Comrade Gus Hall analyzed some of the elements indicating a mass breakaway from the old parties in his report to the post-election November 1976 meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. He then said:

Growing Disaffection 

Is there an objective basis for initiatives in the direction of a new, mass anti-monopoly party?

Nationally, it is increasingly obvious that despite President Jimmy Carter’s standing in the polls, there is a swelling current of disenchantment with him, particularly among those who voted for him as “the lesser evil” and whose expectations he aroused. Evidence on this score piles up daily:

• In the ranks of organized labor there developed early considerable criticism of the Carter Administration’s refusal to support its demand for a $3 hourly minimum wage and of Carter’s miserly counter-proposals.
  Similarly, many trade unionists are bitter about the Administration’s failure to make real efforts to win passage of the situs picketing bill, long a demand of the building trades unions. Further, there is considerable resentment at the Administration for putting on ice any repealer of Section 14B of the Taft Hartley law, which legalizes the so-called right-to-work law, the notorious measure used, particularly in the South, to strangle the union shop and, indeed, union organization. This resentment continues to exist in the labor movement, notwithstanding the maneuvering of AFL-CIO President George Meany to patch up matters with Carter. If anything, the placid acceptance by Carter of a high level of unemployment for years to come has solidified a critical attitude toward him in labor’s ranks. The issue of jobs has become the number one question for organized labor, as it has for unorganized workers. Even Meany, feeling the pressure from the ranks, has had to attack Carter publicly for stressing “balancing the budget” as against jobs for the jobless.
• In the Black people’s movement there is a tidal wave of discontent with the Carter Administration. It reached something of a peak in late August with an extraordinary “summit meeting” of representatives of 15 leading organizations of Black people, including the Congressional Black Caucus. Earlier, there were expressions of criticism at the NAACP national convention by Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League; by the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, head of PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), and by others.
  But the summit session had a qualitatively new character. There was an evident shattering of illusions and the emergence of a common strategy for a counter-offensive against what the Rev. Jackson called “the callous neglect” by the Carter Administration of the Blacks and the poor generally. The central aim, the summit agreed, was the fight for jobs, for a full employment policy, with special emphasis on jobs for the Black youth, among whom unemployment ranges up to 86 percent, according to some estimates.
  This criticism of Carter from wide sections of the Black community, cutting across ideological and organization lines, is tinged with a special bitterness. The Black people feel — and this is supported by the election figures — that they, plus some sections of labor, provided the margin of Carter’s narrow election victory over Republican Gerald Ford. There is a deep feeling that Carter betrayed his campaign promises, especially in respect to the bread and-butter issues. Significantly, Carter, who earlier had referred to Jordan’s criticism as “demagogic,” talked differently after the summit meeting. The White House response, according to Jody Powell, Carter’s press secretary, “ought to be moderate and responsible.” Subsequently, Carter met with the House Black Caucus.
• Among liberal Democrats there is also disillusionment, reflected most clearly by the sharply critical speech of Senator George McGovern at this year’s convention of Americans for Democratic Action. McGovern and other liberal Democrats are attacking Carter not only for reneging on his campaign pledges but also for refusing to fight for his own measures when the political going gets rough. For example, the Administration sponsored a universal voter registration measure, the effect of which would be to simplify procedures, thus increasing the number of people who actually vote. (Such a law is on the statute books of Minnesota and Wisconsin and has in fact raised the total percentage of voters beyond that of the other states.) However, the Administration backed away from its own bill, a simple democratic measure, after the Republican high command and some Southern Democratic Senators emitted a few growls. 

Neutron Bomb and L’Affair Lance 

Likewise, criticism of Carter’s betrayal of his pledge to cut the military budget has surfaced along with expressions of outrage at the proposal to build the neutron bomb (“spare the property and kill the people”). The giant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers (AFSCME), which supported him in the 1976 campaign, waged an effective drive against the B-l bomber, undoubtedly a factor in the decision to halt it. Opposition to the neutron bomb is widespread, even in circles which rarely speak up on such questions. Thus, for instance, the National Coalition of American Nuns, according to the lay Catholic magazine Commonwealth, wrote Carter:

Nor does this exhaust the issues around which there is discontent. Carter’s stalling on a national health bill has evoked criticism among people who were his 1976 supporters. And even his high-pressure “human rights” campaign has met with considerable skepticism, with more than one commentator noting acidly that Carter exempts such tyrannies as South Korea and Iran for reasons of alleged “national security.”

Beyond these clearly defined groupings of labor, the Black people’s organizations and liberal Democrats, the Bert Lance scandal has set off widespread comment about “cronyism” in the White House. Carter’s defense of his old Georgia pal and appointee to the key post of director of the Office of Management and Budget in the face of the evidence of the latter’s financial shenanigans as banker politician drew attacks from many quarters, including some old southern supporters. The sharp contrast between Carter’s sanctimonious pre-election preachments and his behavior in L’Affaire Lance is widely noted. Some columnists have even hinted that Carter’s election campaign may have been partially financed through Lance’s curious fiscal didoes.

Not all the discontent is aimed at Washington, however. In city after city there are local struggles around cutbacks of social services, layoffs of municipal workers and the perennial City Hall scandals. New York City is the most dramatic example, but the situation is virtually epidemic since the urban areas have borne the main shock of the banker and monopoly drive to lower the living standards of the people. 

Developments Toward Independence 

How is all this affecting the electoral process?

It has been noted for some time that there has been a steady alienation of the electorate from the process. Nearly half the eligible voters did not participate in the 1976 elections (less than 54 per cent) and the curve has been generally downward since 1960 when about 60 percent voted in the presidential elections.

Nor is 1977 showing much change, judging by the municipal primaries which with rare exceptions — New York City — continued to indicate wide disinterest in the selection of candidates by the old parties.

Among those who do take part in the electoral process there is mounting evidence of independence from the two old parties. For example, of 2,150 candidates whose names appeared on a primary and/or a general election ballot for the House of Representatives or Senate in 1976, 13 per cent (about 280) were independents, that is, they ran either without a party designation or as minor party candidates. (By no means, however, should all these be regarded as progressive candidates. Some of these “independents” were clearly ultra-Rightists.)

Independence among the registered voters, in the sense of non-affiliation with either of the two old parties, continues to grow. The New York State Board of Elections reported recently that the number of independents had passed beyond the 1 million mark for the first time in the state’s history. In varying degree, the same trend is apparent in other states.

But this phenomenon, while reflecting a lack of enthusiasm for either old party, is not yet true independence, that is, a break with the two old parties. Most of those who decline to enroll themselves as either Republicans or Democrats are generally “swing” voters. They say they vote “the candidate, not the party.” Frequently, it means shuttling between the two old parties and “splitting” their tickets between candidates of both.

Evidence of this shuttling was seen even in the first months of the Carter Administration. In the special election in Washington State’s 7^th Congressional District to replace Rep. Brock Adams, a Democrat appointed Secretary of Transportation, a Republican won in this traditionally Democratic area. Reportedly, Carter’s threat of a gasoline tax was a major issue in the election. Most of the voters, reflecting a widespread anti-monopoly mood, regarded the tax as a ripoff designed to benefit the oil trusts and voted accordingly. They switched to the GOP to register their protest, apparently because they saw no viable alternative. (Significantly, the three byelections since Carter’s inauguration in January have all seen Democratic candidates defeated, the last being in a rock-ribbed Democratic district in Louisiana.)

What can be expected in the organized labor movement in respect to political action?

Within the labor movement some degree of change can be anticipated, particularly if the United Auto Workers union votes to re-affiliate to the AFL-CIO. The UAW and the new leadership of the Machinists union, together with the Communication Workers, AFSCME and the other unions which opposed George Meany’s “neutrality” in the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972 (and even formed their own committee) will tend to group together again. These unions tend to be critical of the Carter Administration. Some see the necessity of forming a political pressure bloc. But it will be a bloc within the general administration orbit, a bloc to the Left of Meany and the Administration, designed largely to offset pressures from the Right. It should have a limited usefulness in checking anti-labor legislation and advancing social welfare and civil rights measures and perhaps even supporting some liberal moves in foreign policy.

But, soberly viewed, all this is a considerable way from a new people’s anti-monopoly party, although it cannot be ruled out that one or another labor leader, under pressure from the rank and file, may become associated with a movement for a mass people’s party.

It must be concluded at this moment that while there is considerable ferment in the country and disenchantment with the two old parties, this does not yet spell out a solid national movement for a new mass, anti-monopoly party. There are a few local coalitions that are promising but a national movement along these lines does not exist today. In this respect the situation is considerably different than that preceding the 1948 election when the Progressive Party fielded a third party presidential ticket headed by Henry Wallace. In late 1946 and throughout 1947 there was active agitation and organization on a nation-wide scale for such a national ticket, all of it laying the groundwork for the 1948 presidential campaign. In the 1976 election campaign the question of building a mass anti-monopoly party was raised in the speeches of Gus Hall and Jarvis Tyner, the Communist candidates for President and Vice President, respectively. While mass reaction was friendly to the idea, few public figures other than Hall and Tyner chose to discuss the question. 

Needed: Ongoing Grassroots Work 

Clearly, ferment and disenchantment may create a political climate in which a new mass party can be built but no more than that. The actual process — and the term process must be stressed — by which such a party will be built in the U.S. is exceedingly complex. It of course requires constant agitation for such a party but it will not be built by ringing rhetoric calling for masses of voters to leave the two old parties.

Experience over the years demonstrates that effective third parties grow out of mass movements on great social issues. Thus, the Republican party of the mid-19^th century arose out of the struggle around For Peace, Jobs, Equality chattel slavery. The LaFollette presidential candidacy of 1924 on the Progressive Party line had as its basis the struggle of the trade union movement against the post-World War I anti-labor drive, as well as the revolt of the small farmers against monopoly. The Progressive Party of 1948 arose primarily in the struggle against the cold war.

From this it follows that a new mass people’s party can arise today only through the participation of masses in the main economic and political struggles of the day — for jobs and wage increases, against monopoly prices and extortionate utility rates, for rent control and public housing, against cutbacks of social services, against the swollen military budget and for nuclear disarmament. A special element of today’s struggle must be the fight against pervasive racism and the systematic effort to destroy the gains made in the civil rights battles of the ’60s. The totality of all this is a many-sided struggle against monopoly capital.

But even participation in struggle, while basic, is of itself not enough. Millions have participated in economic and political struggles in the past but have not drawn the conclusion of the need for a break with the two-party system. In short, there is nothing automatic about the birth of a new mass united front anti-monopoly party. The conscious element is decisive, given the movement of millions in struggle.

What is required is concrete work for such a party on many levels, starting at the grassroots with legislative and political activity that stems from and is fused with the struggles around day-to-day issues. This work — on a 365-days-a-year basis — must have as one of its major objectives the building of independent coalition movements around labor candidates, Black candidates, candidates of other national groups, women candidates, youth candidates — in short, candidates standing on a platform of united anti-monopoly struggle. There will be no mass anti-monopoly party in the field in the 1980 presidential elections unless solid grassroots bases are built in 1977, 1978 and 1979. 

United Front Approach 

It is true that only a relative minority of those involved in grassroots coalitions will have the outlook of a formal breakaway from the two old parties. Many will retain some old party ties. Many will continue to participate in old party primaries even as they express increasing independence on issues and help to build independent movements. That means that the forces committed to seeking a genuine political alternative cannot ignore the old party primaries. These primaries can sometimes become the arenas of struggle around issues that are part of the process of building a new anti-monopoly party.

It should be remembered that progressive congressmen like John Conyers and Ron Dellums, for example, while taking advanced positions and increasingly associating themselves with independent forces, still feel it necessary to use the Democratic Party locally as a political vehicle. Nor can we forget political history. The late Vito Marcantonio, probably the most progressive congressman of this century, began as a Republican and used the Republican ballot line as a vehicle. At the same time he was building up an independent apparatus and advancing an independent progressive program, remaining a nominal Republican until the American Labor Party of the 1930’s developed as a balance-of-power party in New York State.

There will undoubtedly be similar developments along the road to a new mass people’s party today. Committed third party forces may find themselves in grassroots political coalitions with supporters of Jimmy Carter. They may find themselves working for independent local candidates who on a national level back the Carter Administration. This is an inevitable element of any genuine mass united front anti monopoly movement.

This was the case in the superb Mark Allen campaign in Berkeley last Spring, a non-partisan election for local office in which a splendid united front of struggle was built, a united front in which the non-Communist participants (the majority) were regarded — and felt themselves — as equals in the united front. Great credit goes to those who understood and correctly applied these united front policies, particularly to Mark Allen, a candidate in the great tradition of Communist Councilman Pete Cacchione and Ben Davis, and also to the leadership of the California Communist Party.

On a somewhat different level is New York, where the Coalition for Independent Politics is slowly building a movement that includes people who are prepared to accept a progressive program but still regard the Democratic primary as an indispensable element of their campaigns. And in Connecticut, a citizens’ group for independent political action, including labor people, Black leaders and community activists, has been convoked.

Similar situations exist, perhaps only in embryos, in other areas. Tactical elements will vary from state to state but the essential strategic task remains the same — the gathering of the forces moving in the direction of independent progressive political action.

But perhaps a word of warning would not be out of order. Day-to-day organization is required but it must be pervaded by the underlying concept that the building of an effective anti-monopoly movement and party is the next great task on the agenda of the working class and its allies. It is a historic struggle for democracy and will be bitterly resisted by the ruling class. It is a massive undertaking, greater even than the battle for the organization of the unorganized workers into industrial unions in the 30s and 40s. Already we see efforts in some states to tighten further the already restrictive election laws and limit access to the ballot for independents and minority parties.

But a mighty people’s movement can overcome these obstacles. Uniting the great majority who are the victims of monopoly capital, it can sweep aside the ruling class barriers and move towards the formation of a mass anti-monopoly people’s party that will effectively challenge the two old parties of capitalism.

1. Adapted (and updated) from remarks delivered to a meeting of the Communist Party Central Committee and National Council, May 30, 1977. ︎
2. Hall, Gus, The 1976 Elections — Mandate for Struggle; New Outlook Publishers: New York, 1976, pp. 13-14. ︎
3. Commonweal, August 19, 1977. ︎

The post On Building a Mass Anti-Monopoly Party appeared first on The Communist.

Longshoremen walked off the job at 12:01 am October 1^st for a strike that lasted three days. The demands included a 77% pay raise over six years, maintaining ILA jurisdiction, protecting Container Royalties^[1], and no automation of ILA jobs.

Bourgeois Attacks on the Strike

In typical bourgeois fashion, the country was sent into a panic by the three-day strike as the media warned of empty shelves, and a shattered economy in the weeks leading up to the strike. After the devastating Hurricane Helene made landfall in late September, the capitalist-controlled media rushed to further fear-monger about how the strike would “block the recovery” for the hurricane’s victims.

Attacks on the strike escalated against the workers after the New York Post had a field day with the contradictions regarding the bourgeois lifestyle led by ILA President, Harold Daggett.^[2] The bloated salaries and lavish lifestyles of many business unionist bureaucrats, including Daggett, do not reflect the living standards of the rank-and-file members and are used to diminish the workers’ struggle. There will be more on this, what Lenin dubbed the “labor aristocracy,” later.

Fitting in their “exposé”, the NY Post article had no mention of the exorbitant salaries paid out to the CEOs of the port carriers, represented by the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). USMX is a modern-day cartel aimed at monopolizing control of the East and Gulf Coast ports in the United States. USMX plays a similar role in the collective bargaining process that the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC) did in the railroad dispute in 2022.

We also saw the typical attacks from Conservative and Republican Party politicians, and even sections of the Democratic Party as the so-called “party of labor” had its share of attacks on striking dock workers.

Citing an article on the ILA’s website where Daggett showed empathy for Trump after his alleged assassination attempt, many Democratic Party operatives, including former Obama staffer Jon Cooper, attacked the strike as a stunt to damage the economy to get Donald Trump elected. This rhetoric lasted throughout the entire strike, refusing to take into account the union’s attempts at negotiating a new Master Contract well in advance of the prior contract’s expiration. In a statement the ILA released on the first day of the strike, the union noted how negotiations went with the USMX:

“Let’s be clear: the ILA has been fully prepared to negotiate a fair contract since two years before its expiration. USMX’s claim that they are ready to bargain rings hollow when they waited until the eve of a potential strike to present this offer. The last offer from USMX was back in February 2023, and the ILA has been listening to our members’ concerns ever since.”

We cannot also forget the role played by Daggett and the ILA leadership in securing the AFL-CIO endorsement for President Biden in the 2020 election. This endorsement was in doubt after the resolution passed by the AFL-CIO convention in 2017 ending labor’s support for the “lesser of two evils.”^[3]

The Ultra-Left, Objective Agents of the Bourgeoisie, Attack Striking Workers

To be clear, we cannot be surprised by bourgeois attacks on strike actions, even from political operatives of parties that claim to support the labor movement. Those attacks are expected. It’s the attacks by groupings who claim to be “fighters for the working class”, many of whom even call themselves Socialists and Communists who openly attacked the strike, boldly pronounced their position against it, all while claiming to push a “leftist” agenda.

Such a position can be described as nothing short of “left in form, right in essence,” a phrase many of us within the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) use to describe the various elements of the ultra-left. To understand the nature of these attacks it is important to understand the petty-bourgeois nature of ultra-leftism, no matter what form it may take—i.e., Anarchism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, generic “Leftism”, Sakaiism, etc.

It must be noted that the basic concept of class struggle has been rejected by the modern ultra-left. We can routinely see these forces attack actual Communists with the phrase “class reductionist” while hiding behind a hammer and sickle. In his work, “Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism”, former CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall noted:

“The very essence of capitalism is class exploitation. It is exploitation of people, again in mass. The essence of any struggle is the class struggle. The central moving force is the exploited class–the working class.”^[4]

He went on to say:

“Petty-bourgeois radicalism as a concept rejects the basic class nature of society and the class struggle as a pivotal element in the fight for progress. It rejects the role of mass movements because it does not see its basic ingredient–the working class. A class approach to struggle is of necessity a mass approach. The petty-bourgeois radical rhetoric is a sanctuary for those who have given up the possibilities of leading masses, and in the first place the working-class masses, in struggle. It is a way of keeping a radical image when in fact one has retreated and given up the struggle.”^[5]

The ultra-left attacks were aimed at the agreement made by ILA leadership to continue moving military cargo during the strike, a practice dating back to strikes as far back as the First World War. The current genocide being waged against the Palestinians by the Netanyahu regime was used as a reason to not back striking workers. The ultra-left even used a statement by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10, backing the blocking of arms shipments to justify their position.^[6] What they left out is that the ILWU, including Local 10, supported the striking ILA workers. This support was carried out in multiple ways. First and foremost, the ILWU respected the ILA picket lines by not unloading cargo diverted to the West Coast ports; the ILWU also sent a contingent of members to join the ILA picket lines.

It must be noted that for the ILA strike to have been most effective, not just for the longshoremen themselves, but for the anti-imperialist struggle, it would have been necessary to block the shipments of military cargo. So this brings us to another criticism the ultra-left had, which was that the strike was merely an economic one. It is easy to criticize the strike for its failure to block the shipment of weapons from the outside, but what is being done to organize and educate these workers politically? The lack of seriousness in these attacks is demonstrated by the ultra-left’s use of J. Sakai’s abomination of a text, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat.  (See Image )

It is also worth noting that within the framework of the ultra-left position is the rejection of working within the trade union movement. These forces reject the working class in the US as having any revolutionary potential (along the lines of the thesis of Sakai’s Settlers) despite the rise in militancy, and in spite of the fact there is no vanguard to lead the way. What this amounts to is a rejection of Lenin’s thesis that revolutionaries must work within reactionary trade unions to push them left, and to make them a leading force in a future dictatorship of the proletariat. As Leninists we must also remember the wise words of Comrade Lenin in his brilliant polemic against the ultra-left of his time:

“The Party must more than ever and in a new way, not only in the old way, educate and guide the trade unions, at the same time bearing in mind that they are and will long remain an indispensable ‘school of Communism’ and a preparatory school that trains the proletarians to exercise their dictatorship.”^[7]

Comrade Gus Hall further explained plainly why we should not take these attacks seriously:

“Concepts of struggle not based on the above reality will sooner or later come into conflict with it. The advocates of petty-bourgeois radicalism try to bypass this reality. They believe they can avoid the necessary and unavoidable consistent and sustained work, the work of organizing, educating, mobilizing and leading people in mass, of leading people on the level of their understanding, of their own self-interest, and in this sense reflecting the objective processes leading to a revolutionary struggle against capitalism. For this they seek to substitute radical rhetoric with general slogans, or advanced actions that have no relationship to struggles to which the masses do respond. Thus, when the concepts based on unreality meet the reality of class struggle they bounce back. If such tactics are further pursued they become an obstacle to struggle. They become a destructive and divisive force. Organized groups which pursue such policies not only tend to move away from the working class, but they reject mass concepts of struggle altogether.”^[8]

Are the Ultra-Left Correct?

It is worth noting that having the correct ideas is not enough; if they are not applied properly and you are unable to win over the masses, it means nothing. Gus Hall once again said it perfectly:

“The concepts, the ideas, motivating petty-bourgeois radicalism are not necessarily wrong in the abstract. Those who follow wrong concepts, in most cases, are dedicated and sincere individuals. The concepts are wrong when they do not reflect the specific reality of the moment. Therefore, the more determined such individuals are, the more damaging they can be. … [The workers] do not respond to ideas–even good ideas–if they do not see their self-interests involved in these ideas.”^[9]

With this in mind, the ultra-left position in the abstract is a correct one. It is up to the working class to take the fight to imperialism, and blocking military cargo in a time when US imperialists are arming the genocide of the Palestinian people would be at the forefront of this fight. What is missing is the state of the labor movement at present time; we are living in a time where we are working to rebuild our vanguard role in the working-class movement since the post-Gus Hall leadership of the old Party abandoned class struggle for tailism.

Without a Communist presence in the rank and file to build a class-oriented movement we cannot expect the masses, who lack class consciousness, to lead this struggle by themselves. For a strike to lead to a political strug­gle, we must embed ourselves in the rank and file to lead an edu­cation campaign to build the class consciousness of the work­ers.

In laying out the Comintern plan to “bolshevize” the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries, O. Piatnitsky laid out how the Bolsheviks worked within the trade unions:

“… at the very beginning of the development of the labor movement the Bolsheviks established a connection between the economic struggle and the political. When the sentiments of the workers in the factories became favorable towards a strike, the Bolshevik cells immediately placed themselves in the leadership. The strikes in single shops spread to all departments, a strike in a single factory spread to all the other factories, and the strikes of the factory workers, under the influence and leadership of the Bolshevik Party organizations (our emphasis—Ed.), frequently assumed the forms of street demonstrations, and in this way the economic strikes developed into a political struggle.”^[10]

In the immediate lead-up to the strike, Democratic President Joe Biden announced he would not enact the Taft-Hartley act which would have imposed a 90-day “cooling-off period” that would have forced the dock workers back to work until January. There is no doubt that if military cargo was blocked, Biden would have forced this Taft-Hartley cooling-off period on the longshoremen. At the dock worker picket line on the first day of the strike, several rank-and-file members did not express a prior understanding of how the strike can impact the political situation. After some discussion, workers seemed to confirm the idea that shutting down military cargo would have led to Biden enforcing Taft-Hartley on the striking longshoremen. This would have meant the total destruction of the strike itself.

On the ultra-left’s aversion to working within reactionary trade unions, we must note that it is unequivocally wrong for anyone who claims to be a Communist to hold this anti-Leninist position. In talking about the German “Left” in his day, Lenin made it clear:

“In their opinion, decla­mations, and angry ejacu­lations … against ‘reac­tionary’ and ‘counter-rev­olutionary’ trade unions are sufficient ‘proof’ that it is unnecessary and even impermissible for revolu­tionaries and communists to work in yellow, social-chauvinist, compromising, counter-revolutionary trade unions. …

“But however strongly the German ‘Lefts’ may be convinced of the revolutionism of such tactics, these tactics are in fact fundamentally wrong, and amount to no more than empty phrase-mongering.”^[11]

Improving Our Work on Industrial Concentration is Essential to Becoming a Vanguard Party

The ILA strike, in addition to other strikes of recent years, has demonstrated that the labor movement in the United States is ripe for the development of a higher class-consciousness. The ultra-left with their comments against the strike have shown that they will not be able to lead this movement. The vanguard Party which emerges to lead the American labor movement must instead be rooted in the working class through the policy of industrial concentration.

Since our Second Congress, the PCUSA has embarked on a plan of Industrial Concentration. This plan is important for multiple reasons, most notably to increase Communist cadre within the key industries. In order to be the vanguard of the working class, Communists must root themselves in the working class.

It is, however, not enough to push a policy of Industrial Concentration merely for Party building. It is imperative that we build these cadres within the key industries in the United States. Special focus must be made on the industries that have seen an increase of labor militancy within the recent strike wave. These industries include the railroad, automotive, shipping/logistics and specifically the longshore industry as these constitute the most essential foundations of the US imperialist order.

It seems we are still in a stage where Communists do not grasp the importance of an Industrial Concentration policy. We need to increase this understanding, which is why we held the recent Peoples School for Marxist-Leninist Studies class on Industrial Concentration. Also, the PCUSA Labor Commission is working with the Jones-Foster School for Party Education to develop a class to be included in its cadre ascension curriculum.

To help build this understanding, we must look to the former CPUSA Organizational Secretary Henry Winston, who said it best in 1948:

“What is the essence of a concentration policy?

“First of all, it requires a fundamental understanding of the role of the workers in the basic industries, in relation to the working class and the life of the country as a whole. It is precisely these workers employed in the huge plants by the tens of thousands who, as Lenin pointed out, become educated to understand the need for unity, collective action and solidarity by the very process of large-scale production itself. One cannot conceive of successfully building the Progressive Party [or the labor-led anti-monopoly coalition of today—Ed.], of organizing an effective fight against the Draft [conscription], or in defense of civil liberties, a successful fight against war and fascism, unless this section of the working class is fully mobilized. And, of course, one cannot speak of winning the American workers for Socialism without winning the majority of this section of the working class. It is necessary to permeate the entire Party with this consciousness.

“Secondly, such a policy requires the selection of the points of concentration where a base must be secured, if we are to set in motion the entire labor movement. This means knowing which districts must be given major national attention, which industries are key and what plants are decisive. … While we must strengthen the Party in all basic industries, we must particularly select for major concentration such industries as steel, auto, mining, maritime, electrical and railroad. Within these industries we must pursue a policy of concentration in key industrial towns and key plants and departments—with special consideration to the most underpaid sections of the workers, the unskilled and semi-skilled. …

“Thirdly, the full mobilization of the Party is required to achieve the objectives of our concentration policy. Concretely, this means that all Party clubs must have a share in the responsibility for work at the concentration points. Communists in the mass organizations, trade unions, etc., should try to convince these organizations similarly to pursue a concentration policy.

“Fourthly, beginning with the national and state leaderships, the entire Party must be involved in planning, guiding, and assuming systematic control and check-up of concentration objectives. All political and organizational problems must be discussed and reviewed from the standpoint of how to realize them in concentration industries. Systematic discussion of the problems in concentration industries must be organized in the top political bodies of the Party. Our leadership must be unsparing in the allocation of capable forces, finances, literature, and other material assistance.”^[12]

This excerpt comes from Winston’s speech to the 14^th CPUSA Convention. It must be understood that this took place during the early stages of the second “Red Scare” in the United States. Specifically, it came a little more than one year after the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was passed forcing labor leaders to sign affidavits stating they were not members of the Communist Party. To go along with this campaign the business unionists within the CIO worked with the Truman’s Democratic Party administration to purge all militants from their unions under the guise of anti-Communism.

When the CIO was not successful in their purging of Communists in member-unions they purged the unions themselves as they did with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU); International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers (Mine Mill); Food and Tobacco Workers (FTA); International Fur and Leather Workers Union (IFLWU) and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (UE). The CIO even went so far as to work with the State Department and Westinghouse Corporation to create the International United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (IUE) as a dual union to raid the membership of the UE.^[13]

The Party’s policy of Industrial Concentration has been aimed at rebuilding the influence the Communists once had in the American trade union movement. To this point neither the PCUSA nor the CPUSA has yet been able to reclaim this great legacy. It has not been all failure though, as the CPUSA, under the leadership of Gus Hall, was involved in the expansion of the rank-and-file movement in the 1970s. This involvement started with the Rank and File Conference in Chicago on June 27-28, 1970 which set up the National Coordinating Committee for Trade Union Action and Democracy (TUAD).^[14] Today, the trade union movement is just now beginning to emerge from the lowest point since its inception. Communists now have the opportunity to take the militant rumblings and develop them into a class-oriented force capable of taking on the stranglehold of modern monopoly capital. A well-implemented policy of Industrial Concentration is the only means with which this historic task can be accomplished.

[1] Container Royalties—special payments made to longshoremen to compensate for a decrease in employment opportunities caused by the use of containerized shipping. These payments are calculated based off of tonnage.

[2] https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/business/harold-daggetts-sprawling-nj-mansion-has-bentley-5-car-garage-and-guest-house/

[3] https://aflcio.org/resolutions/resolution-2-independent-political-voice.

[4] Hall, Gus, “Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism”, The Communist, Vol. 2; PCUSA Ideological Department: Seattle, 2022, p. 44.

[5] Ibid., p. 48.

[6] https://www.internationalist.org/ilwu-local-10-calls-for-labor-boycott-arms-to-israel-2405.html.

[7] Lenin, V.I., “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, p. 46.

[8] Hall, Op. Cit., 2022, p. 44.

[9] Hall, Op. Cit., 2022, pp. 43-44.

[10] Piatnitsky, O., The Bolshevization of the Communist Parties in the Capitalist Countries: By Eradicating Social-Democratic Traditions; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2024, pp. 13-14.

[11] Lenin, Op. Cit., 2022, p. 41.

[12] Winston, Henry, “For a Fighting Party Rooted Among the Industrial Workers”, Selected Works of Henry Winston, Vol. 1; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2024, pp. 92-94.

[13] Sears, John Bennett, The Electrical Unions and the Cold War; International Publishers: New York, 2019, pp. 67-72.

[14] Morris, George, Rebellion in the Unions: A Handbook for Rank-and-File Action; New Outlook Publishers: New York, New York, 1971, p. 145.

The post The International Longshoremen’s Association Strike, the Bankruptcy of the Ultra-Left, and the Need for a Policy of Industrial Concentration appeared first on The Communist.

“Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership. … Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat.”

For the past few decades, American electoral politics has been shifting evermore rightward while pitting working-class Americans against one another. Today, we see that, just as FDR predicted, the American people have chosen the side of reaction as a result of the worsening economic realities they face.

As Communists, we have a duty to explain the general crisis in the capitalist society and how that creates the conditions for a sharpening of reactionary politics. Furthermore, we will present the labor-led anti-monopoly coalition will be the path for Communists and all progressive Americans to work towards an administration which will be beneficial to the American working class.

Trump: Representative of Monopoly Capital

On November 5, 2024, real estate billionaire Donald Trump was elected as the 47^th President of the United States of America. Trump was elected based on a belief that he would bring about a more prosperous economy for working people who have suffered under the post-COVID inflation of the Biden administration. However, as shown by his previous term, Trump, as a  member of the reactionary monopoly capitalist class will not come close to satisfying any of the criteria which Communists put forward for support of a candidate, namely, support for labor, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism.

In terms of organized labor, while the leadership of almost all AFL-CIO unions endorsed the Democratic Party in the 2024 election, the reality among the rank-and-file was significantly different. Many American workers think that Trump’s anti-immigrant policies will make the job market be more in their favor, making it easier for them to find and keep work.

In reality, Trump has been, and will be, as antagonistic to organized labor as any monopoly capitalist would be expected to be. Donald Trump has refused to guarantee that he will veto right to work legislation, as the Teamsters have called for. His appointees in the Supreme Court are likely to rule the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unconstitutional in the pending Amazon v. NLRB case, which would be a massive step backwards for labor’s right to organize in America. Recently, Elon Musk, who has sued to throw out the NLRB, has been named to the leadership of Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency.” This organization will likely push deregulation, including labor standards like OSHA and NLRB regulations that protect labor unions.

On the issue of oppressed peoples, Trump has already made openly xenophobic comments during the 2024 presidential race itself. In his speeches, Trump has attempted to stir reactionary anti-immigrant sentiments by falsely stating that Haitian immigrants were “eating pets.”

Furthermore, on the issue of LGBT+ rights, Trump has promised that his administration will rescind federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will assert that federal civil rights laws do not cover anti-LGBT+ discrimination. Already, Trump has stated he will introduce a day-one bill recognizing only male and female genders. He has stated, “We will promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”

There are some on the Left who claim that Trump will be better than Harris would have been when it comes to the issues of war and imperialism. However, the reality is that Trump shows many of the same issues in this area.

On the issue of Israel-Palestine, Trump is a good friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently waging a genocide on the Palestinian people in Gaza. Trump has called for the recognition of the whole of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and he has derailed the road to a US-recognized Palestinian state by unilaterally moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is contrary to the UN position of including East Jerusalem in Palestine. Furthermore, Trump has stated that he will install Mike Huckabee, a prominent Christian Zionist who is fully opposed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, as the ambassador to Israel.

Furthermore, Trump has already signaled that he will be just as hawkish on People’s China as the Democratic Party would be, which is particularly important in the context of the potential upcoming conflict involving the Chinese province of Taiwan. As a representative of monopoly capital, his interest is in removing America’s dependency on the Chinese semiconductor industry.

There are some ultra-left forces in the US, especially the so-called “MAGA Communists”, which have, through their actions, objectively endorsed Trump as “the lesser of two evils” for President in 2024. However, the reality is that a Trump Administration would be just as, if not more, detrimental to the cause of labor, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism as the Democratic Party will be.

Despite all of Trump’s drawbacks, he was still elected over the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. The American people indicated through their vote that they were unhappy with the Biden administration, and that they were looking for a change. Because no viable progressive Democratic Party alternative was presented, the people instead moved to the right, towards Trump.

What is to Be Done?

The International Communist Movement throughout its history has been successful when it was able to identify the primary contradictions in society. From these contradictions the communists then clearly forge a path that exploits the divisions within the camps of the working class’ enemies.

From 2016 onward, we have seen such a division within the big bourgeoisie. The conservative bourgeoisie has a desire to shift American politics to the extreme right whereas the liberal bourgeoisie is struggling to hold onto old methods to preserve the status quo. We can see that while liberal Democrat voters may have a desire to preserve democracy, it is clear the Democratic Party leadership will not be willing to do what needs to be done to preserve the Union. Communists must understand this while helping to lead the Anti-Monopoly coalition. Through a well-organized leadership of the American working class, the pro-democratic sentiment that liberal Democrats hold can be preserved.

As the rank-and-file of the trade union movement begins to understandably turn away from the Democratic Party, Communists must work to halt and reverse the growth of reactionary politics (i.e., extreme conservativism) within the American working class and steer them in a progressive direction. In order to do this, we will need to return to the days of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) when all American unions had a class-oriented political education.

This also means the creation of independent political action in the form of the anti-monopoly coalition led by organized labor. The heart of this movement will be a rank-and-file-led class-oriented trade union movement uniting all progressive elements of society.

Communists have historically been instrumental in the development of independent, progressive political action in the United States. This has been exemplified with Communist participation in the Progressive Party and Henry Wallace’s campaign for President in 1948. The Communist Party activity within the Progressive Party demonstrated the commitment to coalition building with all progressive forces. This was also called the Center-Left Coalition, especially under the leadership of Comrade Gus Hall.

The Communist Party also worked with and supported Congressman Vito Marcantonio, a member of the American Labor Party from the State of New York. Marcantonio was the only elected representative in Congress who stood up and voted against US interventionism in the Korean War. The Communist Party also backed Marcantonio because of his pro-Puerto Rican immigration policies which reflected his progressive ideology.

As the Third Congress of the Party of Communists USA affirmed:

“We call for the formation of an Anti-Monopoly Coalition as the specific form that the Popular Front will take in the USA. This will be composed of all democratic and anti-imperialist forces, including the progressive elements of the labor movement, the anti-war/peace movements, local progressive forces, and emerging third-party electoral formations which oppose US imperialism and monopoly capital.”

In today’s world, new opportunities are emerging to work with organized labor outside of the two-party duopoly. The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Worker’s Union of America (UE) has recently condemned the anti-labor activities of the picks of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and called for the creation of a labor party in the United States.

Furthermore, the Teamsters, the Firefighter’s Union, and Local 3000 of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) have all chosen to not endorse either major presidential candidate. This behavior marks a shift away from the support for the Democratic Party as a party of labor, and a realization that it has become a party of big business. Now, some in organized labor are going to begin to realize that they need a party of their own. What can be clearer than to see Trump flying the unelected billionaire Elon Musk, who represents only himself and his own profits, out around the world to meet with foreign leaders on the behalf of Americans? We have seen that the people are no longer interested in following the two-party duopoly. The American people are now beginning to see that there is in reality only one major American political party, and that is the money party of monopoly capital. From November 6, the day after the election, onward, the job of American Communists is to work tirelessly and start building the anti-monopoly coalition based in organized labor.

The post The 2024 Presidential Election: Where Do We Go From Here? appeared first on The Communist.

There are differing factors that led Trump to win the 2016 election, such as the unpopularity of the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and the perception that Trump was an “outsider” from DC-Beltway politics (though Trump is a member of the capitalist class, don’t think otherwise). However, Trump’s rhetoric continued beyond his election.

The phrase “MAGA” came to represent an idea of bringing America back to a former greatness which is exemplified by an idealized vision of America’s past. This nostalgic vision forgets that America’s past has included the following: slavery, Jim Crow, indigenous genocide, McCarthy-ism, concentration camps for the Japanese, repression of LGBT+ and Women, and more. In short, though America has had progressive ideas, it has never been “great.”

In reality, the MAGA movement under Trump’s first term led to the emboldening of reactionary, quasi-fascist movements, including the march of white nationalists in Charlottesville, a rise in reactionary thought movements like Q-Anon, and a further shifting of politics to the right where religious white nationalists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who initially found their footing in the Tea Party movement, became acceptable public figures.

But how did Communism get mixed up in this? MAGA Communism has its origins in online areas where right-leaning streamers took the ideals of “MAGA” and dressed them in a veneer of Communism and began to spout the idea that “Communism will make America great again”. Its origins include online personalities like Haz Al-Din and Jackson Hinkle, later promoted by other terminally online groups like the Midwestern Marx Institute and others.

A few threads tie them together. All of these groups and people have an uncritical view of present-day capitalist Russia, underlying socially conservative ideas like believing women should be stay-at-home mothers and slandering of the LGBT+ movement under the guise of so-called “family values.” All speak positively of Russia, but hardly ever the Soviet Union. They praised Maduro, including when he attacked opposition groups which included the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV). There is nearly zero mention of either Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin. These groups are social chauvinists who opportunistically tail the masses, and their ideology appears closer to Strasserism and National Bolshevism than Communism. Finally, they ideologically praise right-wing demagogues like Alexander Dugin and Lyndon LaRouche.

Strasserism and MAGA Communism: Two Peas in a Pod

This new obscure political trend, MAGA Communism, through its reactionary policies and vague platform, leads the working class into supporting billionaire populists like President Trump against sections of the working class and the downtrodden masses. In fact there are parallels between MAGA Communism and the so-called National “Socialism” of the Strasserist variety.

Strasserism draws its name from its founders, the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, who were seen as the “left-wing” of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party of Germany. To understand the comparison drawn between Strasserism and MAGA Communism, we need to understand what Strasserism was in its essence.

Strasserism as a political movement was the expression of the dissatisfied petty-bourgeoisie (small entrepreneurs), who after WWI were unable to sell their goods, as wages for the working class had dropped to poverty levels and inflation made the German Mark basically worthless. Workers were permanently removed from industry and thus relegated to the underbelly of society as de-classed to the status of lumpenproletariat. These de-classed workers, reduced to fighting for their daily survival, became a breeding ground for the radicalism of this reactionary movement. Even certain sections of the proletariat, being driven from Marxism-Leninism due to the prevailing anti-Communist sentiment and suppression, were also absorbed into the reactionary radical movement. Strasserism purported to build a “socialism” that rejected the proletarian internationalism and materialist philosophy of Bolshevism in favor of an emphasis on the spiritual superiority of the Christian Germanic values.

The base of MAGA Communism is not as well-known as of now but what is known is that the origins of MAGA Communism reside in a group of online personalities such as Haz Al-Din whose infamy is derived from his YouTube platform, Infrared, and Jackson Hinkle, known for  being host of the YouTube channel Deep Dive with Jackson Hinkle. These individuals developed their platform by appealing to the backwards views (as Lenin called them) of the dispossessed. Such rallying points include their anti-LGBT+ scapegoating, going so far to say the LGBT+ movement is the new Nazi movement. Further discussion of the reactionary social policies of the MAGA Communist movement will be in another section. In a debate on the male chauvinist podcast called Fresh and Fit^[1], MAGA Communist leader Haz Al-Din claims that private enterprise is compatible with Communism so long as it “benefits the goal of the country or ultimate goals of the Party.” This is reminiscent of an excerpt from Otto Strasser’s Germany Tomorrow:

“The exchange will not be effected in accordance with the arbitrary wishes of the individual producers, but in accordance with a plan drafted to suit the needs of the State, and this will involve the existence of a State monopoly of foreign trade. Such a State monopoly will not (as does the Russian) aim at itself conducting the foreign trade, but will merely supervise, and give licenses for export to such persons as may need them..” ^[2]

Strasserism, though rejecting the racial theories of the Hitlerites, manifested anti-Semitism in the form of “economic anti-Semitism.” The anti-Jewish sentiment of the Strasserites was based on the idea that the Jewish people were inherently bourgeois and financial elites who were the cause of the economic crisis that shocked Germany and the capitalist world in general. According to Gregor Strasser himself:

“Down with the slavery of capitalism! Down with bloodsucking international world finance! Down with their leaders, their spokesmen, their henchmen: nationally-poisonous Judaism! [Our emphasis—Ed.] Long live the National Revolution! Long live the Social Revolution! Long live their common goal: The common front of productive national labor as the community of all productive German folk-comrades, united in the coming, salvation-bringing National Socialist state.” ^[3]

It is clear from this quote that the Strasserites believed that the Jewish people were a financial elite that were by their nature a parasitic class. This idea of Jewish elitism “pulling the strings of society” is not new and has its origins in the myth that the Jewish people as a collective killed Jesus Christ. Today, even MAGA Communist leaders such as Jackson Hinkle echo these scapegoating views. In the tweet shown below, while criticizing the Israeli government for its war crimes, he could not help but take a jab at Jews, which is obvious to deduce given that Zionism did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ.

Though these elements claim to pursue a socialist end, it could never come to fruition with their base among the dying petty-bourgeois class. As Karl Marx clearly stated in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

“In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.”^[4]

In essence, Marx shows that the petty bourgeoisie, being an appendage of the bourgeoisie, can only serve ends that restore capitalist property relations. For this reason, and for the reason that the petty bourgeoisie is a class that is condemned to vanish as contradictions in capitalism sharpen, Strasserism and MAGA Communism can only serve the interests of the big bourgeoisie, in this case the most reactionary elements of finance capital, i.e., fascism. This is seen in the example of the Nazi Party, which started as a grouping of disgruntled elements and later served as a vehicle for the Monopolists and a hotbed for their reactionary methods.

Lyndon LaRouche: Ideological Father of MAGA Communism

The MAGA Communist movement from its inception has worked closely with followers of Lyndon LaRouche and its Schiller Institute organization, despite LaRouche’s history of blatant anti-communism.

Jackson Hinkle, MAGA Communist leader, spoke at the Schiller Institute Conference in October of 2022, where he stated:

“Lyndon LaRouche, for those of you who don’t know him, was a great visionary, ran for President, a great thinker … He was involved in many presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republican, in advising them on complex foreign policy matters. He envisioned a world in which … we would, as humans, tap into our unlimited potentiality for growth, and creativity, and build a brighter future by working with the economic powerhouses of the world, the commodities producers of the world, to produce a more prosperous environment for all.”^[5]

Furthermore, Haz Al-Din of Infrared has stated that he considers LaRouche to be “one of the most, if not the most, profound theorist and thinker [sic] of policy in the modern age.”

These are strange views indeed from people who claim to be Communists, given the views which were brought forth by LaRouche and the history of his organization and its activities.

LaRouche began his political life as a Trotskyite, joining the Socialist Workers Party in 1948. Later, he briefly joined the Spartacist League (another Trotskyite organization) before announcing his intention to build a “Fifth International.”

In the 1970s, LaRouche organized the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). This group was initially closely associated with the New Left – and thus petty-bourgeois radical – Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). After being expelled by the SDS, the NCLC abandoned any pretense of Marxism-Leninism and quickly became explicitly anti-Communist and anti-Soviet.

The NCLC was, beyond being just a political organization; it was a cult, where members gave up their jobs to devote themselves totally to the cause. They believed that the NCLC would imminently take over the trade union movement and from there proceed to overthrow the American government.

The NCLC membership’s cultish devotion to LaRouche soon manifested in physical violence against their opposition. This began with fights that broke out against Mark Rudd’s faction of Students for a Democratic Society, and later culminated in the infamous “Operation Mop-Up.” Operation Mop-Up was an attack intended to dispose of the “stinking corpse” of the Communist Party USA, whereby Jewish members of the CPUSA were targeted and physically assaulted with lead pipes wrapped in newspapers by members of the NCLC. This act highlights the anti-Semitism which is present within both the LaRouche movement and within MAGA Communism as a whole.

In addition to these acts of physical violence, LaRouche also endorsed “psywar techniques” to be used against his detractors and opponents on the Left. It was a common tactic for targets to be accused of homosexuality in an attempt to ruin their reputation. This is reflected in the chauvinism and homophobia of the modern MAGA Communist movement, which tails many of the most reactionary views against LGBT+ liberation found today.

After the failure of the NCLC, the LaRouche movement formed a front group called the US Labor Party as a platform for La-Rouche’s Presidential ambitions. LaRouche’s characteristic cult methods continued, and even intensified, in this formation. Members were subject to “ego-stripping” and brainwashing sessions, and they were made to place their savings and possessions in the hands of the party to increase its control over them. While the US Labor Party initially preached “Marxist revolution”, it quickly shifted to the far-right, rubbing shoulders with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the rightist Liberty Lobby. The Liberty Lobby defended the US Labor Party on the basis that it had “confused, disoriented, and disunified the Left,” just as the MAGA Communist movement stands to do today.

Later, in the 1980s, the Schiller Institute formed in West Germany to spread LaRouche’s ideology even further. The Schiller Institute continued LaRouche’s anti-Sovietism, going so far as to accuse the 1984 Democratic Party presidential candidate Walter Mondale of being a “Soviet agent.” The Schiller Institute also supported Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (often called the “Star Wars program”), which sought to develop laser weapons to be deployed to space to further pressure the Soviet Union, in addition to the nuclear arms race which was instigated by the United States government.

LaRouche would later claim to have invented the Strategic Defense Initiative, and this was extended to his so-called “Biological Strategic Defense Initiative”, whereby he proposed quarantining people who had been infected by HIV in the 1980s. LaRouche’s unscientific claim that HIV could be spread as easily as the common cold was a thinly veiled pretext for the rampant homophobia expressed by his initiative.

Today, the Schiller Institute is alive and well, having recently ran Diane Sare as their candidate for New York Senator in 2024. MAGA Communist figures like Jackson Hinkle continue their association and praise of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement to the present day.

The history of the LaRouche movement is marked by chauvinism, anti-Semitism, anti-environmentalism, and anti-Communism. The fact that the leaders of the MAGA Communist movement have given such praise to LaRouche and the Schiller Institute should be taken as a warning to the true nature of their ideology.

Strange Bed-Fellows: Alexander Dugin and MAGA Communism

In addition to their idolization of LaRouche, leaders of the MAGA Communist movement have also identified themselves as followers of Alexander Dugin, supporter of the Russian Tsarist monarchy who endorsed the anti-Communist propaganda of Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Again, an examination of Dugin’s thought, as stated in his own words, will be enlightening as to the actual ideology of the MAGA Communists.

The Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin claims “there is no difference between capitalism, socialism, or communism”. All require rules and regulations that can run over “traditional values” in their wake. “The way out of this dilemma is to achieve freedom. But not a freedom confined to one set of rules and regulations or constitutions.”

Dugin considers liberalism a culprit in the degradation of current social forces by “repudiating practically all social political institutions, right up to the family and sexual differentiation”. Another culprit is the “theory of progress” that “has caused the loss of traditional values sacrificed on the altar of progress, and thereby have just created another form of social and economic slavery”. This shows that the MAGA Communists  are an American branch of Dugin’s reactionary thinking.

The MAGA Communists also consistently preach of social conservatism^[6], similar to this passage from Dugin himself:

“We must also abandon the philosophy of development and propose the following slogan: life is more important than growth. Instead of the ideology of development, we must place our bets on the ideology of conservatism and conservation. However, we not only require conservatism in our daily lives, but also philosophical conservatism. We need the philosophy of conservatism.”[7]

Haz Al-Din has openly praised Dugin as “one of the most powerful minds of our era,”^[8] going as far as saying that “Marxist theory in the West is meaningless without the aid of Dugin and Heidegger’s [a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party] thinking.”^[9] The same Dugin whose goal is to remove materialism from Socialism:

“If we free socialism from its materialist, atheistic and modernist features, we arrive at a completely new kind of political ideology. We call it the Fourth Political Theory, or 4PT. …”[10]

Dugin continues with his anti-Communism with:

“… (The first being liberalism, that we essentially challenge, the second being the classical form of communism, the third being national-socialism and fascism). Its elaboration starts from the point of intersection between different anti-liberal political theories of the past (namely communism and the Third way theories). So we arrive at the national-bolshevism that represents socialism without materialism, atheism, progressivism, and Modernism …”[11]

MAGA Communists have thus far focused their attacks on liberalism and other progressive movements including the LGBT+ movement, Starbucks union organizing, and others. Given their parallels to Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, we wonder who they’re going to attack next.

Alexander Dugin concluded with, “I sincerely believe that the Fourth Political Theory, and its secondary variations, National Bolshevism and Eurasianism, can be of great use for our peoples, our countries, and our civilizations.” This would be in line with the common thread among MAGA Communists who largely are active in support of the non-Soviet Russophile movement based in the concept of Eurasianism.^[12]

Though Dugin claims to transcend all other political ideologies, Lenin made it clear that:

“Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.”[13]

MAGA Communism: Center of Social Chauvinism

Leadership of the movement such as Haz and Hinkle, along with their followers, are very anti-LGBT. They justify their bigotry by claiming that acceptance of LGBT people is a sign of “western bourgeois decadence” and compatible with fascism. They ignore socialist countries which have pro-LGBT policies, such as Cuba, Vietnam and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Instead, they focus on instances of LGBT people being repressed in socialist countries. For instance, Hinkle posted a video of a Chinese police officer berating a man for wearing a skirt with the caption “China is a moral nation.”[14]

Women are hardly represented in the MAGA Communist movement, apart from the “Hegelian e-girls,” who could hardly be considered followers of socialism as they tout Hegel, not Marx. Prominent figures of MAGA Communism do not advocate for the rights of working women. Instead, they push a regressive position on the traditional role of the woman as a homemaker and child bearer. They obsess over masculinity and speak as guests on podcasts of right-wing figures who tout misogyny to promote “traditional masculinity” (such as Fresh and Fit, mentioned above).

The movement is led by overtly anti-Semitic individuals. Many claim to be pro-Palestine, though they focus less on the Palestinian liberation movement and more on directing hatred towards Israel and Jewish people. Online posts in these circles about the topic of Israel have anti-Semitic dog whistles. One such dog whistle is the “clown world” conspiracy theory, claiming that the government (or the world) is run by Jewish people. They spout the rhetoric of the Catholic church, that “Jews killed Christ.”

All of this is MAGA Communism, a movement that is left in form, right in essence. MAGA Communism furthermore appears to have, as Comrade Gus Hall would say, a “whiff of fascism”, and while Communist Parties worldwide shout “Workers and Oppressed people of the World Unite”, MAGA Communists are petty-bourgeois radicals who through an opportunistic approach to organization confuse the working class and disarm them against fascism. We see that MAGA Communism has many similarities with right-wing, even fascist, forces while using revolutionary phrase-mongering. Time will tell if such “Communist” demagogues will fall into the “Graveyard of [so-called] Communist groups” splattered across the landscape.

[1] https://youtu.be/iww_kD6ZQhA?t=3314

[2] Strasser, Otto, Germany Tomorrow; Jonathan Cape: London, 1940, p. 139.

[3] Strasser, Gregor, “The Slave-Market of Capitalism”. August 23, 1926.

[4] Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick, The Communist Manifesto; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, p. 41.

[5]https://larouchepub.com/pr/2022/20221102_hinkle.html

[6] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1495363547240538118

[7] Dugin, Alexander, The Fourth Political Theory; The Eurasian Movement: Moscow, 2012, p. 62.

[8] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1766211760770429035. (See Image 3)

[9] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1672279455732215809. (See Image 4)

[10] Ibid., p. 205.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Eurasianism — is a socio-political movement in Russia that emerged in the early 20^th century under the Russian Empire, it states that Russia does not belong in the “European” or “Asian” categories but instead to the geopolitical concept of Eurasia and the “Russian world”, forming an ostensibly standalone Russian civilization. The goal of the Eurasianists was the unification of the main Christian churches under the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[13] Lenin, V.I., What is to Be Done?; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2023, pp. 51-52.

[14] https://x.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1842506425639297315.

The post “MAGA Communism”: A Whiff of Fascism appeared first on The Communist.

The presidential election show, which the ruling regime of Iran was eagerly hoping to turn into a grand endorsement of the theocratic regime, ended with the majority of the nation boycotting it. Even according to the official statistics, in several major cities, including the capital Tehran, voter turnout barely exceeded 30%. According to ISNA, the head of the election office in Tehran province said: “The number of eligible voters for the fourteenth presidential election was 10,199,742, and in this election, on June 25^th, 3,366,264 ballots were used in the capital.”

It was clear that the continued stark economic and social crisis, which could bring the society to the brink of another widespread nation-wide protest like the “Woman, Life, Freedom” popular uprising or other successive protests like the ones in the past two years, could seriously challenge the regime’s survival. That’s why the leaders of the regime were deeply worried about the fate of their rule and the serious difficulties they face in maintaining their power. The ongoing regional developments, including the risk of direct and disastrous conflict with the racist and criminal state of Israel and the US imperialism, must be added to the rulers’ concerns to highlight the depth of the crisis the regime is facing with, which is caused by its own irrational and adventurous policies.

With the unexpected and ambiguous death of Ebrahim Raisi, a member of the death commission responsible for the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, the regime saw an opportunity to rearrange its guards and divert the popular movement towards the illusion of “reformability” of the regime. They intended to create a safety valve to calm the society and quell the growing anger of the masses.

The qualification of Masoud Pezeshkian (who had been disqualified in two previous presidential elections and the most recent parliamentary election) was organized and directly ordered by the Supreme Leader. This move was intended to bring state-affiliated reformists into the scene to create illusions about Masoud Pezeshkian and generate false hope for a “window” of change, similar to what was tested during Hassan Rouhani’s election campaign. Additionally, extensive propaganda and fear-mongering about the possibility of Jalili’s “election” and worsening the situation in the country was part of a precise and organized campaign to encourage the people to vote and to create a made-up “heroic” act and portray it as an endorsement for the regime’s popularity, approval, and the illusion of freedom in the tyranny-ridden country.

Mr. Khatami, who understanding the deep anger and hatred of the people towards the opportunistic regime had refrained from participating in the parliamentary election show months earlier, returned to the scene this time to repeat and promote the illusion of the “election window.” Of course, people have not forgotten that Mr. Khatami once said: “If the reformists or some of them are to be sidelined, public and global opinion won’t matter. What is important is that those who they don’t want should not come in, and I am sure they don’t want us to come in. Even if we pass this stage, we are not allowed to win more votes than they want.” And ironically, Masoud Pezeshkian, who in his previous speeches emphasized being a “servant of the Supreme Leadership” and having no authority to make fundamental changes in many areas, in his first speech after the election, confirming Khatami’s assessment of the “election” process in the Islamic Republic, said: “I thank the Leader, because without him, our names would have not easily come out of these ballot boxes.” Ali Khamenei also reminded Pezeshkian, after the election results were announced, that he must continue Raisi’s course.

Creating Illusions about Pezeshkian’s Government to Calm the Situation, and the Tasks of the Popular Movement

The government of Masoud Pezeshkian, whose key members will be vetted by Ali Khamenei, and whose major economic policies will be dictated by the Supreme Leader’s office to his government and other legislative and executive structures, will have two key missions. First, to calm the severely crisis-ridden country and create the illusion that the regime has chosen the course of reform. Hence, preventing another social explosion, which this time could involve the powerful presence of the labour and working-class movement and could create insurmountable difficulties for the regime. Second, to resume secret negotiations with the US and the European Union, who all implicitly expressed hope for his election to improve mutual relations with Iran.

The experience of Hassan Rouhani’s two terms in power, supported by the state-affiliated reformists, followed a similar pattern. Contrary to Rouhani’s campaign promises, the house arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi did not end, prisoners of conscience and political prisoners were not freed, the brutal suppression of women’s rights was not prevented, and the demands of the workers and the working class were ignored. The economic crisis continued, the gap between poverty and wealth widened, widespread government corruption persisted and increased, and the bloody and brutal suppression of any mass protest, including in 2017 and 2019, continued. At the end of his term, Rouhani admitted that he had little authority and was merely an executor of the orders of the Supreme Leader, IRGC, and the security forces.

The Tudeh Party of Iran believes that aside from a small minority who participated in this “election” and voted for Jalili, the overwhelming majority of the nation, including those who voted for Masoud Pezeshkian with the hope of a “window” for change, strive for fundamental changes in the catastrophic current state of the country and moving towards establishing the people’s will over the affairs. The overwhelming majority of the nation, especially workers and the working class, who have been increasingly pushed below the line of poverty, want a relief from crushing economic pressures, suitable wages compatible with the inflation, an end to the extensive neoliberal privatization policies and workforce downsizing, the restoration of the country’s productive infrastructure, an end to the brutal and inhuman assault on women by the regime’s thugs, freedom of political-ideological prisoners, and an opening of the political atmosphere in the country. It is clear that none of these demands can be achieved within the theocratic regime and the current despotic and anti-people political system. The developments of recent decades have shown that only through massive and organized social struggle can the regime be forced to retreat. The recent historical development in France, where a broad spectrum of progressive forces from communists and socialists to greens united to prevent the victory of right-wing fascist-leaning forces, is a clear and proven sign of the power of organized and united action of progressive and freedom-loving forces, which can be noted for Iran.

Once again, we call on all patriotic and freedom-loving forces in the country to collaborate and prepare for a national dialogue to organize the frustrated masses and seriously challenge the anti-people ruling regime. Without joint efforts and organized struggle to bring about fundamental and lasting changes, the Islamic Republic, as it has shown in recent years, will continue its dreadful life, harming our country through various manoeuvres and changes in its guards.

The Tudeh Party of Iran

The post The Manoeuvres of the Theocratic Regime in Iran and the Changes in the Guards to Save the Dictatorship appeared first on The Communist.

Careening down narrow mountain roads, you are a passenger in a vehicle driven by a madman whose every move brings you closer to disaster. That’s the West’s economy and its stewards in a nutshell. Maybe collapse will be avoided by the time this article appears, but it’s not guaranteed.

The US Federal Reserve (hereafter, “the Fed”) has been increasing the money supply at a fantastic rate since the year 2000 to fund banks and investment houses to buy stocks, bonds and other financial assets and real estate for themselves and their wealthy clients under the Fed’s outrageous “Wealth effect” policy.^[1] In October 2019 this game produced yet another crisis in the “Repo” financial market, like the one that brought down the economy in 2008. The Fed tried to bailout the Repo market but the market kept exploding (see Figure 1). Finally, in March 2020 the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) together with the lockdowns calmed markets as the Fed flooded the world with still more trillions, rapidly, in the biggest bank bailout ever. The flood of money has brought inflation to the US and the rest of the Western world, measured in July 2022 as 8.3% in the USA,^[2] 10.9% in Germany,^[3] the sort of inflation normally restricted to developing countries. This inflation is the smoke from the raging fire of a severe economic crisis still in progress. Let’s review the background.

The top curve of Figure 2 shows the fantastic growth in wealth of the households of the top 0.1% of USA millionaires and billionaires since the year 2000. This expansion in their wealth caused the crisis. Wolf Richter writes:

“What kind of outrageous gift they got from the Fed’s money printing and interest rate repression…It was also the greatest economic injustice committed in recent US history over such a short period of time. These monetary policies are largely responsible for the worst inflation in 4 decades that is mauling the “Bottom 50%” of households because they have so little, and spend all their money on necessities…”^[4]

The top 0.1% rode the huge balloon in the US money supply from 4 trillion in 2000 to 22 trillion now (see Figure 3). Karl Marx warned in Capital:

“If the quantity of paper money represents twice the amount of gold available, then in practice £1 would be the money-name not of 1/4 of an ounce of gold, but of 1/8 of an ounce…The values previously expressed by the price of £1 would now be expressed by the price of £2.”^[5]

The reason for the doubling of the price is that there is twice as much money demanding the same quantity of use values, that is, useful goods or services that people are interested in purchasing. For as Marx says, “Use values…are the material bearers of exchange value,”^[6] or price. Between 2000 and 2022, the US money supply increased four and half times. Based on Marx’s reasoning, which is shared by many other economists, prices would be expected to increase 4 and a half times or 450% during such a period (2000—2022), all things being equal. But the consumer price index (CPI) increased only 75 percent from 169 in January 2000 to 296 in August 2022.^[7] The index didn’t even double. If somehow during such increase of the money supply additional use values entered the market and became available, the inflation would be less, since there would be additional real goods to correspond to the increase in demand for goods in the form of the increase in the money supply. Did US industrial production increase during this period to produce the needed use values? Table I says No: It shows that industrial production declined in several core areas. No, sufficient use values did not enter the US market from internal production, but rather from abroad. Under the regime of imperialism, use value is brought into the US economy from abroad at very low cost and this use value supports the American currency and retards or prevents inflation. One clear mechanism for this moderation of inflation is the ‘importation’ of raw materials from developing sector economies, such as the oil that the US Army has looted from Syria during its ongoing occupation of the eastern part of the country, or the lithium that Elon Musk’s companies are removing from south America for electric car batteries. These free or cheap raw materials ‘imports’ reduce production costs for American companies and reduce prices, as follows: As Marx has shown,^[8] the price of a manufactured article is broken down into the constant capital (C) and variable capital (V) that went into its production together with surplus value (S) or profit. Constant capital (C) is the cost of replacing raw materials and manufacturing plant and equipment; variable capital (V) is the cost of sustaining and reproducing labor. Look at Marx’s representation of the price of an ell of linen in Figure 4, example I. The price is 2 shillings. With imperialist raw materials imports from the developing sector, the constant capital component of the cost could be reduced from 80 Pounds, for example, to, say, 20 Pounds, and then the price of the ell of linen would be cut in half to 1 shilling. This constantly in-effect mechanism reduces price inflation in imperialist economies. Importing finished goods, e.g., clothing, from cheap labor markets also retards inflation, because then both constant capital and variable capital costs are lower. Americans should not worry about the 8% inflation that they are experiencing. Based on the expansion of the money supply, they should expect approximately 20% inflation per year since the year 2000.^[9]

Another peculiarity in the inflation data is that Germany’s inflation exceeds that of the US: Germany is a highly industrialized country with a strong basic industry producing steel, machine tools, agricultural equipment and automobiles. Why is their publicly announced rate of inflation of 10.9% higher than that of the US? There are two primary reasons. First, Germany does not benefit from imperialist hegemony over the vast regions of the world from which the US extracts value. Second, the US also dominates Germany and forces it to buy its expensive products, e.g., Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).

All this is very troubling, but why, out of the blue, have we got inflation now since Spring 2021? First, the money supply went through the roof in 2020. That’s the last big jump in Figure 3. That’s the effect of the CARES Act. The US had to do it because of the pandemic, right? Wrong. As Marx wrote in his Preface to A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, the reasons people give for doing something are ideological and usually not the reasons they actually do them, which are economic.

Marx wrote:

“It is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production…and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.”^[10]

The economic reason for the hyperinflationary CARES Act was the crisis in financial markets from Fall 2019 to March 2020, as shown in Figure 1. What especially aggravated the financial system was the government’s response to the crisis in the Repurchase (Repo) Market in 2019. The Repo Market is where giant financial institutions borrow trillions of dollars from each other and from central banks every day, often just for overnight. The Repo Market was what brought down the economy in 2008. From 2010 to 2019 it was relatively calm: Banks and corporations traded Repos with no seeming problem. Then in Fall 2019 lenders began to distrust the collateral that their Repo borrowers were putting up to secure their loans. They refused to extend credit. The Fed stepped in as in 2008 and bought up the outstanding Repos that lenders refused to buy. Again, the Fed bailed out the investment banks that had gotten themselves into trouble as in 2008. The amount of Repos purchased by the Fed per day grew from zero on September 4, 2019, to 200 Billion in October and exploded to 450 Billion in March 2020. The government then had two responses: First, the lockdowns. Because they shut down the economy, they eliminated pressures on financial markets, and the Repo market began to settle down. Then the CARES Act provided the biggest bailout to NY banks in the history of the country—at first $2 Trillion (including $290 Billion in payments to taxpayers who had to hand it back to the banks again in Covid-19 Lockdown emergency spending). In 2020 and 2021 the money supply increased by $4.8 trillion. Inflation exploded in 2021 and jumped from 1.7% per year in February to 5% in May, and now up to 8%.^[11] So, the cause of the inflation is the government’s attempt to stabilize financial markets. Why did the Repo market get jittery? It all comes down to real value, or rather the absence of it in the US economy. In the last few years, the world economy’s big actors outside the West—the BRICS countries, China, Russia, India, etc.—have been moving away from using the US dollar as their reserve currency, as the currency in which all international trade takes place.[12] The US has bullied the world with the hegemony of the dollar, and the world got tired of it. Now the world is trading in Rubles and other currencies. Instead of the Petrodollar, we have the Petroruble. The dominance of the dollar was the dollar’s only support. With the decline of the Petrodollar comes the decline of the US economy, first signaled by the highest rate of inflation in over 40 years. The US is on the way down.

The Federal Reserve piggy bank has been pumping out money for its friends in investment banking like mad. They all got rich; we got inflation and economic crisis. This is the way it works, according to 18^th century Irish political economist Richard Cantillon: The people who are closest to where the new money enters the economy—investment bankers—can benefit from the new money before prices rise. They buy new homes, land, gold, stocks and other investments. But the people who are farthest away from where the new money enters the economy—that’s wage earners—suffer from the inflation it causes. Cantillon explains:

In general, an increase of hard money in a state will cause a corresponding increase in consumption and this will gradually produce increased prices…Those who will suffer from these higher prices and increased consumption will be…all the workmen or fixed wage earners who support their families on a salary. They all must diminish their expenditures in proportion to the new consumption [by the rich].^[13]

That’s the Cantillon effect. So, Wall Street grabs up all the value in the economy with the new money pumped out by its friends at the Federal Reserve. What’s left for us is the inflation they caused by expanding the money supply without expanding the real economy of manufacturing, construction, transportation and energy production. Look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on inflation and you will see that wage earners suffer the highest rate of inflation in the country, a 9.1% annual rate in July 2020, while the average rate for everybody, bankers and wage workers included, was 8.5%. Under the Cantillon Effect wage earners suffer higher inflation that anyone else. This is one of the processes that drives inequality. The working poor suffer the highest inflation. Figure 5 from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows price increases by social group since 2003. The top curve shows the highest inflation rate suffered by the lowest income quartile, the 25% of Americans with the lowest income share in the country. The bottom curve shows the lowest inflation enjoyed by the highest income quartile, the richest 25% of the population.^[14] The average annual rates of inflation by social group are given in Table 2. That brings us back to square 1, the economic injustice we referred to at the top. The growth in speculative investment that has been going on for decades, has driven up US “gross domestic product” (GDP) per capita from $20,000 in 1968 to $46,000 in 2014 in fixed 2005 dollars at a nearly constant rate of $565 per year. That increase does not represent an increase in real goods and services but rather the paper wealth of the Wall Street millionaires averaged over the whole population, for US industrial production has collapsed. This same process has driven down the relative incomes of everyone else since 1968, for as Figure 6 shows, the ratio of the income share of the lower 80% to the income share of the highest quintile has fallen from 135% in 1968 to 95% in 2014. For more than 50 years, finance capital—the Federal Reserve banks, the big commercial banks, the investment banks—have been sucking wealth out of the US population and the world at a fantastic rate. Like Cantillon, many ‘conservatives’ oppose the Fed’s monetary and ‘wealth’ policies. These conservatives represent industrial capital, not finance capital.

[1] https://wolfstreet.com/wealth-effect/

[2] Reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[3] https://wolfstreet.com/2022/09/30/eurozone-inflation-spikes-to-10-in-germany-10-9-without-energy-6-4-from-temporary-inflation-mid-2021-to-runaway-inflation/

[4] https://wolfstreet.com/2022/09/26/my-wealth-disparity-monitor-september-update-qt-rate-hikes-dropping-stocks-bonds-reduce-outrageous-us-wealth-disparity/

[5] Marx, Karl, Capital, vol. 1; Penguin: London, 1976, Chapter on Money, section on “Coin and symbols of value,” p. 225.

[6] Ibid., p. 126.

[7] Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[8] Marx, Op. Cit., p. 962.

[9] If the money supply increases 450% over 22 years (from 4 trillion to 22 trillion), then so do prices, which inflation would average to 20% per year.

[10] K. Marx, “Preface” to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859; translation from edition of Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977

[11] Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[12] On ruble-rupee trade, cf. https://www.rt.com/business/562727-russia-india-trade-doubles/ and https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/rupee-rouble-trade-arrangement

[13] Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général, Paris, 1755, Pt. 2, Ch. 6; translated as An Essay on Economic Theory by C. Saucier, published by Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010.

[14] J. Klick and A. Stockburger, “Experimental CPI for lower and higher income households,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 537 March 8, 2021

The post Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire appeared first on The Communist.

While Taiwan and the mainland have been separated for 70 years, efforts to reduce tension and increase communication and cooperation have never ceased. Cross-Strait relations have witnessed one breakthrough after another over the years, from the open letters to Taiwan compatriots to the development of the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and the basic strategy for national reunification; from the 1992 Consensus to the first-ever historic meeting between leaders from the two sides; from total separation to direct two-way links in postal mail, transportation, and trade; and from the early years, when Taiwan was expelled from the UN, to efforts to defeat attempts at Taiwan independence. 

As we now look upon cross-Strait relations from a new starting point, we can see an overwhelming and unstoppable historical trend for national reunification. In his speech at a conference commemorating the publication of the “Letter to Taiwan Compatriots” issued by the Standing Committee of the NPC 40 years ago, General Secretary Xi Jinping elaborated on China’s policies and positions in the new era for peaceful reunification, demonstrating political wisdom and historical responsibility for a solution to the question of Taiwan. Listening to his convincing words, we realize even more that national renewal and reunification represent a historical trend, a cause to fight for, and a goal that we all want to achieve. 

Peaceful reunification depends on national rejuvenation. The fact that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait remain separated is a wound left over from history. It is said that “the Taiwan question was created at a time when China was a weak and chaotic country, but it will end with the rejuvenation of the nation.” As the Chinese nation moves forward with its renewal, we will see a much stronger force for national reunification under more favorable economic, political, and cultural conditions. People in Taiwan will, of course, be a part of this great journey, joining hands with the people on the mainland in the drive to achieve their dream for national renewal. 

Integrated development is a sure path to peaceful reunification. In times of great changes, the mainland and Taiwan must work together through thick and thin as we move forward with a shared future and intertwined interests. To realize national reunification, it is essential for people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to have the same goals, which are in turn enabled by more communication and connectivity. As requested by General Secretary Xi Jinping, connections with Taiwan should be improved to the greatest extent possible. In particular, as soon as possible, we need to ensure water, electricity, and gas supplies to Kinmen and Matsu from the coastal areas of Fujian and build bridges wherever possible so that people in Taiwan may benefit from development in the mainland. We must also make sure that Taiwanese residents and businesses in the mainland enjoy equal treatment and access to equal, inclusive, and convenient public services.

Countercurrents against peaceful reunification must be curbed. General Secretary Xi Jinping stated categorically that nothing can change the fact that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese with the same national identity, and nothing can stop the trend toward reunification of the Chinese nation. Taiwan independence goes against this unstoppable trend and will eventually be crushed by the wheels of history. Chinese must not fight against Chinese, and for this purpose we have made the greatest efforts for peaceful reunification with the utmost sincerity. However, we do not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures to prepare for possible interference by external forces and separatist activities by a handful of “Taiwan independence” separatists. Such measures would certainly not be targeted at the people of Taiwan.

The residence permit for Taiwan residents is a permit available to Taiwan residents who come to work, study, live, and travel in the mainland, with protection provided for the legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan residents on the mainland. On August 6, 2018, the General Office of the State Council published the procedures for the application and issuance of residence permits for Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan Residents, and the permit system took effect on September 1, 2018.

The Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) is a public organization established in Beijing on December 16, 1991, for the purpose of promoting peaceful reunification. Entrusted by the mainland authorities, it handles communications with its counterpart in Taiwan on issues regarding cross-Strait exchanges and is authorized to conclude relevant agreements. The Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) was established in Taiwan on November 21, 1990. It is a non-governmental organization authorized by the Taiwanese authorities to handle cross-Strait affairs. Since the beginning of the 1990s, ARATS and SEF, under authorization from the authorities on both sides, have been holding talks and dialogues for the purpose of promoting economic, trade, scientific, technological, and cultural exchanges between the two sides. Pictured here are ARATS and SEF representatives signing official documents.  We may not be able to decide on what has happened in the past, but we can certainly seize the moment and choose our future. Seventy years have passed, and that is long enough to let bygones be bygones and leave bitterness, hate, and separation behind us. Looking to the future, we have every reason to believe that we can build the mutual trust that allays misgivings, that we can increase communication and clear up misunderstanding, and that we can let peace prevail over conflict. People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, working together, will usher in a bright future for the country as we realize the reunification of the Chinese nation and achieve the goal of national rejuvenation.

The post National Reunification Across The Taiwan Strait — An Inevitable Trend appeared first on The Communist.

In carrying on a struggle against the Trotskyite agents, our Party comrades did not notice, they overlooked the fact, that present day Trotskyism is no longer what it was, let us say, seven or eight years ago; that Trotskyism and the Trotskyites have passed through a serious evolution in this period which has utterly changed the face of Trotskyism; that in view of this the struggle against Trotskyism and the method of struggle against it must also be utterly changed. Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states.

What is a political trend in the working class? A political trend in the working class is a group or a party which has its own definite political face, platform and program, which does not and cannot hide its views from the working class but, on the contrary, openly and honestly carries on propaganda for its views in full view of the working class, does not fear to show its political face to the working class, does not fear to demonstrate its real aims and tasks to the working class but, on the contrary, goes to the working class with open visor to convince it of the correctness of its views. In the past, seven or eight years ago, Trotskyism was one of such political trends in the working class, an anti-Leninist trend, it is true, and therefore profoundly mistaken, but nevertheless a political trend.

Can it be said that present-day Trotskyism, the 1936 Trotskyism, let us say, is a political trend in the working class? No, this cannot be said. Why? Because the present-day Trotskyites are afraid to show their real face to the working class, are afraid to disclose their real aims and tasks to it, and carefully hide their political face from the working class, fearing that if the working class should learn of their real intentions it will curse them as an alien people and drive them from it. This in reality explains how it is that the chief method of Trotskyite work is now not open and honest propaganda of its views among the working class, but the masking of its views, servile and fawning praise for the views of its opponents, a false and pharisaical trampling of its own views in the dirt.

If you remember, Kamenev and Zinoviev at the trial in 1936 strenuously denied that they had any political platform. It was fully possible for them to develop their political platform at the trial. But they did not do so, declaring that they had no political platform. There can be no doubt that both of them were lying when they denied that they had a platform. Even the blind can now see that they had their political platform. But why did they deny the existence of any political platform?

Because they were afraid to disclose their real political face, they were afraid to demonstrate their real platform for the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R., fearing that such a platform would arouse revulsion in the working class.

At the trial in 1937, Piatakov, Radek and Sokolnikov took a different line. They did not deny that the Trotskyites and Zinovievites had a political platform. They admitted that they had a definite political platform, recognized and unfolded it in their testimony. But they unfolded it not to call on the working class, not to call on the people to support the Trotskyite platform, but in order to curse it and brand it as an anti-people’s and anti-proletarian platform.

The restoration of capitalism, the liquidation of the collective farms and state farms, the restoration of the system of exploitation, an alliance with the fascist forces of Germany and Japan to bring war against the Soviet Union nearer, a struggle for war and against the policy of peace, the territorial dismemberment of the Soviet Union, giving the Ukraine to the Germans and the maritime provinces to the Japanese, the preparation of the military defeat of the Soviet Union if enemy slates should attack it, and, as a means of achieving these tasks, wrecking, diversion, individual terrorism against the leaders of the Soviet government, espionage for the benefit of the Japanese and German fascist forces — such was the political platform of present day Trotskyism which was set forth by Piatakov, Radek and Sokolnikov.

Naturally the Trotskyites could not but hide such a platform from the people, from the working class. And they hid it not only from the working class but also from the Trotskyite rank and file, and not only front the Trotskyite rank and file but even from the leading group of the Trotskyites, consisting of a small handful of 30 or 40 people. When Radek and Piatakov asked Trotsky’s permission to call a small conference, 30 or 40 people, to inform them of the character of this platform, Trotsky forbade them, saying it was inexpedient to talk of the real nature of the platform even to a small group of Trotskyites as such an “operation” might cause a split.

“Political figures” hiding their views and their platform not only from the working class but also from the Trotskyite rank and file, and not only from the Trotskyite rank and file, but from the leading group or Trotskyites — such is the face of present-day Trotskyism.

But it follows from this that present-day Trotskyism can no longer be called a political trend in the working class. Present-day Trotskyism is not a political trend in the working class but a gang without principle, without ideas, of wreckers, diversionists, intelligence service agents, spies, murderers, a gang of sworn enemies of the working class, working in the pay of the intelligence services or foreign states.

Such is the indisputable result of the evolution of Trotskyism in the past seven or eight years.

Such is the difference between Trotskyism in the past and Trotskyism at the present time.

The mistake of our Party comrades is that they did not notice this profound difference between Trotskyism in the past and Trotskyism at the present time. They did not notice that the Trotskyites have long since ceased to be people devoted to an idea, that the Trotskyites have long since turned into highway robbers, capable of any foulness, capable of all that is disgusting, to the point of espionage and the outright betrayal of their country, if only they can harm the Soviet government and Soviet power. They did not notice this and were therefore unable to reconstruct themselves in time to wage battle against the Trotskyites in a new and more regular manner. This is why the abominable work of the Trotskyites of late years was a complete surprise for some of our Party comrades.

To proceed. Finally, our Party comrades did not notice that there is an important difference between the present-day wreckers and diversionists, on the one hand, among whom the Trotskyite agents of fascism play “an active part”, and the wreckers and diversionists of the time of the Shakhty trial, on the other hand.

In the first place, the Shakhty and Industrial Party wreckers were people openly alien to us. They were in greater part former owners of factories, former managers for the old employers, former shareholders of old joint-stock companies, or simple bourgeois specialists who were openly hostile to us politically. None of our people had any doubt about the authenticity of the political face of these gentlemen. And the Shakhty wreckers themselves did not conceal their distaste for the Soviet system.

The same cannot be said of the present-day wreckers and diversionists, the Trotskyites. The present-day wreckers and diversionists, the Trotskyites, are mostly Party people with a Party card in their pocket, and consequently people who formally are not alien to us.

Whereas the old wreckers went against our people, the new wreckers on the contrary cringe to our people, laud them, lick their boots, in order to worm their way into their confidence. As you see, the difference is essential.

In the second place, the strength of the Shakhty and Industrial Party wreckers was that to a greater or lesser degree they possessed the necessary technical knowledge, while our people, not possessing such knowledge, were forced to learn from them. This circumstance gave a great advantage to the wreckers of the Shakhty period, made it possible for them to do their wrecking work free and unhindered, made it possible for them to deceive our people technically.

This is not so with the present-day wreckers, with the Trotskyites. The present-day wreckers have no technical superiority over our people. On the contrary, our people are better trained technically than the present-day wreckers, than the Trotskyites. During the time from the Shakhty period to our own days, tens of thousands of genuine, technically strong Bolshevik cadres have grown up among us. One could mention thousands and tens of thousands of Bolshevik leading figures technically developed in comparison with whom all such people as Piatakov and Livshitz, Shestov and Boguslavsky, Muralov and Drobnis are empty windbags and mere tyros from the point of view of technical training. In this case, what does the strength of the present-day wreckers, the Trotskyites, consist of? Their strength lies in the Party card, in the possession of a Party card. This strength lies in the fact that the Party card gives them political trust and opens the doors of all our institutions and organizations to them.

Their advantage lies in the fact that holding a Party card and pretending to be friends of the Soviet power they tricked our people politically, misused their confidence, did their wrecking work furtively, and disclosed our secrets of state to the enemies of the Soviet Union. This “advantage” is a doubtful one in its political and moral values, but still, it is an “advantage”. This “advantage”, in reality, explains the fact that the Trotskyite [ultraleft – ed.] wreckers, as people with a Party card having access to all places in our institutions and organizations, were a real windfall for the intelligence services of foreign states. The mistake of some of our Party comrades is that they did not notice, did not understand all this difference between the old and the new wreckers between the Shakhty wreckers and the Trotskyites, and not noticing this, they were unable to reconstruct themselves in time so as to wage battle against the new wreckers in a new way.

The post Present-Day Trotskyism appeared first on The Communist.

Social and political movements in a sense develop in similar ways. When the social molecules become agitated it results in mass upheavals, the waves of radicalization. Class contradictions and relations sharpen up. This propels the revolutionary process. It results in new levels of mass class and socialists consciousness. There is a speedy growth of movements and organizations. They also become tempered and purified in the struggle. Such is the path of revolutionary development.

A Product Of Frustration

But such moments also give birth to momentary political “bubbles.” As in steel, many of them also come and go. Some are serious movements that reflect momentary issues. They disappear when the issues are resolved. But others turn into petty-bourgeois radical expressions — petty-bourgeois reflections of the issues and the problems of the moment.

Such movements are especially a phenomenon in periods when great numbers–new waves–of people move into action. Like all sectors, the petty-bourgeois strata tend to reflect their class position when they react to the issues of the class struggle. They develop moments of great militancy. At such moments they are a source of inspiration and militancy to other sectors, including the working class. But they tend to go for short-term tactics. When this does not result in victories, for some the militancy, the enthusiasm, turns into petty-bourgeois radicalism. It is necessary to make a sharp distinction between the healthy militancy and determination expressed by non-working class sectors and the concepts of petty-bourgeois radicalism. Petty-bourgeois radicalism is a by-product of a sense of frustration.

When concepts based on unreality are bounced back by reality it results in frustration.

A secondary cause for the frustration is the occurrence of opportunist, passive tendencies and problems in the ranks of other sectors, including the working class.

The concepts, the ideas, motivating petty-bourgeois radicalism are not necessarily wrong in the abstract. Those who follow wrong concepts, in most cases, are dedicated and sincere individuals. The concepts are wrong when they do not reflect the specific reality of the moment. Therefore, the more determined such individuals are, the more damaging they can be. Good intentions and even good ideas are not enough. One of the key ingredients in a revolutionary struggle is people in mass. People do not respond to commands or to exhortations. They do not respond to ideas–even good ideas–if they do not see their self-interests involved in these ideas.

The inner laws of capitalism, the laws of exploitation, the inherent drive for profit, the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private appropriation of its products are all factors that force the victims in mass more and more to see their self-interests related to the more basic and revolutionary ideas. Policies and tactics, to be successful, must be related to this objective process. A revolutionary force must take full advantage of each new situation presented by this process. Only then can it become a revolutionary force propelling events. Tactics must be synchronized to each stage of this development.

The very essence of capitalism is class exploitation. It is exploitation of people, again in mass. The essence of any struggle is the class struggle. The central moving force is the exploited class–the working class.

Concepts of struggle not based on the above reality will sooner or later come into conflict with it. The advocates of petty-bourgeois radicalism try to bypass this reality. They believe they can avoid the necessary and unavoidable consistent and sustained work, the work of organizing, educating, mobilizing and leading people in mass, of leading people on the level of their understanding, of their own self-interest, and in this sense reflecting the objective processes leading to a revolutionary struggle against capitalism. For this they seek to substitute radical rhetoric with general slogans, or advanced actions that have no relationship to struggles to which the masses do respond. Thus, when the concepts based on unreality meet the reality of class struggle they bounce back. If such tactics are further pursued they become an obstacle to struggle. They become a destructive and divisive force. Organized groups which pursue such policies not only tend to move away from the working class, but they reject mass concepts of struggle altogether.

The relationships between the objective processes and the tactics of struggle are not simple. It is an intricate process. The lines are not clean-cut and even that which is negative, in the long run, can have momentary positive influences. It is not always easy to draw the line between passivity that is motivated by opportunistic considerations and a judgment that is based on a correct, necessary tactical consideration. And it is not easy always to see the line between a militancy that is necessary to propel the struggle to new heights, or a necessary advanced position or action by a more limited force, and ill-advised actions that alienate and separate the advanced force form its mass base.

Petty-bourgeois radicalism as a concept is now in a serious crisis. Masses have moved to new levels of political consciousness and to higher forms of struggle [sic]. Generally, petty-bourgeois radical concepts go into a crisis when working-class concepts of struggle are on the ascendancy.

An Old Problem

Petty-bourgeois radicalism is not a new phenomenon. It has emerged as a problem throughout the history of the world revolutionary movement. Petty-bourgeois radicalism has had a historic run in the recent period. The wave has touched most of the non-socialist world.

A special brand of petty-bourgeois radicalism made deep inroads and influenced the policies of the leading cadre of the Communist Party of China. Throughout its history the Maoist influence has been a petty-bourgeois radical influence. In its basic essence the Cultural Revolution was propelled by a mass petty-bourgeois radical sweep. This is a special brand of petty-bourgeois radicalism because it takes place in a country that is building socialism. It is a special brand because the leading core of the leadership used it as an instrument in the struggle to stay in power. It is a special brand because in China it was woven into a pattern with bourgeois nationalism. Mao’s policies have always been and are today based on mobilizing the non-working class sections. It was the destruction of the organizations and politics based on the working class that were the main objectives of the Cultural Revolution.

The Debray theories of revolution were an extension of these petty-bourgeois radical concepts. All variations of petty-bourgeois radicalism come into conflict with the class approach to struggle. They reject the class struggle as the vehicle for social progress. They reflect the individualism, the lack of class identification of petty-bourgeois elements generally. They reject policies and tactics that are based on mobilizing the working class–the one class history has designated as a basic contingent in the struggle for social progress. In fact, petty-bourgeois radicalism rejects the role of the one revolutionary class in society.

Thus, the very premise of petty-bourgeois radicalism is that it is impossible to win the working class in the struggle against capitalism. From this it follows that mass concepts of struggle are not possible, necessary, or realistic. This leads to actions based on small elite groups—or to individual action. Because this concept is not concerned with winning over masses, it promotes and condones actions that alienate masses. There is an inner logic to this path. Specific actions are taken because there is a lack of confidence in mass–in class–actions. These ill-considered actions result in widening the gap between the petty-bourgeois radical movements and the masses. This widening gap then becomes “proof” that you cannot win masses and therefore the line of conduct of these movements is justified. Each step leads to a further isolation. This is the inner logic of petty-bourgeois radicalism.

This has been the path of world Trotskyism, the classical movement of petty-bourgeois radicalism. It had its genesis with Trotsky’s rejection of the working class as a basic revolutionary force. He also substituted radical-sounding rhetoric for the class struggle. Trotskyism has remained a worldwide petty-bourgeois radical current. It remains a negative, a divisive, and a disruptive current. Because of its basically incorrect position it is not surprising that in the very center of its work has been the attack, the slander, against a country where the working class is in power–the Soviet Union.

When the working class either takes other paths of struggle or when it does not move because of the influences of opportunism, petty-bourgeois radicalism becomes a more serious problem. This also has its inner logic which results in such radicalism becoming an obstacle to mobilizing and moving the working class.

Crisis And Decline

As in the US, the world wave of petty-bourgeois radicalism is now also in a crisis and in the declining phase of the present cycle. It is a world crisis of petty-bourgeois radicalism. Its policies have come up against the realities of the class struggle. Masses have gained new experiences in the fires of the class struggle. They are now rejecting petty-bourgeois concepts as divisive and impractical.

The problems in the struggle against these concepts arise because they seem radical and revolutionary. For many who are influenced by such ideas honestly believe they are the most revolutionary. But when such policies fail–when they do not result in revolutionary victories, those who honestly believe in them face a dilemma. They can go one of three ways. Some give up the struggle. They use many excuses, but in essence they accept the status quo. They move into positions of opportunism. Others, in frustration, move into isolation by accepting the path of anarchism. This path destroys cadre as a meaningful revolutionary force. But most, however, draw the correct conclusions. They move into struggles and movements based on mass concepts. They draw the necessary conclusions that one’s revolutionariness can be measured only in the framework of moving masses into struggle.

It is impossible to struggle against the incorrect concepts of petty-bourgeois radicalism without a consistent and sharp struggle against the forever present influences of Right opportunism. The pressures towards Right opportunism are the most consistent in any capitalist country. They remain the chief danger to the revolutionary movement in the broad mass organizations of the people and the working class. It is impossible to conduct a successful fight against petty-bourgeois radicalism unless there is a consistent, successful fight against the influences of Right opportunism.

Like all political currents, petty-bourgeois radicalism finds expression in the form of specific groups. But like all political currents, it also has influences in most people’s and working-class organizations.

In this past period in the United States, we have witnessed the appearances of numerous petty-bourgeois radical sects. They are all now, to one degree or another, feeling the effects of the crisis of petty-bourgeois radicalism. These groups include the carious varieties of Trotskyism. They include the groups that emerged as a result of the continuous splits of the original forces in the Students for a Democratic Society. They include those that emerged because of the disintegration and the splitting of the Progressive Labor group.

In rejecting petty-bourgeois radicalism we do not need to reject or ignore the positive contributions many of these groups have made. We need not condemn individuals when we reject the concepts of petty-bourgeois radicalism.

Even in their best moments they view their work with the working class as that of missionaries. They all tend to be anti-Communist and even more specifically, anti-Soviet. On these basic class matters they join hands with the Right opportunists. This factor exposes the more basic opportunistic side of petty-bourgeois radicalism. Everyone knows it is easier to be a radical and even a “revolutionary” as long as you are anti-Communist. The enemy is never too disturbed by the most radical speeches of anyone who remains ideologically tied to capitalism by means of anti-Communism. In this sense petty-bourgeois radicalism does a very special favor to capitalism because it covers its anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism with “Left” radical phrases.

For a number of years Mao Tse-Tung gave the world’s petty-bourgeois radical groups a lift. These groups turned to Mao because his thought is the most rounded form of petty-bourgeois radicalism. That it also has its anti-working class and rabidly anti-Soviet features, of course, is no surprise.

But the most important factor of petty-bourgeois radicalism today, including its Maoist features, is that it is in crisis and in the declining phase of its cycle the world over as well as in the United States. The easy catch-all slogans have turned into empty rhetoric. Much of the motion has turned into “bubbles” that are now disappearing.

When the hothouse schemes of instant revolution meet reality they burst like balloons. When this happens petty-bourgeois radicalism blames its failures on the working class. In their frustration many of these sects turn to anarchism, which is only another form of petty-bourgeois radicalism. This is, in fact, one of the features of the present crisis of petty-bourgeois radicalism.

Petty-bourgeois radicalism as a concept rejects the basic class nature of society and the class struggle as a pivotal element in the fight for progress. It rejects the role of mass movements because it does not see its basic ingredient–the working class. A class approach to struggle is of necessity a mass approach. The petty-bourgeois radical rhetoric is a sanctuary for those who have given up the possibilities of leading masses, and in the first place the working-class masses, in struggle. It is a way of keeping a radical image when in fact one has retreated and given up the struggle.

The Story of SDS

The SDS had its birth in the ideological chambers of the Socialist Party. Its present crisis can be clearly traced to the petty-bourgeois radical views that it inherited from the parent body. This is not to negate in any way or detract from the positive contributions of the tens of thousands of young people who have come into the struggle and into the Communist Party through the activities of the SDS. This organization went through many stages of development. It moved from its open anti-working class position to accepting the role of the workers. But even then it saw that role only in relation to the SDS being the “missionary” enlightening the people called “workers”. The SDS never did understand the role of masses as the key factor in struggle.

Because they did not understand the class struggle they tended to reject all concepts of unity, including a unified front of the forces opposing capitalism. This comes from the very nature of petty-bourgeois existence. These sectors do not see themselves as being exploited or oppressed as a class. They do not react to oppression as a class. Unity, a unified front are class-mass concepts. The SDS, even in its best days, rejected these concepts and tended to organize their own actions, asking others to “join them” or “support them.” When they could not have their way they very often boycotted many important mass actions against the U.S. aggression in Vietnam.

Under pressure they constantly slipped into anti-Communist positions. Petty-bourgeois radicalism by its very nature–its class essence being, as it is, that of a group between two basic classes–cannot for long sustain a united organization. Its concept of “participatory democracy” was, in a way, a recognition of this fact. As the working-class upsurge has developed and the class concepts of the struggle have moved into the forefront, petty-bourgeois radicalism has also been evident in the policies of accepting racism. This has been justified by statements like, “We will fight for black-white unity when we have socialism.” For white Americans not to fight racism at all times is racism.

Most who took part in the SDS and the actions that it organized have drawn the correct conclusions. These forces have tended to reject the petty-bourgeois radical concepts. But some, as we know, have moved into channels of anarchism and individual actions. When one is convinced that mass struggles will not achieve results, anarchistic actions seem a realistic way out. Fictitious “communiqués from the underground” threatening violence are infantile. Acts of individual terror at a moment when mass actions and movements are possible and necessary, are actions in the service of reaction. They are damaging to the revolutionary movement. These “communiqués from the underground” and other threats of violence become the most convenient cover for acts of violence by police provocateurs, by enemy agents. Police agents blow up buildings–but the blame is placed on the “Left radical movement.” The fictitious “communiqués from the underground” threatening violence become the canopies under which the enemy conspires to create new Reichstag fire situations.

Another of the petty-bourgeois radical groups now in crisis is the group called Progressive Labor. It got a start as a splinter from the New York City Communist Party. When the Supreme Court upheld the McCarran Act and said the Communist Party was ordered to register its members, finances and officers, a small group in the Party panicked. The Party overwhelmingly decided to stand up and fight. This splinter group was a part of those who fought for a policy of liquidating the Communist Party. They called for its dissolution.

When the Party rejected this they set up their own little group. But right from the beginning it was stamped with their opportunism. Their liquidationist, opportunistic tendency continued in their own organization. They tried to hide and bypass the anti-Communist barrage from the enemy behind a name that said nothing about socialism or communism. Opportunism has been their hallmark. Now life has caught up with their brand of petty-bourgeois radicalism. It has remained a sect becoming ever more isolated–and now the sect has split asunder.

The basically opportunistic approach of Progressive Labor led it along the path of rabid anti-Sovietism. This is opportunism because it is a concession to the central ideological pillar of U.S. imperialism. This same opportunism has led Progressive Labor to compromise with the same struggle against racism under radical phrases and even in the name of the working class. It has followed a policy of accommodation and conciliation with racism. Because of its racist and white chauvinist practices the Black and Puerto Rican members have either been expelled or left the group.

The various Trotskyite sects continue as of old. They continue their splitting tactics in our mass movements, as is clearly shown in their latest efforts to set up a peace movement under their control. Momentarily some of these groups have made some gains. They are carefully covering up their real Trotskyite policies. But the Trotskyite sects are also in a crisis. They are also isolated. Their splitting tactics in all movements flow from their basic petty-bourgeois radical essence. Working-class consciousness leads to concepts of class unity. It leads to rejecting tactics that lead to disunity. Petty-bourgeois radicalism does not see the concept of class or mass struggles. From this it follows that it does not see the need for class unity. It reflects the individualism of its class nature. Petty-bourgeois radicalism is a political trend. It is this political trend that is in a crisis. Militant currents, radical trends, and the revolutionary process–these are not in a crisis. They are features of the mass upheavals. Marxism-Leninism is not in a crisis. It is the growing, the most consistent revolutionary current. It is not in a crisis because it reflects and is changing reality. It is the revolutionary current.

The post Crisis Of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism appeared first on The Communist.

Therefore, such inner-Party struggle is absolutely necessary and cannot be avoided. Any idea of trying to avoid inner-Party struggle, or of refraining from criticizing others’ mistakes so that they will not criticize one’s own errors, is totally wrong.

Inner-Party struggles consist principally of ideological struggles. Their content is made up of the divergencies and antagonisms arising in matters of ideology and principle. The divergencies and antagonisms among our comrades on matters of ideology and principle can develop into political splits within the Party, and, under certain circumstances, even to inevitable organizational splits; but, in character and content, such divergencies and antagonisms are basically ideological struggles.

Consequently, any inner-Party struggle not involving divergencies in matters of ideology and principle and any conflict among Party members not based on divergencies in matters of principle is a type of unprincipled struggle, a struggle without content. This kind of struggle without principle or content is utterly unnecessary within the Party. It is detrimental and not beneficial to the Party. Every Party member should strictly avoid such struggles.

Inner-Party struggle is absolutely indispensable to protecting the purity and independence of the Party, to guaranteeing that the Party’s activities constantly proceed along lines which represent the highest interests of the proletariat, and to preserving the Party’s basic proletarian character. With this object in view, inner-Party struggles must be conducted from two sides, or on two fronts. This is because the enemy’s ideology influences the Party from two directions, attacking the Party from both the Right and the “Left.” This is expressed in the Party by Right or “Left” opportunism.

Therefore, our inner-Party struggle must be directed simultaneously against both Right opportunism and “Left” opportunism, against these two aspects so that our Party can preserve its definite proletarian character. If we fail to do this, if we merely carryon a one-sided struggle, or if we slacken our vigilance and our struggle against either side, then the enemy not only can but assuredly will attack our Party from that very side which we have neglected. In that case, it will be impossible to preserve the Party’s purity and independence or to consolidate the Party. It is, therefore, in the course of ceaseless inner-Party struggle on two fronts that our Party consolidates and develops itself.

Comrade Stalin said: “The question here is that contradictions can be overcome only by means of struggle for this or that principle, for defining the goal of this or that struggle, for choosing this or that method of struggle that may lead to the goal. We can and we must come to agreement with those within the Party who differ with us on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical character. But if these questions involve differences over principle, then no agreement, no ‘middle’ line can save the cause. There is and there can be no ‘middle’ line on questions of principle. The work of the Party must be based either on these or those principles. The ‘middle’ line on questions of principle is a ‘line’ that muddles one’s head, a ‘line’ that covers up differences, a ‘line’ of ideological degeneration of the Party, a ‘line’ of ideological death of the Party. It is not our policy to pursue such a ‘middle’ line. It is the policy of a party that is declining and degenerating from day to day. Such a policy cannot but transform the party into an empty bureaucratic organ, standing isolated from the working people and becoming a puppet unable to do anything. Such a road cannot be our road.”

He added: “Our Party has been strengthened on the basis of overcoming the contradictions within the Party.” This explains the essential nature of inner-Party struggle.

[…] The special conditions and circumstances prevailing at the time when our Chinese Party was founded gave rise to two kinds of influences. One was favorable, enabling us from the very start to build a Communist Party of the Leninist type. Subjectively, we strictly adhered to the principles laid down by Lenin. From the very outset, our Party has carried out strict self-criticism and inner-Party struggle. This accounted for the rapid progress of our Party and served as a motive force to spur our Party forward.

But the other influence frequently led our comrades to another extreme, to another kind of mistake—the mistake of carrying inner-Party struggles too far, of struggling too intensely without any restraints whatsoever. This resulted in another deviation, a “Left” deviation.

Many comrades had a mechanical and erroneous understanding of Lenin’s principles and turned them into absolute dogmas. They believed that the Party’s highly centralized organization negates inner-Party democracy, that the need for inner-Party struggle negates peace within the Party; that the political leadership of the Party—the highest form of class organization of the proletariat—in other mass organizations of the proletariat negates the independence of trade unions and other organizations of the workers and toiling masses; and that unified, iron discipline means the obliteration of the individual personality, initiative and creativeness of Party members.

Many comrades memorized the principles of Lenin as if they were dead things. While they considered inner-Party struggle to be necessary and regarded liberalism and conciliationism as useless, still they applied these principles mechanically and dogmatically. They thought that inner-Party struggles should and must be uncompromisingly carried on regardless of the time, circumstances and issues involved, and that the more bitterly such struggles were conducted, the better. These comrades thought that the more vehement and sharp the form of inner-party struggle and criticism, the better. They felt that the sharper the controversies between Party comrades, the better. If this was not the case, then they thought that errors of liberalism and conciliationism were being committed.

In order to prove that they themselves were free from liberal or conciliatory tendencies, that they were “100 percent Bolsheviks,” they carried on unprincipled struggles within the Par0ty, irrespective of the actual conditions of time and place. Thus, these people became “rowdies” without any standpoint in inner-Party struggles, “struggle specialists” with no regard for principle, or “brawl experts” given to fighting. They conducted struggle for the sake of struggle. This is disgraceful within the ranks of the proletariat. And of course, it does not prove that they were “100 percent Bolsheviks.” On the contrary, it only serves to prove that they had insulted Bolshevism and utilized the name and appearance of Bolsheviks to practice opportunism inside the Party.

Many comrades did not understand that our inner-Party struggle is a struggle over principle, a struggle for this or that principle, for defining the goal of this or that struggle, for choosing this or that method of struggle that may lead to the goal.

These comrades did not understand that on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical character we can and must come to agreement with those within the Party who differ with us. They did not know or understand that on issues involving principle, on questions of defining the goal of our struggles and of choosing the methods of struggle needed to reach such goal they should wage an uncompromising struggle against those in the Party who hold divergent opinions; but on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical character, they should come to agreement with those within the Party who hold divergent opinions instead of carrying on an irreconcilable struggle against them, so long as such questions do not involve any difference over principle.

This is precisely the traditional style of work in the Party of Lenin and Stalin, which, however, many of our comrades have not yet acquired. They conducted uncompromising struggles over issues on which they should have come to agreement. As a result, there was not a single issue they would not fight over, there was never a time when they would not fight and there was not a single person against whom they would not fight. They struggled against all who differed with them, enforcing absolute conformity. They made no concessions on anything and would not compromise under any circumstances. They regarded anything contrary as antagonistic and believed that opposition is everything. This constituted their absolutism. These comrades do not preserve or achieve unity within the Party by overcoming differences over principle and ideology within the Party and by correcting certain incorrect tendencies and phenomena. On the contrary, they attempt to preserve or achieve unity within the Party by simple organizational means or by high-handed measures, by a policy of attack, by a system of punishment in dealing with Party members. As a result, they bring about various erroneous and excessive inner-Party struggles. Therefore, instead of carefully and considerately persuading comrades on the basis of principle and ideology, they suppress and bully comrades by resorting to simple organizational means, hostile methods, and even administrative measures. They draw at random organizational conclusions about comrades and mete out organizational measures to discipline comrades. Moreover, they ruthlessly discipline comrades inside the Party from the bourgeois viewpoint of equality before the law—that is, they mete out the heaviest discipline as provided in the Party Constitution without taking into consideration what kind of Party members the offenders are and whether or not the offenders have admitted or corrected their mistakes. In this way the system of disciplinary measures inside the Party is introduced. They often employ the means of conducting struggles in order to start and push forward work. They purposely look for “targets of struggle” (comrades inside the Party) and conduct the struggle against them as representatives of opportunism.  They  sacrifice  and attack this one comrade or these few comrades, “killing the rooster to frighten the dog” as the Chinese saying goes, in order to make other Party cadres work hard and fulfill the task. They deliberately collect information about the shortcomings and mistakes of the target of struggle and jot down mechanically and piecemeal his not too appropriate words and deeds. Then they view in isolation such shortcomings and mistakes and his not too appropriate words and deeds and regard all these as representing the whole make-up of the comrade. They magnify the individual shortcomings and mistakes of this comrade and develop these into a system of opportunism, create an extremely unfavorable impression about this comrade among comrades in the Party and incite their hatred for opportunism in struggling against this comrade. Then, “everybody can inflict blows on a dead tiger.” The psychology of revenge on the part of some persons begins to gain ground and they expose all the shortcomings and mistakes of this comrade and arbitrarily raise these shortcomings and mistakes to the level of principle. They even fabricate some story and on the basis of subjective suspicion and completely groundless rumors, accuse the comrade of various crimes. They will not stop until they drive him into mental confusion. With this done, they are still reluctant to allow the comrade who has been attacked to make any defense. If he makes any defense they would accuse him of deliberately defending his mistakes or of admitting mistakes with reservations. Then they would deal him further blows. They do not allow the comrade being attacked to reserve his opinions on condition of submission to the Party organization and do not allow him to appeal to the superiors but insist upon his admitting his mistakes on the spot. In case the comrade being attacked has admitted all his mistakes, then they do not bother whether the problem pertaining to principle or ideology has been solved or not. So, it occurred inside the Party that in the course of the struggle certain comrades admitted more mistakes than they had committed. In order to avoid attacks, they thought that they had better accept all the accusations. Although they admitted all the mistakes, as a matter of fact they still did not know what it was all about. This proves that such methods of struggle cannot cultivate the firmness of a communist in sticking to the truth.

The post On Inner-Party Struggle appeared first on The Communist.