What Type of Communist Are You?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam
r Telegram: Defend the DRV-NLF! The following telegram was sent as the u.s. imperialists mined Haiphong harbor and the North Vietnamese coast. At the time Soviet bureaucrats were preparing to receive Nixon in Moscow just as their Chinese counterparts a few months earlier wined and dined him in Peking as he terror-bombed Vietnam. Embassy of the U.S.S.R. Washington, D.C. U.N. Mission of the People's Republic of China New York, N.Y. On behalf of the urgent revolutionary needs of the international working class and in accord with the inevitable aims of our future worker~ government in the United States, we demand that you immediately expand shipment of military supplies of the highest technical quality to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and that you offer the DRV the fullest all sided assistance including necessary Russian-Chinese joint military collaboration. No other course will serve at this moment of savage imperialist escalation against the DRV and the Indochinese working people whose military victories have totally shattered the myths of the Vietnamization and pacification programs of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. signed: Political Bureau, Spartacist League of the U.S. 8 May 1972 copies to: D RV and N LF delegations, Paris -from Workers Vanguard No.9, June 1972 6 n p Stalinism and Trotskyism In• Vietnam ~···· l,~ ~ r SPARTACIST PUBLISHING co. Box 1377, G.P.O. New York, N.Y. 10001, U.S.A . • December 1976 Ho Chi Minh Ta Thu Thau CONTENTS CHAPTER I In Defense of Vietnamese Trotskyism (I:·: • >'~ Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam ................... -
Programmatic Theses of the Communist Organization CONTENT
Programmatic Theses of the Communist Organization CONTENT 3 The Flame of Communism Burns On! 4 Our Worldview 5 Class society 7 The State 8 Imperialism 10 Fascism and anti-fascism 12 Proletarian internationalism 14 Proletarian women’s movement 15 The communist party 17 Socialism and Communism 20 The revolutionary strategy 22 Revolutionary Practice 24 The Fight against Opportunism and Revisionism 28 Closing Words 2 The Flame of Communism Burns On! It has been a full century since the October Revolution ushered in the first suc- cessful socialist revolution and changed the world, costing imperialism its first great defeat. Under Lenin‘s leadership in 1917, the actions of the Bolsheviks beca- The Flame of Communism Burns On! me a spark that spread like wildfire, heralding in a new epoch of revolution. Our Worldview The victory of the counter-revolution of 1989/90, the destruction of socialism, and the worldwide solidification of capitalism cost the workers movement and Class society communism greatly. Communist parties, once proud and influential - anchored in the masses and accepted as their revolutionary leadership – disappeared into The State the shadows of history. Our organizations were demolished, they lost their mass influence, they assimilated into the system under the influence of revisionism or Imperialism dissolved. A revolutionary spark as powerful as that of the October Revolution seems far from reach today. Fascism and anti-fascism Still we say: the flame of communism burns on! The ruling status quo is today Proletarian internationalism just as unbearable as it was then. Capitalism produces unimaginable wealth for the few and poverty, misery, and hardship for the many. -
FROM MAOISM to TROTSKYISM -Reprinted from WORKERS VANGUARD, No.1, October 1971
iii PREFACE The Communist Horking Collective originated tvhen a small group of Ivlaoists came together in Los Angeles to undertake an intensive investigation of the history of the communist movement in order to develop a strategy for the U.S. ,socialist revolution. Its study of the essentials of Stalinist and Maoist theory led the CWC to the inescapable conclusion that the theory of IISocialism in One Country" is in irreconcilable opposition to revolutionary internationalism. The consolidation of the CWC around Trotskyism and its systematic study of the various ostensible Trotskyist international tendencies was culminated in the fusion between the CWC and the Spartacist League in September 1971. The brief history of the Ct'lC which appeared originally in the first issue of Workers Vanguard (see page viii) alludes to the splits of the CWC's founding cadre from the Revolutionary Union (RU) and the California Communist League (CCL). To convey the genesis of this process, we have included a number of forerunner documents going back to the original split from the CPUSA on the 50th anniver sary of the October Revolution. The original resignation of comrade~ Treiger and Miller began the "floundering about for three years ••• seeking in Mao Tse Tung Thought a revolutionary al ternati ve to the revisionists." Treiger went on to help found the CWC; fUller con tinued to uphold the dogmatic tradition and declined to even answer the "Letter to a IvIao~_st" (see page 30). Why the Critique of "Tvw Stages"? The lynchpin on which all variants of the fJIaoist "t"t'lO stage" theory of revolution rest--whether applied to the advanced countries or to the colonial world--is collaboration with the ruling class or a section of it during the initial "stage." Early in its develop ment the CWC had rejected the conception as it was applied to the Un1 ted States, but believed it remained applicable to the col'onial revolution. -
'Socialism in One Country': Komsomol'tsy
Youthful Internationalism in the Age of ‘Socialism in One Country’: Komsomol’tsy, Pioneers and ‘World Revolution’ in the Interwar Period Matthias Neumann On the 1st of March 1927, two Komsomol members from the Chuvash Republic, located in the centre of European Russia, wrote an emotional letter to Comrade Stalin. Reflecting on the revolutionary upheavals in China, they attacked the inaction of the Komsomol and the party and expressed their sincere determination to self-mobilise and join the proletarian forces in China. ‘We do not need empty slogans such as “The Komsomol is prepared”’, ‘We must not live like this’ they wrote and boasted ‘we guarantee that we are able to mobilise thousands of Komsomol members who have the desire to go to China and fight in the army of the Guomindang.’ This was after all, they forcefully stressed, the purpose for which ‘our party and our Komsomol exist.’1 These youngsters were not alone in their views. As the coverage on the situation in China intensified in the Komsomol press in March, numerous similar individual and collective letters were received by party and Komsomol leaders.2 The young authors, all male as far as they were named, expressed their genuine enthusiasm for the revolution in China. The letters revealed not only a youthful romanticism for the revolutionary fight abroad and the idea of spreading the revolution, but often an underlying sense of disillusionment with the inertia of the revolutionary project at home. A few months earlier, in 1926 during the campaign against the so-called eseninshchina3, a fellow Komsomol member took a quite different view on the prospect of spreading the revolution around the world. -
Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification
“Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification IVAN SZPAKOWSKI The Russian Empire of the Romanovs spanned thousands of miles from the Baltic to the Pacific, with a population of millions drawn from dozens of ethnic groups. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks inherited the problem of holding together such a heterogeneous body. At the same time, they were forced to uphold Marxist ideology demanding worldwide revolution of the proletariat while facing the reality that despite the turmoil following the First World War no such revolution was forthcoming. In 1924 the rising Joseph Stalin, along with Nikolai Bukharin, devised the theory of “Socialism in One Country” which would become the solution to many of these problems facing the Bolsheviks. First of all, it proclaimed the ability of socialism to succeed in the Soviet Union alone, without foreign aid. Additionally, it marked a change from Lenin’s policy of self-determination for the Soviet Union’s constituent nations to Stalin’s policy of a compulsory unitary state. These non-Russian ethnics were systematically and firmly incorporated into the Soviet Union by the promotion of a proletariat class mentality. The development of the theory and policy of “Socialism in One Country” thus served to forge the unitary national identity of the Soviet Union around the concept of common Soviet class identity. The examination of this policy’s role in building a new form of national identity is dependant on a variety of sources, grouped into several subject areas. First, the origin of the term “Socialism in One Country,” its original meaning and its interpretation can be found in the speeches and writings of prominent contemporary communist leaders, chief among them: Stalin and Trotsky. -
Stalin Revolutionary in an Era of War 1St Edition Pdf, Epub, Ebook
STALIN REVOLUTIONARY IN AN ERA OF WAR 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Kevin McDermott | 9780333711224 | | | | | Stalin Revolutionary in an Era of War 1st edition PDF Book It was under this name that he went to Switzerland in the winter of , where he met with Lenin and collaborated on a theoretical work, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. They argue that in the article On the Slogan for a United States of Europe the expression "triumph of socialism [ Seller Rating:. Vladimir Lenin died in January and by the end of that year in the second edition of the book Stalin's position started to turn around as he claimed that "the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Modern History Review. Refresh and try again. Tucker's subject, however, which isn't Mont I have admired Robert Tucker's work for decades now, and I am glad at long last to take up the first of his two volume study of Stalin. Brazil United Kingdom United States. Retrieved August 27, Egan The major difficulty is a lack of agreement about what should constitute Stalinism. Stalin and Lenin were close friends, judging from this photograph. He wrote that the concept of Stalinism was developed after by Western intellectuals so as to be able to keep alive the communist ideal. Retrieved September 20, Palgrave Macmillan UK. Antonio rated it it was amazing Jun 04, Retrieved 7 October During the quarter of a century preceding his death, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history. -
Download Download
MAOISM-ITS ORIGINS, BACKGROUND, AND OUTLOOK Isaac Deutscher WHAT does Maoism stand for? What does it represent as a political idea and as a current in contemporary communism? The need to clarify these questions has become all the more urgent because Maoism is now openly competing with other communist schools of thought for inter- national recognition. Yet before entering this competition Maoism had existed as a current, and then as the dominant trend, of Chinese communism for thirty to thirty-five years. It is under its banner that the main forces of the Chinese revolution waged the most protracted civil war in modern history; and that they won their victory in 1949, making the greatest single breach in world capitalism since the October Revolu- tion, and freeing the Soviet Union from isolation. It is hardly surprising that Maoism should at last advance politically beyond its national . boundaries and claim world-wide attention to its ideas. What is surprising is that it has not done so earlier and that it has for so long remained closed within the confines of its national experience. Maoism presents in this respect a striking contrast with Leninism. The latter also existed at first as a purely Russian school of thought; but not for long. In 1915, after the collapse of the Second International, Lenin was already the central figure in the movement for the Third International, its initiator and inspirer-Bolshevism, as a faction in the Russian Social Democratic Party, was not much older then than a decade. Before that the Bolsheviks, like other Russian socialists, had lived intensely with all the problems of international Marxism, absorbed all its experience, participated in all its controversies, and felt bound to it with unbreakable ties of intellectual, moral, and political solidarity. -
Korea and the Global Struggle for Socialism a Perspective from Anthropological Marxism
Korea and the Global Struggle for Socialism A Perspective from Anthropological Marxism Eugene E Ruyle Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies California State University, Long Beach Pablo Picasso, Massacre in Korea (1951) CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2 What Is Socialism and Why Is It Important? .................................................. 3 U.S. Imperialism in Korea ...................................................................................18 Defects in Building Socialism in Korea ..........................................................26 1. Nuclear weapons 2. Prisons and Political Repression 3. Inequality, Poverty and Starvation 4. The Role of the Kim family. Reading “Escape from Camp 14.” A Political Review.................................37 For Further Study:.................................................................................................49 References cited.....................................................................................................50 DRAFT • DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION Introduction Even on the left, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) is perhaps the most misunderstood country on our Mother Earth. Cuba and Vietnam both enjoy support among wide sectors of the American left, but north Korea is the object of ridicule and scorn among otherwise intelligent people. In order to clear away some of the misunderstanding, we can do no better than quote -
October Revolution and Today's World
Marxist, XXXIII, 3, July-September 2017 SITARAM YECHURY October Revolution and Today’s World The year 2017 marks the centenary of the triumph of the great October Socialist Revolution.1 This event deeply influenced the course of world history in the 20th century, qualitatively shifting the trajectory of human civilisational advance. It was an epoch-making event that resoundingly vindicated the creative science of Marxism and its assertion of the inevitable march of human civilization towards the establishment of a social order free from human exploitation. In this lies its eternal relevance. Soon after the death of Karl Marx, in a moving Preface to the German edition of the Communist Manifesto, in 1883, Friedrich Engels notes: “The basic thought running through the Manifesto – that economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently (ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social development; that this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time for ever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles – this basic thought belongs solely and exclusively to Marx.” (Emphasis added). This is precisely what the October Revolution achieved: “freeing the whole of society from exploitation.” The success of the October Revolution resoundingly vindicates every single postulate that Marx and Marxism advance. -
Stalinism Revisited Stalinism Revisited
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK Stalinism Revisited Stalinism Revisited Stalinism Revisited brings together representatives of multiple generations to create a rich examination The Establishment of Communist Regimes in East-Central Europe of the study and practice of Stalinism. While the articles are uniformly excellent, the book’s signal contribution is to bring recent research from Eastern European scholars to an English-speaking audience. Thus the volume is not just a “state of the discipline” collection, in which articles are collected to reflect that current situation of scholarship in a given field; instead, this one includes cutting edge scholarship that will prompt more of the same from other scholars in other fields/subfields. I would recommend this book highly to anyone interested in understanding the technology of Stalinism in both StalinismStalinism thought and practice. Nick Miller Boise State University The Sovietization of post-1945 East-Central Europe—marked by the forceful imposition of the Soviet- type society in the region—was a process of massive socio-political and cultural transformation. Despite its paramount importance for understanding the nature of the communist regime and its RevisitedRevisited legacy, the communist take-over in East Central European countries has remained largely under- researched. Two decades after the collapse of the communist system,Stalinism Revisited brings together a remarkable international team of established and younger scholars, engaging them in a critical re-evaluation of the institutionalization of communist regimes in East-Central Europe and of the period of “high Stalinism.” Sovietization is approached not as a fully pre-determined, homogeneous, and monolithic transformation, but as a set of trans-national, multifaceted, and inter-related processes of large-scale institutional and ideological transfers, made up of multiple “takeovers” in various fields. -
A MARXIST INTERPRETATION Domenico Mario Nuti
THE CONTRADICTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIES: A MARXIST INTERPRETATION Domenico Mario Nuti 1 . Premise Public ownership of the means of production (in its forms of state, co-operative and local ownership) and macro-economic planning are the fundamental features of socialist economies of Marxist- Leninist inspiration. The known variants of this type of economy differ main!y in the extent and mix of public ownership, the degree of central control and its extension beyond the macro-economic sphere, the actual techniques of management and planning. These economies differ from both 'associationist' (or 'self-management') socialism of Yugoslavian type where there is no planning, and social democracy of Scandinavian type where private ownership and enterprise continue to dominate. The large body of economic literature on socialist economies is devoted almost entirely to the practicability and efficiency of resource allocation in various models of socialism with different degrees of centralization, to the development of planning techniques for the co-ordination of economic life and a discussion of their merits relatively to the automatism of markets, and to an analysis of the economic implications of alternative decisional rules and incentive schemes in the management of public ownership. Thus the socialist economy has been investigated primarily as a kind of cafiitalism without capztalists. This is true even of Marxian economists such as Oskar Lange and Maurice Dobb, whose theoretical contributions-important as they are-are confined to these areas of inquiry, mostly in response to the challenge of bourgeois economists such as Hayek and Mises.' Paradoxically, with very few notable exceptions, the Marxian approach to modes of production has been seldom applied to socialist economies of Marxist-Leninist inspira- tion, and the development of a political economy of socialism has been delayed, slow and fragmentary. -
Communism 1 Communism
Communism 1 Communism Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[1] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies). Marxist theory holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[2][3] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all.