equal to revisionism. Revisionism(derived from the root word revision), when appllied to the Communist movement, refers to the tendency of "revising" the political and historic program of the party leading to a deviation from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
I would agree with your last statement.. the disintegration of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of Communism. However, the CMKP own's the heritage of the U.S.S.R, and considers it one of the greatest victories of the workers and peasants in the 20th century.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism!"
My reply to Raza, " I would first chanllenge the premises that you used to legitimize revisionism.
Was USSR government auhtoritarian in 40s and 50s (under Stalin’s rule)?
The USSR government was not authoritarian both in theory and substance of the Stalin Constitution of 1936.
"If democracy lies in the participation of people in the affairs of government and freedom from material worries and cares, then one shall have to admit that Soviet Union is the most democratic country in the World [under the Stalin Constitution of 1936(pg 278)... While defending the monopolistic position of the Communist party, Stalin said, "As to freedom for various political parties, we adhere to somewhat different view. A party is a part of class, its most advanced part. Several parties can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable... But in Soviet Union there are no longer such classes. In USSR, there are only two different classes, workers and peasants, whose interests, far from being hostile, are on the contrary, friendly. Hence there is no ground in the USSR far existence of several parties and consequently for the freedom of these parties"" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley
There were direct elections in USSR, and they continued even during the WW2, while there were no elections elsewhere in the world during that time.
"The Communist leadership of the SU is very proud of the fact that voters in the SU take and living interest in public affairs since almost 100% votes were recorded whereas in democratic countries like England and the USA only 50 to 76% voters record their votes" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley pg 282
Furthermore, there was also a Right of Recall available to the citizens. By employing this right the citizens were allowed to "pull-back" their representatives from the representative bodies.
The second part of the question is: did Stalin play an authoritarian role in the Communist Party of Soviet Union?
The evidence points out that in the start there was active opposition to the programs of Stalin. The Party often restrained his proposals.
This is what Comrade Klo pointed out in the CMKP email list on Yahoo groups.
"In 1932 events seem to be coming to a climax, with Stalin's most loyal
supporters at their wits' ends. There was a dramatic meeting in the
Politburo that must have taken place about the end of 1932. The actual
date is not known, but there's no question that at that meeting Stalin
suffered a painful reverse. The most credible account of the meeting is
as follows:
The situation at the moment was under discussion. A dramatic speech
was made by Voroshilov, who was then Commander-in-Chief in the army....
Voroshilov is said to have given, in the utmost agitation, a report of a
disastrous state of feeling in the Army; he is said to have thrown whole
packets of soldiers letters on the table and demanded that something
should at once be done. Stalin's proposals-- their nature is not
known--were rejected,...."
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 188
To read complete Klo's post on the issue, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3404.
Many of the Stalin's proposals were not opposed later on because all his bona fide opposers later found that Stalin was correct on the issue that they opposed.
Therefore, having attempted to establish that USSR was not authoritarian state under Stalin (1924-1953) in the first place, it is a contradiction, for me, to accept revisionism on that perticular reason.
And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down?
According to Marxist principles, it’s not possible to move from an advanced stage of Production and Production relations to a backward one. The principle does not mean that this movement is not possible but that this backward movement will result in a disaster. Substantially, revisionism is incompetent to fight capitalism and imperialism as it is bound to fail.
Now that the Russian economy is even smaller from that of Norway, the theory presented above holds true.
Communism never collapsed and never will.
Long Live the Revolution!
P.S. Read the article about Gorbachev. According to Clinton, Gorbacev "will go down in history as a person who changed the world for the better."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3502
I would suggest you to read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. An online copy of the book is available free at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html."
I asked, "Don't dare to think that it is me who thinks communism collapsed in USSR."Communism collapsed in USSR", is usually the first statement that you would listen from a non-communist. Almost all of us know the frequency of this statement in the non-communist circles. I would like to know how comrades, on this community, answer this ignorant statement.I will also give my reply soon."
Asad said, "Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.As China is making probleems for USA and just look at North Korea.Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan.Communism was not a factor in tht breakup. "
My reply to Asad, "Well, this was not an answer I was expecting. Please allow me to ask you few further questions to continue the discussion. In the mean time, other comrades should come forward to give their views on the topic.
Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.
So, do you mean to say that collapse of Soviet Union was the collapse of Soviet socialist model, which was presented by Lenin and stregthened by Stalin?
Is Maoism different from marxism-leninism?
Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan
How? USSR defeated fascist/nazi super powers during the WW2. How could it not bear the Afghan war? USSR emerged as a military super power after WW2, thanks to the leadership of Stalin and CPSU, and was in a position to easily bear any military pressure from anyside.
Clearly, Afghan war was not a major factor in Soviet Union disintegration at a time when USSR.
Communism was not a factor in tht breakup.
Alright. But what was the major factor? Where is Revisionism?
After the death of great communist leader, Stalin, in 1953, revisionist powers took control of the USSR, under a imperialist conspiracy. So, the collapse of USSR was not of communism, but a collapse of this revisionist philosophy.
The last leader of USSR, Gorbachev, said in an interview in 2001 that "my aim was to bring an end to communism in USSR".
So, the phenomenon that caused disintegration of USSR was not socialism but revisionism. Had the USSR followed the soclist legacy of Stalin, USSR would have been a super-power. The propect of a disintegration under Stalin was out of question because of his strategy of dealing with nationalities, approved by Lenin in 1913.
So, the moral of the story is Down with Revisionism"
Bhagat Singh said, "The process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Khrushev and his gang of revisionists started this counter revolutionary process in the name of "De-Stalinization". In the name de-stalinization he and the group of revisionist leaders after him(Brezhnev and Gorbachev) succesfully purged the Soviet Union from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism. Mao said in 1963:
"I believe there are two swords. One is the sword of Lenin, and the other is the sword of Stalin. The Soviet Union has thrown away the sword of Stalin, and has thus also thrown away the sword of Lenin. We Chinese, have not thrown these swords away, and are continuing to build Socialism on the principles of Marxism-Leninism."
A series of Economic, and political reforms, coupled with a radical change in the foreign policy of the CPSU led to a gradual process of degeneration in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the process of capitalist restoration was completed in 1991, when capitalism was firmly established in the Soviet Union, and replaced the remnants of Socialism in that country. This transition pushed over 20 million people into the poverty trap, and today Russia has been transformed from a Super power, into a third world country.
However, all is not lost. The Communist movement is gaining strength each day in the former Soviet Union. The Communist party is once again the largest party of Russia. It got the most votes in the 2000 local elections. In a recent protest it managed to bring millions of people to the streets, with the Red Flag raised over their heads, and pictures of Lenin and Stalin hailed with pride.
Marxist-Leninists the world over are waiting patiently for the revival of worker's power in the Soviet Union.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism!
Long Live the Workers Struggle!
Death to Imperialism!
Death to America!"
I agree with Bhagat Singh's reply.
Raza said, "In the 1940s and 1950s within the international Communist movement, revisionism was used to describe Communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry, accepted national differences and encouraged capital reforms.
USSR was under authoritarian rule. Isnt that revisionism enough? And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down? Communism never collapsed and never will. USSR did not have the flesh to bring communism down with it."
Bhagat Singh reply to Raza,
"Comrade,
I seriously disagree with you, over various points. Firstly, I disagree with your definition of Revisionism. Modern revisionism refers to a tendency which arose within the Communist movement. It was a regressive movement, which began a process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union under Khrushchv, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
However, to say that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state(and hence revisionist) is doubly incorrect in my opinion.
Firstly, I disagree with the statement that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state, on the grounds that the U.S.S.R(despite its revisionist tendencies) continued to be a Socialist state albeit in a revisionist form. The political and socio-economic framework of the U.S.S.R continued to adhere to the principles of socialism in one way or the other, and hence, to suggest that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state is to give in to the propaganda of the imperialists.
Secondly, authoritarianism is not equal to revisionism. Revisionism(derived from the root word revision), when appllied to the Communist movement, refers to the tendency of "revising" the political and historic program of the party leading to a deviation from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
I would agree with your last statement.. the disintegration of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of Communism. However, the CMKP own's the heritage of the U.S.S.R, and considers it one of the greatest victories of the workers and peasants in the 20th century.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism!"
My reply to Raza, " I would first chanllenge the premises that you used to legitimize revisionism.
Was USSR government auhtoritarian in 40s and 50s (under Stalin’s rule)?
The USSR government was not authoritarian both in theory and substance of the Stalin Constitution of 1936.
"If democracy lies in the participation of people in the affairs of government and freedom from material worries and cares, then one shall have to admit that Soviet Union is the most democratic country in the World [under the Stalin Constitution of 1936(pg 278)... While defending the monopolistic position of the Communist party, Stalin said, "As to freedom for various political parties, we adhere to somewhat different view. A party is a part of class, its most advanced part. Several parties can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable... But in Soviet Union there are no longer such classes. In USSR, there are only two different classes, workers and peasants, whose interests, far from being hostile, are on the contrary, friendly. Hence there is no ground in the USSR far existence of several parties and consequently for the freedom of these parties"" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley
There were direct elections in USSR, and they continued even during the WW2, while there were no elections elsewhere in the world during that time.
"The Communist leadership of the SU is very proud of the fact that voters in the SU take and living interest in public affairs since almost 100% votes were recorded whereas in democratic countries like England and the USA only 50 to 76% voters record their votes" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley pg 282
Furthermore, there was also a Right of Recall available to the citizens. By employing this right the citizens were allowed to "pull-back" their representatives from the representative bodies.
The second part of the question is: did Stalin play an authoritarian role in the Communist Party of Soviet Union?
The evidence points out that in the start there was active opposition to the programs of Stalin. The Party often restrained his proposals.
This is what Comrade Klo pointed out in the CMKP email list on Yahoo groups.
"In 1932 events seem to be coming to a climax, with Stalin's most loyal
supporters at their wits' ends. There was a dramatic meeting in the
Politburo that must have taken place about the end of 1932. The actual
date is not known, but there's no question that at that meeting Stalin
suffered a painful reverse. The most credible account of the meeting is
as follows:
The situation at the moment was under discussion. A dramatic speech
was made by Voroshilov, who was then Commander-in-Chief in the army....
Voroshilov is said to have given, in the utmost agitation, a report of a
disastrous state of feeling in the Army; he is said to have thrown whole
packets of soldiers letters on the table and demanded that something
should at once be done. Stalin's proposals-- their nature is not
known--were rejected,...."
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 188
To read complete Klo's post on the issue, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3404.
Many of the Stalin's proposals were not opposed later on because all his bona fide opposers later found that Stalin was correct on the issue that they opposed.
Therefore, having attempted to establish that USSR was not authoritarian state under Stalin (1924-1953) in the first place, it is a contradiction, for me, to accept revisionism on that perticular reason.
And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down?
According to Marxist principles, it’s not possible to move from an advanced stage of Production and Production relations to a backward one. The principle does not mean that this movement is not possible but that this backward movement will result in a disaster. Substantially, revisionism is incompetent to fight capitalism and imperialism as it is bound to fail.
Now that the Russian economy is even smaller from that of Norway, the theory presented above holds true.
Communism never collapsed and never will.
Long Live the Revolution!
P.S. Read the article about Gorbachev. According to Clinton, Gorbacev "will go down in history as a person who changed the world for the better."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3502
I would suggest you to read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. An online copy of the book is available free at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html."
Privatization at Gunpoint By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
The transfer of assets from peripheral states to international financial oligarchies is one of the defining tenets of the neoliberal counter-revolution. As a general rule, this latest form of neocolonial transfer of surplus to the industrialized core has proceeded relatively successfully in many peripheral states, with many Latin American states standing out as significant exceptions. In Pakistan, where the ruling state oligarchy has historically been the equivalent of a comprador bourgeoisie, this process has accelerated since it was initiated in the late 1980s...
To read rest of the article visit http://monthlyreview.org/1005akhtar.htm.
To read rest of the article visit http://monthlyreview.org/1005akhtar.htm.
Cuba and the U.S. Che Guevara
The questions below were submitted, in writing, to Comandante Guevara by Leo Huberman during the week of the invasion; the answers were received the end of June.—The Editors
(1) Have relations with the U.S. gone “over the brink” or is it still possible to work out a modus vivendi?
This question has two answers: one, which we might term “philosophical,” and the other, “political.” The philosophical answer is that the aggressive state of North American monopoly capitalism and the accelerated transition toward fascism make any kind of agreement impossible; and relations will necessarily remain tense or even worse until the final destruction of imperialism. The other, political answer, asserts that these relations are not our fault, and that, as we have many times demonstrated, the most recent time being after the defeat of the Giron Beach landing, we are ready for any kind of agreement on terms of equality with the Government of the United States.
(2) The U.S. holds Cuba responsible for the rupture in relations while Cuba blames the U.S. What part of the blame, in your opinion, can be correctly attributed to your country? In short, what mistakes have you made in your dealings with the U.S.?
Very few, we believe; perhaps some in matters of form. But we hold the firm conviction that we have acted for our part in accord with the right, and that we have responded to the interests of the people in each of our acts. The trouble is that our interests, that is, those of the people, and the interests of the North American monopolies are at variance.
(3) Assuming that the U.S. means to smash the Cuban Revolution, what are the chances of its getting help from the O.A.S. group?
Everything depends on what is meant by “smash.” If this means the violent destruction of the revolutionary regime with the help—likewise direct—of the O.A.S., I believe there is very little possibility, because history cannot be ignored. The countries of America understand the value of active solidarity among friendly countries, and they would not risk a reversal of such magnitude.
(4) Does Cuba align itself in international affairs with the neutralist or Soviet bloc
Cuba will align herself with justice; or, to be less absolute, with what she takes for justice. We do not practice politics by blocs, so that we cannot side with the neutralist bloc, nor, for the same reason, do we belong to the socialist bloc. But wherever there is a question of defending a just cause, there we will cast our votes—even on the side of the United States if that country should ever assume the role of defending just causes.
(5) What is Cuba's chief domestic problem?
It is difficult to assess problems with such precision. I can mention several: the “guerrillerismo” which still exists in the government; the lack of comprehension on the part of some sectors of the people of the necessity for sacrifice; the lack of some raw materials for industries and some non-durable consumer goods, resulting in certain scarcities; the uncertainty as to when the next imperialist attack will take place; the upsets in production caused by mobilization. These are some of the problems which trouble us at times, but, far from distressing us, they serve to accustom us to the struggle.
(6) How do you explain the growing number of Cuban counter-revolutionaries and the defection of so many former revolutionaries?:
Revolutions function by waves. When Mr. Huberman asked this question, perhaps it was accurate, but today there are fewer counter-revolutionaries than before Giron Beach. The counter-revolutionary attack increased slowly until it reached its climax on Giron Beach; then it was defeated and fell drastically to zero. Now that it is again attempting to raise its head and inflict new harm, our intention is to eliminate the counter-revolutionaries.
The defections of more or less prominent figures are due to the fact that the socialist revolution left the opportunists, the ambitious, and the fearful far behind and now advances toward a new regime free of this class of vermin.
(7) Can the countries of Latin America solve their problems while maintaining the capitalist system, or must they take the path of socialism as Cuba has done?
It seems elementary to us that the way of the socialist revolution must be chosen, the exploitation of man by man must be abolished, economic planning must be undertaken, and all means of assisting the public welfare must be placed at the service of the community.
(8) Are civil liberties, Western style, permanently finished while your government is in power?
This would depend on what civil rights were referred to—the civil right, for example, of the white to make the Negro sit in the rear of a bus; the right of the white to keep the Negro off a beach or bar him from a certain zone; the right of the Ku Klux Klan to assassinate any Negro who looks at a white woman; the right of a Faubus, in a word, or perhaps the right of a Trujillo, or Somoza, or Stroessner, or Duvalier. In any case, it would be necessary to define the term more precisely, to see if it also includes the right to welcome punitive expeditions sent by a country to the north.
(9) What kind of political system do you envisage for Cuba after the present emergency period of reorganization and reconstruction is over?
In general terms it may be said that a political power which is attentive to the needs of the majority of the people must be in constant communication with the people and must know how to express what the people, with their many mouths, only hint at. How to achieve this is a practical task which will take us some time. In any event, the present revolutionary period must still persist for some time, and it is not possible to talk of structural reorganization while the threat of war still haunts our island.
(1) Have relations with the U.S. gone “over the brink” or is it still possible to work out a modus vivendi?
This question has two answers: one, which we might term “philosophical,” and the other, “political.” The philosophical answer is that the aggressive state of North American monopoly capitalism and the accelerated transition toward fascism make any kind of agreement impossible; and relations will necessarily remain tense or even worse until the final destruction of imperialism. The other, political answer, asserts that these relations are not our fault, and that, as we have many times demonstrated, the most recent time being after the defeat of the Giron Beach landing, we are ready for any kind of agreement on terms of equality with the Government of the United States.
(2) The U.S. holds Cuba responsible for the rupture in relations while Cuba blames the U.S. What part of the blame, in your opinion, can be correctly attributed to your country? In short, what mistakes have you made in your dealings with the U.S.?
Very few, we believe; perhaps some in matters of form. But we hold the firm conviction that we have acted for our part in accord with the right, and that we have responded to the interests of the people in each of our acts. The trouble is that our interests, that is, those of the people, and the interests of the North American monopolies are at variance.
(3) Assuming that the U.S. means to smash the Cuban Revolution, what are the chances of its getting help from the O.A.S. group?
Everything depends on what is meant by “smash.” If this means the violent destruction of the revolutionary regime with the help—likewise direct—of the O.A.S., I believe there is very little possibility, because history cannot be ignored. The countries of America understand the value of active solidarity among friendly countries, and they would not risk a reversal of such magnitude.
(4) Does Cuba align itself in international affairs with the neutralist or Soviet bloc
Cuba will align herself with justice; or, to be less absolute, with what she takes for justice. We do not practice politics by blocs, so that we cannot side with the neutralist bloc, nor, for the same reason, do we belong to the socialist bloc. But wherever there is a question of defending a just cause, there we will cast our votes—even on the side of the United States if that country should ever assume the role of defending just causes.
(5) What is Cuba's chief domestic problem?
It is difficult to assess problems with such precision. I can mention several: the “guerrillerismo” which still exists in the government; the lack of comprehension on the part of some sectors of the people of the necessity for sacrifice; the lack of some raw materials for industries and some non-durable consumer goods, resulting in certain scarcities; the uncertainty as to when the next imperialist attack will take place; the upsets in production caused by mobilization. These are some of the problems which trouble us at times, but, far from distressing us, they serve to accustom us to the struggle.
(6) How do you explain the growing number of Cuban counter-revolutionaries and the defection of so many former revolutionaries?:
Revolutions function by waves. When Mr. Huberman asked this question, perhaps it was accurate, but today there are fewer counter-revolutionaries than before Giron Beach. The counter-revolutionary attack increased slowly until it reached its climax on Giron Beach; then it was defeated and fell drastically to zero. Now that it is again attempting to raise its head and inflict new harm, our intention is to eliminate the counter-revolutionaries.
The defections of more or less prominent figures are due to the fact that the socialist revolution left the opportunists, the ambitious, and the fearful far behind and now advances toward a new regime free of this class of vermin.
(7) Can the countries of Latin America solve their problems while maintaining the capitalist system, or must they take the path of socialism as Cuba has done?
It seems elementary to us that the way of the socialist revolution must be chosen, the exploitation of man by man must be abolished, economic planning must be undertaken, and all means of assisting the public welfare must be placed at the service of the community.
(8) Are civil liberties, Western style, permanently finished while your government is in power?
This would depend on what civil rights were referred to—the civil right, for example, of the white to make the Negro sit in the rear of a bus; the right of the white to keep the Negro off a beach or bar him from a certain zone; the right of the Ku Klux Klan to assassinate any Negro who looks at a white woman; the right of a Faubus, in a word, or perhaps the right of a Trujillo, or Somoza, or Stroessner, or Duvalier. In any case, it would be necessary to define the term more precisely, to see if it also includes the right to welcome punitive expeditions sent by a country to the north.
(9) What kind of political system do you envisage for Cuba after the present emergency period of reorganization and reconstruction is over?
In general terms it may be said that a political power which is attentive to the needs of the majority of the people must be in constant communication with the people and must know how to express what the people, with their many mouths, only hint at. How to achieve this is a practical task which will take us some time. In any event, the present revolutionary period must still persist for some time, and it is not possible to talk of structural reorganization while the threat of war still haunts our island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
