The revolutionary struggle that brought about the first socialist state in the former Russian Empire in 1917 had its first major upheavals years earlier. The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) had split into two factions, the Bolsheviks (meaning majority, led by V.I. Lenin) and Mensheviks (meaning minority, led by Julius Martov) in 1903. The RSDLP remained as one party formally, but the two factions, practically, had separate centers, presses, and programs. As The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – Short Course puts it, “on the eve of the first Russian revolution, when the Russo-Japanese war had already begun, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks acted as two separate political groups.”

The Russo-Japanese war broke out in 1904, and the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks each took a different stance toward the war. “The Mensheviks, including Trotsky, were sinking to a position of defending the ‘fatherland’ of the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists,” says the Short Course. “The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, on the other hand, held that the defeat of the tsarist government in this predatory war would be useful, as it would weaken tsardom and strengthen the revolution.”

By 1905 the struggle came to a head. The Short Course sums it up like this: 

“The workers' recourse to mass political strikes and demonstrations, the growth of the peasant movement, the armed clashes between the people and the police and troops, and, finally, the revolt in the Black Sea Fleet, all went to show that conditions were ripening for an armed uprising of the people. This stirred the liberal bourgeoisie into action. Fearing the revolution, and at the same time frightening the tsar with the spectre of revolution, it sought to come to terms with the tsar against the revolution; it demanded slight reforms ‘for the people’ so as to ‘pacify’ the people, to split the forces of the revolution and thus avert the ‘horrors of revolution.’ ‘Better part with some of our land than part with our heads,’ said the liberal landlords. The liberal bourgeoisie was preparing to share power with the tsar.’

In this time of great upheaval, the RSDLP lacked unity over tactics on how to move forward. The Bolsheviks called the Third Congress in order to assess the situation and formulate tactics that the whole party would be bound to carry out. But the Mensheviks boycotted the Third Congress and called their own “conference” in order to formulate their own tactical line apart from the Bolsheviks. 

The Third Party Congress correctly assessed that the liberal bourgeoisie didn’t want complete victory for the revolution but would instead seek compromise with the tsar on the basis of forming a constitutional monarchy. Therefore, it called for the proletariat to lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution, allied closely with the peasantry, since those were the class forces fundamentally interested in complete victory. The Menshevik conference, on the other hand, insisted that the democratic revolution be led by the liberal bourgeoisie, and that revolutionary socialists should make every effort to avoid frightening the liberal bourgeoisie and thereby undermining the revolution. The Bolsheviks advocated the revolutionary overthrow of tsarism, and the continuation of the revolution from its bourgeois-democratic stage to its socialist stage, while the Mensheviks instead advocated a policy of compromise and reform. 

Lenin’s arguments

Lenin’s book, Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution appeared two months after the Third Congress, in July 1905. It explained and developed the Bolshevik tactical line as it exposed and criticized the Menshevik tactical line. 

There are three main points in Lenin’s book that must be emphasized. 

First, Lenin argued that the proletariat must be the leader and guiding force of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Thus, in Two Tactics Lenin writes, 

“Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion. We cannot jump out of the bourgeois-democratic boundaries of the Russian revolution, but we can vastly extend these boundaries, and within these boundaries we can and must fight for the interests of the proletariat, for its immediate needs and for the conditions that will make it possible to prepare its forces for the future complete victory.”

For this reason, Lenin writes, “The outcome of the revolution depends on whether the working class will play the part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, a subsidiary that is powerful in the force of its onslaught against the autocracy but impotent politically, or whether it will play the part of leader of the people’s revolution.” To do this, Lenin held that it was necessary for the proletariat to ally itself with the peasantry, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to isolate the liberal bourgeoisie and force it out of leadership of the revolution. 

Second, Lenin argued that the means for overthrowing tsarism and achieving a democratic republic was through revolutionary armed struggle. 

In Two Tactics Lenin writes, “In order to be able to exercise this pressure from below, the proletariat must be armed—for in a revolutionary situation matters develop with exceptional rapidity to the stage of open civil war – and must be led by the Social-Democratic Party. The object of its armed pressure is that of ‘defending, consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution,’ i.e., those gains which from the standpoint of the interests of the proletariat must consist in the fulfilment of the whole of our minimum program.”

Against the Mensheviks, who advocated for reform during a revolutionary situation, Lenin wrote, “under the circumstances … amendments are moved by means of street demonstrations, interpolations are introduced by means of offensive action by armed citizens, opposition to the government is effected by forcibly overthrowing the government.” 

Third, Lenin argued that the revolution should have two stages, and that the revolution must not come to a halt with the victory of the bourgeois-democratic stage. Instead, it must strive immediately to pass into the socialist stage.

Therefore, Lenin writes in Two Tactics, “The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyze the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie.”

The Short Course points out, “This was a new theory which held that the Socialist revolution would be accomplished not by the proletariat in isolation as against the whole bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat as the leading class which would have as allies the semi-proletarian elements of the population, the ‘toiling and exploited millions.’” It goes on to explain, “According to this theory the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, the proletariat being in alliance with the peasantry, would grow into the hegemony of the proletariat in the Socialist revolution, the proletariat now being in alliance with the other laboring and exploited masses, while the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry would prepare the ground for the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.”

The hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the necessity of revolutionary armed struggle, and the importance of carrying the revolution forward from the democratic to the socialist stage: these are the most important lessons to draw from Lenin’s Two Tactics. 

Two Tactics today

After 1905, the democratic revolution in Russia entered a period of retreat, and wouldn’t be completed until February of 1917, after which the Bolsheviks did indeed push the revolution forward to the victorious October socialist revolution. 

Regarding Lenin’s book, Two Tactics, the Short Course says, “Its invaluable significance consists in that it enriched Marxism with a new theory of revolution and laid the foundation for the revolutionary tactics of the Bolshevik Party with the help of which in 1917 the proletariat of our country achieved the victory over capitalism.”

It is important that revolutionaries study this cornerstone of Marxist-Leninist theory today. Indeed, it explains in clear terms how revolutionaries should relate to the movements for democracy and the other class forces involved in those movements. It lays out the basic principles at the core of Leninist tactics. The lessons of Two Tactics apply to our own struggle in the U.S., where different class forces are united in struggle against monopoly capitalism. At the core of this united front is the strategic alliance of the multinational working class on the one hand and the movements of the oppressed nations and nationalities for liberation on the other hand. Lenin’s Two Tactics explains clearly the importance of the leadership of the proletariat and its need for allies. And while we must push forward and develop the struggle to defend and expand democracy in a revolutionary way, we must advance to the overthrow of the capitalist system and struggle for socialism.

#RevolutionaryTheory #Socialism #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #RedTheory

It has to be acknowledged that this is a touchy subject. But we should try to look at this question objectively, with an eye towards transforming society and putting an end to the root causes of gun violence.

Capitalism is the root cause of the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. U.S. capitalist society is an utterly militarized society. The U.S. Defense Department budget in 2023 was over $700 billion. In the 2024 fiscal year it will be over $800 billion. Since the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, and the widespread rebellions that followed, police budgets are also on the rise. In 2022, Biden’s budget sought $37 billion for policing. In many cities, these are militarized police with high-tech weaponry. The U.S. military and police kill with impunity, unleashing untold violence on anyone, especially people of oppressed nationalities, who stands in the way of profit maximization by the monopoly capitalist class.

All of this goes to promote an omnipresent culture of violence in the United States. This culture of violence comes from the top down, where it blends with the alienation inherent in modern capitalism, the hopelessness of sharpening economic stagnation, and the hateful white chauvinist ideology promoted to prevent the strategic alliance between the multinational working class and oppressed nationalities. This poisonous brew gives rise to the toxic situation in which we find ourselves. Everyone asks, “What is to be done?” And there is not an easy answer. Unfortunately, the liberal demand for increased gun control will not solve the problem, and we can look at history to understand why this is the case.

What are the origins of gun control in the United States? The United States “founding fathers'' were advocates of revolutionary violence. But after they used revolutionary violence to overthrow the British and gain independence for the U.S., they also advocated state violence, especially against workers, indigenous people, and enslaved Africans. The right to bear arms was formalized by the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment, though in practice this only applied to white citizens, and was driven primarily by fear of slave revolts.

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship didn’t apply to people of African descent. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in arguing against equal citizenship to African Americans in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, worried that it “would give to persons of the negro race” the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

During the U.S. Civil War to end slavery, Black regiments, including liberated slaves, were armed to aid the Union army in overthrowing the Southern planter slavocracy. After this, during Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1868 granted African Americans formal equality as citizens, but by 1877 this was reversed in practice by the Hayes-Tilden betrayal of Reconstruction. This was followed by the removal of federal troops from the South, and the rise of the white-supremacist Redeemer governments. The institution of Jim Crow and lynch terror saw African Americans stripped of their hard-won democratic rights, including the right to bear arms, as they were thrust back onto the plantations as sharecroppers. During this period, African Americans were forged into an oppressed nation, subject to super-exploitation in both agriculture and industry. This was enforced by the Dixiecrat Jim Crow laws and the paramilitary terror of the Ku Klux Klan.

The democratic right to bear arms was denied in practice to Black people in the South, though some still armed themselves. Indeed, throughout the Jim Crow period, there is a tradition of armed resistance in the Black Belt South that includes the Alabama Sharecroppers Union, the Deacons of Defense, and the Monroe, North Carolina NAACP leader Robert F. Williams.

The Mulford Act, banning the open carry of loaded firearms, was passed in California in 1967 (with the noteworthy support of the NRA) in a direct attack on the Black Panther Party, to roll back the rights they exercised in arming themselves in defense of their communities. Before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a firearm permit after his house was firebombed. Indeed, disarming oppressed nationalities to prevent self-defense has historically gone hand in hand with their oppression. Thus, we have to understand that the question of gun control in the U.S. is tied to the question of national oppression.

Huey P. Newton, the co-founder of the Black Panther Party, in his article from June 20, 1967, “In Defense of Self Defense,” quoted Mao Zedong: “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” This is an important point, and one that Mao Zedong drew from Marxist theory about the nature of the state. Mao understood that “political power grows from the barrel of a gun,” meaning that the state power of the ruling class is enforced and held by violence.

This was a lesson Karl Marx also emphasized, saying, “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” Again, we can look at history to understand this concretely. In fact, this is exactly what happened in Chile after the election of the President Salvador Allende, who was a Marxist. The U.S. funded a military coup in 1973 and installed the fascist Augusto Pinochet. The coup was successful largely because the Chilean people were not armed to resist it. A 1972 gun control law put civilian arms under military supervision, that is, under Pinochet’s control. As a result, more than 3000 Chileans were executed or disappeared.

Indeed, Lenin writes in “The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution” from late 1916, “An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves.” He goes on to say that “We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle.” Further, Lenin drives home the point, saying,

“A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to ‘demand’ ‘disarmament’! That is tantamount of complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics possible for a revolutionary class, tactics that follow logically from, and are dictated by, the whole objective development of capitalist militarism. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historic mission, to consign all armaments to the scrap-heap. And the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.”

Lenin writes, “To put ‘disarmament’ in the programme is tantamount to making the general declaration: We are opposed to the use of arms. There is as little Marxism in this as there would be if we were to say: We are opposed to violence!” Lenin’s point is a simple one. Though we want peace, Marxists are not pacifists. We need to be able to defend ourselves and our movements from potential reactionary violence. The path to peace must pass through revolution.

The problem of gun violence in the United States is primarily rooted in capitalist alienation, the drive for profit from the gun manufacturers, the culture of militarism, ongoing racist national oppression, and the accompanying ideology of white chauvinism. It is only by doing away with capitalism, which stands at the root of all of this, that we can solve this problem.

This is why Marxist-Leninists have always opposed gun control. We live in a time when violence is ubiquitous. It is everywhere, all around us. We see it on the news as the U.S. wages war all over the globe. We see it in the streets where police murder Black and brown people with impunity. We see it from far-right militias and reactionary, lone terrorists. We even see it in our schools and workplaces. The military and the police are armed, and the reactionaries of all stripes are armed.

It can’t be said clearly enough: we Marxists want nothing more than peace. But we do face objective facts. And, unfortunately, it is inevitable that reactionary violence against the masses of working and oppressed people will continue to keep pace with the threat posed to the capitalist system by the growth and development of the movements for socialism and national liberation. We’ve seen this again and again. The U.S. ruling class always resorts to violence to preserve its interests, at home and abroad. So even today, when generally legal mass organizing is the task at hand, we should not allow ourselves to be disarmed and made defenseless in the face of the increasing repression that is sure to come.

J. Sykes is the author of the book “The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism”. The book can be purchased by visiting tinyurl.com/revsciMLbook.

#MLTheory #guncontrol #marxismleninism

Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolutionary social change. It allows us to understand the laws of motion of society and to understand how to organize in line with those laws. This will allow us to resolve the contradictions inherent in capitalism that lead to exploitation, oppression, poverty, waste, crisis and war. By using Marxism, we can transform the world we live in into a just world, where the working class, who produces the vast wealth of society, is able to put that wealth to work and solve the problems that capitalism creates.

It is essential, then, that the working class take up Marxism in order to fulfill its historic mission. Marxism must be fused with the working class movement. But Marxism can seem intimidating and complex, and daunting to study. Many don’t know how to begin.

First, studying Marxism can be done on one’s own, or in a group setting. Studying with others is the best option, since varied perspectives, discussion and debate can help to unravel complex topics. Group study can become the nucleus of new Marxist organization. This is a great tool for building organization where it doesn’t exist yet. If you get together locally with a handful of friends or coworkers to study some Marxist texts, that group can think together about how to put the ideas expressed in those texts into practice. The practical struggle of the working class is both the source and the aim of Marxist theory. It is through social practice that we really come to understand things in a deep and thoroughgoing way. By testing theory in practice, then summing up that practice to apply once more, both our theory and our practice advance to a higher level. This is the basics of the Marxist theory of knowledge.

So what should we study? Many would think that the study of Marxism should begin with the study of Marx, and so they would say to read The Communist Manifesto or even Capital. If you want to read the classics of Marxist theory, the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, then there is much to be gained from doing so. Each of these great revolutionaries have written texts of tremendous importance in developing Marxism, and they form the foundation of Marxism-Leninism. In the United States, Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries like Harry Haywood, Claudia Jones, and William Z. Foster wrote a great deal that is valuable. But while it is good to read those things, that’s probably not the best place to start. If one wants to study biology, one doesn’t typically begin by reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, but rather with a textbook in biology written in a modern way that helps to explain and contextualize those ideas. Marxism is no different. The important thing is to have a plan for study that you can follow through on, and that actually works for achieving your goals.

One of the best texts to begin with is The Political Program of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. This relatively short text explains in plain language the way that Marxism fits in with organizing for revolutionary change in the United States under current conditions. It analyzes the conditions in which we find ourselves and shows the way forward. Reading this text will help to contextualize Marxist theory, and help the reader understand what the pressing issues of the day are. It will also raise more questions, which will help guide further study and you look to deepen your understanding. After the program, you should read The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism by J. Sykes. This book looks at the various elements of Marxism from a practical point of view and in a concise and accessible way. This book can serve as a primer on the fundamentals of revolutionary theory. Understanding these fundamentals will help considerably as you go forward.

You will want to understand how to put what you are learning into practice. The pamphlet Some Points on the Mass Line can help you understand how Marxism can be applied most effectively in organizing. After this, there are many useful texts to help address particular questions. Since the class struggle is central to Marxism, you should study how it can be carried out under present conditions. The pamphlet Class Struggle on the Shop Floor by FRSO is essential for understanding how class struggle relates to the trade union movement. Furthermore, by this point you should understand that the national question is important. The strategic alliance between the multinational working class and the liberation movements of oppressed nationalities is central to organizing a united front against monopoly capitalism. To learn more about the African American national question, you should read the FRSO pamphlet The Third International and the Struggle for a Correct Line on the African American National Question, and the book,  Marxist-Leninist Perspectives on Black Liberation and Socialism by Frank Chapman. On the Chicano national question, you should read My Journey to Aztlan by Marisol Marquez. There’s a lot to study on these pivotal issues, but these are the best to start with.

In both the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution, the nucleus of the revolutionary organizations that formed the core of those struggles grew from the simple seeds of small, Marxist study groups. Lenin and Mao each began by organizing study groups, and then connected those study groups to the practical movement. In this way they were able to build revolutionary parties based on Marxism and rooted in the practical struggles of the working and oppressed masses. In the United States today, the central task of revolutionaries is to build a new, revolutionary communist party that can contend for power. The Freedom Road Socialist Organization is working in cities across the country to build such a party. You should study the FRSO program and join in the fight.

#MLTheory #MarxismLeninism #StudyGuide

Postmodernism is a weapon in the ideological arsenal of the capitalist ruling class. Like any ideology, postmodernism has a class basis, and arose as the result of particular historical conditions. It represents the thinking of the petit bourgeois intellectuals and exerts ideological pressure from the liberal petit bourgeoisie in the people’s movements. In this article we are going to look more closely at the origins of postmodern theory, its development, and its effects.

What is postmodernism? It is both a cultural and artistic movement and a trend in theory based in subjective idealism. It emphasizes relativism and contingency while rejecting any theory that claims to be able to explain reality from an objective, rational and universal standpoint. Postmodernism occupies a hazy theoretical terrain, where borders between one school of thought and another are obscure and bleed into one another. In this way, postmodernism likewise attempts to insert itself into Marxism, sometimes presenting itself as “post-Marxism” and “neo-Marxism.” Let’s look at how the postmodernists try to pull this off.

Postmodernism first arose from the world of art and literature as early as the 1930, from the writing of Federico de Onis. But later, postmodernism passed from being an aesthetic categorization to the realm of social theory. How can we understand this development?

On one hand, it is noteworthy that it is part of a broad cultural movement that was funded and encouraged by imperialist intelligence services. As Frances Stonor Saunders notes in her book Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, “During the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government committed vast resources to a secret programme of cultural propaganda in western Europe.” The mission of this program, according to Saunders, “was to nudge the intelligentsia of western Europe away from its lingering fascination with Marxism and Communism towards a view more accommodating of ‘the American way’.” The CIA funded everything from cultural magazines to museums and symphonies, all in order to drive people away from Marxism. Because ideology exerts pressure on the material base of society, this “cultural cold war” helped to fertilize the soil in which the imperialists sowed the seeds of counterrevolution, which they approached more directly by funding and directing counterrevolutionary groups and organizing coups.

On the other hand, this ideological attack also relied upon contradictions within the international communist movement itself, and this “Cultural Cold War” was only able to gain traction as a result of these contradictions. By 1956, the international communist movement began to fracture around fault lines created by Nikita Khrushchev’s slanders of Stalin in his “secret speech” to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev vilified Stalin in order to cast doubt on the historic experience upon which Marxism-Leninism is based. By casting doubt upon that experience, Khrushchev created an opening that allowed him to revise core elements of Marxism-Leninism, such as the proletarian class character of the USSR and CPSU, and the ultimate necessity of armed struggle in order to transition from capitalism to socialism.

Khrushchev’s speech also led many to deny the progressive historical character of socialism in the USSR and to abandon Marxism. This also led to major divisions within the communist movement. While the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labor of Albania correctly criticized Khrushchev’s attempts to revise and distort Marxism, a whole assortment of revisionists followed Khrushchev. They sought to cast aside the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Leninism in favor of all kinds of reformist, pessimist and class-conciliationist theories.

During this period of ideological disarray, the petit bourgeois intellectuals who led the charge in pulling the left away from Marxism relied on dissident and revisionist currents within Marxism to attack it from within, such as they had always done by promoting Trotsky in his struggle against Stalin and the Soviet Union. An important factor in the development of postmodernism, therefore, was the trend in philosophy known as “Western Marxism.” This group of philosophers, largely from western Europe, from Karl Korsch and György Lukács and Jean-Paul Sartre, all largely carried out, in one way or another, a reversal of Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, which demanded that theory’s source and aim was revolutionary practice.

Instead, these Western Marxists worked to divorce Marxism from the practical struggles of the working class and retreated into the academic ivory tower. Furthermore, as the Western Marxist academic Perry Anderson notes in his book In the Tracks of Historical Materialism, they each attempted to merge Marxism with elements of non-Marxist (metaphysical and idealist) philosophy, such as with Martin Heidegger’s metaphysics or with Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories. The result was a muddle, and by the 1970s most of Western Marxism was engaged in self-obsessed navel-gazing or had become narrowly preoccupied with cultural criticism and aesthetics. No wonder this is the “Marxism” promoted in the universities of the imperialist countries.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, the sociologists Alain Touraine and Daniel Bell began to argue that we had entered a new “post-industrial” period of capitalism. Dazzled by consumerism, this misguided theory formed the theoretical foundation for the left’s retreat from the working class and the development of “post-Marxist” political theory. Practically, this period saw the rise of the “new left.” This left called itself “new” because, unlike the so-called “old” communist left, they were not oriented towards the working class. Indeed, as the revisionist communist parties failed to connect Marxism with the practical movements of the working class, the void was filled by groups like Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panther Party. Both of these groups made important and lasting contributions, but because neither was able to connect meaningfully with the broader multinational working class, both eventually succumbed to their errors.

The New Communist Movement also developed from this context, with the intent of rebuilding the communist movement and bringing Marxism back to the working class. While the best elements of the New Communist Movement eventually united into the Freedom Road Socialist Organization in the 1980s, the rest eventually were consumed either by ultra-left errors or by social-democratic reformism.

This brings us to the postmodernists themselves. A significant theoretical trend in this period was the wave of post-structuralist theorists. Structuralism, broadly, argued that things had to be understood in terms of their structural interrelations. A core premise of structuralism is that “consciousness is structured like a language.” They believed that our thoughts and ideas weren’t a reflection of objective material reality, but rather that the “symbolic order” of language, along with all of its linguistic rules, stood in a mediator between reality and our conception of reality. This premise isn’t fundamentally opposed to Marxism. As Stalin said in “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics”, “Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material, on the basis of language terms and phrases. Bare thoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the ‘natural matter’ of language, do not exist.” Siraj explains in Post-modernism Today that the problem with the structuralist understanding is that “all aspects of the social world are shaped by the structure of language.” In other words, for the structuralists, it isn’t class struggle, but language that shapes society. Stalin’s main point was that language doesn’t act as a superstructure. The structuralists go into the realm of idealism by arguing that language is determinant.

Post-structuralism seeks to expand upon this by arguing that these linguistic structures are constituted by systems of power. These theorists, such as the French philosophers Michel Foucault, drifted into abstraction, relativism, and subjective idealism. The post-structuralists argued that we cannot criticize systems of power by relying on binary notions like exploiter and exploited that ground Marxist class analysis. Instead, they argued that we should use textual interpretation, drawing from linguistics, anthropology and psychology, to criticize power.

Furthermore, since reality is shaped by language and power, the postmodernists opposed any notion of objectivity and universalism as what Jean-François Lyotard called “meta-narratives.” These “meta-narratives,” they said, were just big stories, or overarching myths, that we tell in a futile attempt to make sense of a reality that we cannot ultimately comprehend. Historical necessity and universality therefore were discarded as everything is judged to be contingent and relative. As the postmodernists would have it, Marxism is mythology. Therefore, they subjected these “meta-narratives” to the same idealist linguistic criticism. Since we could only analyze language and not reality itself, language came to stand in for material reality. The post-structuralists, therefore, focused largely on critical analysis of art and literature, but the ideas they developed spread into the then largely petit bourgeois and student-led social movements. There, postmodern discourse based on difference, identity and language struggle to displace the centrality of class analysis and the universality of Marxism-Leninism as the ideology of the working class struggle against capitalist exploitation and oppression.

Michel Foucault was probably the most influential postmodern theorist, so we should examine his main ideas. He was a student of Althusser who devoted himself to developing the thought of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in a postmodern context. Foucault was originally drawn to Western Marxism, but later rejected Marxism completely. Nevertheless, he presents himself as a friend of the oppressed, focusing his work on the treatment and mistreatment of mental illness (in Madness and Civilization and The Birth of the Clinic), prisoners (in Discipline and Punish), and sexual repression (The History of Sexuality).

In his early works, Foucault bases his analysis on what he refers to as an “archaeological” method (which he details in his book, The Archaeology of Knowledge). This method basically says that systems of knowledge are governed by rules, of which we aren’t conscious, that define our conceptual framework and place boundaries on what we can think in any given period. For Foucault, this meant that in different periods people thought in ways that may seem completely alien to us from the point of view of our current period. This is the basis of the postmodern idea that truth isn’t objective, but rather, that truth is socially constructed. Furthermore, it also forms the basis for the postmodern idea that any given “discourse” should “stay in its lane” since it isn’t capable of understanding where the others are coming from. In other words, we have no universal, shared experience. This mentality leads to subjectivism and relativism, and an inability to strategically unite different struggles. Further, it makes it impossible to name any particular struggle as the principal contradiction that drives the process, which we could leverage to maximize our effectiveness across struggles.

Therefore, this archaeological method was silent on how one period transitioned to another. For this, Foucault adopted what he called a “genealogical” method, derived from Nietzsche. Foucault’s genealogy intended to argue that history was contingent, rather than the outcome of any sort of law governed historical process. Things happened by accident. Thus, Foucault’s theory is a direct attack on Marxist historical materialism, which holds that history is governed by knowable laws, and that we can interact with those laws in order to transform society.

Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison represents the essence of Foucalt’s thinking on the question of power. Here he offers his critique of power as such, by looking at the prison system. According to Foucault, power does three things: it observes, it judges, and it disciplines. The purpose is to create “docile bodies,” to enforce normalized behavior, or, in other words, conformity.

Following Nietzsche, Foucault’s genealogy centers around “the body.” Power is exercised over bodies to make them work like cogs in machines that function within society. Thus, in The History of Sexuality, Foucault explains his theory of “biopower.” Unlike earlier, modern forms of power based on violence and expropriation, Foucault argues that biopower “endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply [life], subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations.” In this sense, just like mental hospitals and prisons, everything from urban planning, medical care, and education exists for the scientific management and administration of bodies, to make those bodies function in a normalized, docile way, like cogs in a humming social machine.

This is a critique of power that many on the left find very appealing, especially petit bourgeois radicals and anarchists. Foucault, by critiquing power, may appear to be a friend to the powerless, but he is a false friend. In fact, he isn’t critiquing the power that is being wielded against working and oppressed people by the capitalist state, but power as such. Foucault rejects and opposes anything that would reproduce power, including the sorts of knowledge, authority, hierarchy and discipline that are essential to organizing a revolution and transforming society. Without power, the working class cannot reshape society to end exploitation and oppression. In this regard, Foucault leaves us with no real way out. For Foucault, knowledge and power are intertwined as power-knowledge. Rationality itself, for Foucault, is coercive. Nevertheless, only “discourse,” though limited and constrained by power, is left open by Foucault as a viable way to subvert power.

The recently declassified CIA report entitled “France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals” deals largely with the trajectory of this trend in theory and praises the “spirit of anti-Marxism … that will make it difficult for anyone to mobilize significant intellectual opposition to U.S. policies.” It goes on to say that “The wide acceptance of this more critical approach to Marxism and the Soviet Union has been accompanied by a general decline of intellectual life in France that has undermined the political involvement of leftist intellectuals.” In this report, the CIA credits Foucault with the “critical demolition of Marxist influence in the social sciences,” which it celebrates as a “profound contribution to modern scholarship.” Needless to say, if the CIA thinks something is good, then it certainly isn’t.

Like Western Marxism, these days postmodern theory mainly haunts the halls of university literature departments. But some “post-Marxist” hucksters like Slavoj Žižek still influence the petit bourgeois left. Žižek’s philosophy is a strange brew of Hegelian idealism, Western Marxism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis poured over an endless stream of pop culture references. In the article “Capitalism’s Court Jester,” Gabriel Rockhill writes about Žižek, saying “this Eastern European native informant increasingly presented his post-Marxism as nothing short of the most radical form of Marxism.” Indeed, this has always been one of their favorite tricks. From the time of Trotsky to today, what unites all of these petit bourgeois theorists is the conceit that they are “critiquing Marxism from the left.” Rockhill explains that “Žižek became a front man in the global theory industry by borrowing his most important insights from the Marxist tradition but subjecting them to a playful postmodern cultural mash-up to crush their substance…”

But Žižek doesn’t confine himself to academic matters. He’s made a name for himself critiquing movies and pop culture. He also loves to chime in on the political issues of the day. For example, in a recent article for The New Statesman from August 14, 2023, entitled “Ukraine must go to war with itself,” Žižek writes that “Ukraine itself is fighting at two fronts: against Russian aggression and for what sort of country Ukraine will be after the war. If Ukraine survives, will it be a nationalist fundamentalist country such as Poland or Hungary? Will it be a de facto colony of global capitalism, or something else?” This aloof, “critical” approach allows him to pretend like his support for the proxy war against Russia is coming “from the left,” while in actuality he is carrying water for the U.S. imperialists and NATO.

Postmodernism has always been a weapon of the bourgeoisie. It is a weapon aimed primarily at Marxism, while pretending to be an intellectual ally of the left. But postmodernism is no friend of the left. It is an ideological wedge meant to divide Marxism from the movements of working and oppressed people, and to displace proletarian ideology with the ideology of the petit bourgeoisie. As such, Marxists should give no ground to postmodernism, but should fight for the ideology of the working class as the only ideology that can guide the revolutionary transformation of society.

J. Sykes is the author of “The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism”. The book can be purchased by visiting tinyurl.com/revsciMLbook.

#MLTheory #MarxismLeninism

Without a doubt, modern science has achieved a great deal. It has given us automation with the potential to free us from toil, medical innovations that extend life expectancy, and an understanding of the laws of physics and nature. It allows us to light and heat our homes with the push of a button, and to communicate instantly across the world. It gives us the ability to produce enough to fulfill the wants and needs of everyone. Science is a cornerstone of modern society in terms of what we produce and what we consume.

And yet, despite all of that, we live in a world where automation doesn’t free us, but instead threatens our livelihood with unemployment. These great medical innovations are inaccessible to millions. And the most basic wants and needs of the masses of the people go tragically unfulfilled. Our world is instead characterized by poverty, waste, war and environmental crisis. Why does science seem incapable of solving these issues?

The reason is simple. We live in a class society, where the exploiting classes, especially the monopoly capitalists, enrich themselves at the expense of working and oppressed people here and all over the world. In the United States and much of the rest of the world, modern science is bound to the interests of this monopoly capitalist class.

The dominant ideas in society are a reflection of the interests of the dominant class, and science is no exception. As the British Marxist philosopher Maurice Cornforth writes in his essay, “Dialectical Materialism and Science”, “Modern science is the creation of the bourgeoisie. It is one of the most typical products of bourgeois society. And it carries the mark of its bourgeois origin in its methods and in its ideas.” In other words, science is a part of the ideological superstructure, which arises from and reinforces the mode of production, the economic base of society.

No doubt, the ideologues of the bourgeoisie will object: “Not so! Science is perfectly objective and untouched by class interest!” Well, let’s see.

Ultimately, the ruling class takes a pragmatist approach to science. It isn’t interested in science merely for the sake of expanding knowledge, understanding and human progress. On the contrary, its approach to science is guided by one thing and one thing only: obtaining the highest rate of profit. Capitalism takes the pragmatist notion of “truth’s cash value” to its extreme. Capitalist innovation relies entirely on the anarchy of production to determine what technology is developed and what is left behind. Financial interests and lobbying groups, such as those of the coal and oil industries, play a tremendous role in holding back technology that would present a challenge to their bottom line, such as the development of green technology, for example.

We can also see how the monopoly capitalist class has a history of manipulating scientific research for the sake of oppression. The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his book, The Mismeasure of Man, “The history of scientific views on race, for example, serves as a mirror of social movements.” Gould argues that science is “socially embedded” and that “culture influences what we see and how we see it.” This is why, according to Gould, racist biological determinism was for some time the norm in evolutionary science. Science thus became a weapon in the arsenal of white chauvinism and national oppression, promoting racist theories like phrenology and eugenics.

Geneticist Richard Lewontin writes in Biology as Ideology, “Modern biology is characterized by a number of ideological prejudices that shape the form of its explanations and the way its researches are carried out.” Biological determinism has long been used to justify national oppression against African Americans, Chicanos, and others, in order to justify the super-exploitation of the oppressed nations.

We also see biological determinism being used to attack women and LGBTQ people. For example, the ideology of transgender oppression is grounded in a metaphysical view of biological sex which it pits against a dialectical understanding of gender. What does this mean? As Engels puts it in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, “To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. …For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.” Biological determinism in regard to gender is metaphysical in this way, seeing sex and gender as inextricably linked, determined entirely by biological chromosomes, fixed, absolute, and immutable. This biological determinism is then used as a cudgel against trans people – as an ideological justification for their oppression hiding behind a claim to scientific truth, all in the service of maintaining the capitalist gendered division of labor.

In workplaces like Amazon and UPS, technology and science are used to track and discipline workers who don’t make productivity quotas. Artificial Intelligence is being used to replace workers in a number of fields. This is the kind of science and technology that the bourgeoisie is interested in developing and promoting.

In other fields science is likewise bound by the ideology of the ruling class. For example, genetically modified and hybrid seed production is driven primarily by the profit motive of agribusiness, rather than in the improvement of food in both quality and quantity. Take the agribusiness giant Monsanto, notorious for producing Agent Orange and for its seed patents. Monsanto instituted seed savings bans in order to ensure that farmers would have to buy seeds from them each season. Farmers defying Monsanto’s ban, even unwittingly, have found themselves fined for patent infringement.

In Colombia, for example, farmers who couldn’t afford to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds often ended up with their crops devastated by Monsanto’s aerial pesticides, or had their crops destroyed for containing patented seeds, even if those seeds were simply carried over by birds. Meanwhile, monoculture takes root at the expense of biodiversity, and the environmental crisis driven by capitalism escalates. This is just one example of how the brunt of capitalist environmental devastation falls upon those oppressed by imperialism. This is also true within the U.S., where environmental destruction disproportionately impacts working class and oppressed nationality communities.

The capitalists always and everywhere put profit over people and the planet. Coal and oil fueled the engines of the industrial revolution, and as such the technologies developed in the course of the industrial revolution were developed in line with and dependent upon the consumption of fossil fuels. This led not only to tremendous pollution, but also to the development of a fossil fuel industry with vast wealth and power. The U.S. imperialist financial oligarchy is deeply invested in fossil fuels and fossil fuel-dependent technology, to the point that they will go to any lengths to protect their oil interests, including military intervention at the cost of millions of lives. They oppose the development of clean energy technology and even promote climate change denial, taking a head-in-the-sand approach to the trajectory towards an uninhabitable planet.

While capitalism in its early phase promoted scientific progress and pushed technology forward in unprecedented ways, that is no longer the case as the fundamental class relations of society have come to hold back scientific progress. Marx explains this in broad terms. In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy he wrote, “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.” The progressive advance of the productive forces is the main factor in driving science forward. Now, the only way to free the productive forces of society from the fetters of the relations of production is social revolution.

Socialists aren’t luddites. On the contrary, socialism champions scientific advance. Socialism fundamentally changes the way science is used by society. In this sense, socialism is science unleashed. Socialism utilizes the science most despised by the capitalist class, Marxism-Leninism, which analyzes the laws of motion at work in society in order to reshape society to serve the needs of working and oppressed people. This partisan science of the working class is put to work to remove the fetters placed upon the productive forces by capitalist class relations. Just as capitalist class interest has come to hold science back, so too can working class interest propel science forward.

Socialism replaces the anarchy of production and the drive for the highest rate of profit with socialist planning. Cyclical crises of overproduction are eliminated. Scientific education is prioritized. In this way, science is no longer a tool to increase profit, oppress people – and to line the pockets of the ruling class at the expense of everyone else. Instead, the working class in power can put science to work to make a world free of exploitation, toil, want, waste and war.

This is the world the socialist countries are in the process of creating. Look at socialist China, where extreme poverty has been eliminated, and where developing green energy and reorienting development towards environmental sustainability has become a top priority. Even the New York Times has to admit “There is no doubt about it: China is doing more than any other country when it comes to renewable energy and electric vehicles.” In this article from the NYT morning newsletter from August 14, 2023, German Lopez asks, “How?” The answer, he says, is “China has poured a lot of money into the research, development and use of clean energy, using its extensive manufacturing base to build solar panels and wind turbines and bring down prices worldwide. It has provided subsidies to buyers of electric vehicles, as the U.S. now does. And it has pursued, and surpassed, aggressive goals: China vowed to double its capacity of wind and solar power by 2030. It is on track to meet that goal five years ahead of schedule.”

What the New York Times doesn’t acknowledge is that this great achievement is a result of China’s socialist system. It can do this because the working class is in power. Unlike the United States and the other capitalist countries, the Chinese economy isn’t compelled by a drive for maximum profit at the expense of the people and the planet. We need to follow their example, but the only way to do that is through the socialist transformation of society. If we want science to play a truly liberating and progressive role, we have to free it from the shackles of capitalist ideology. And the only way to do that is to get rid of this parasitic, wasteful and destructive class of monopoly capitalists once and for all.

J. Sykes is the author of “The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism”. The book can be purchased by visiting tinyurl.com/revsciMLbook.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory

It is growing more and more common to hear people repeating core elements of conspiracy theories. Many of these conspiracy theories grow from the fringes of right-wing extremist groups, then begin to creep into the mainstream through websites like Elon Musk’s Twitter (now renamed “X”), or through podcast personalities like Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, or through “influencers” on social media. They have grown even more prevalent since Donald Trump’s rise to power, as he himself promoted many of them from the Oval Office in Washington.

Indeed, conspiracy theories abound. Some appear ridiculous, such as “Area 51,” the “Mandela Effect,” or the “Flat Earth” conspiracy theories. Others are clearly more dangerous, like anti-vaccine conspiracy theories or the so-called “Great Replacement Theory.” Often many of these conspiracy theories are tied together and bleed into one another. Whatever they are, they ultimately blame social problems, real or imagined, on the secret schemes of a small group of shadowy elites.

Conspiracy theories present a problem that everyone interested in progressive social change should consider. It is important for people who want to change society for the better to be able to analyze what is going on, and since the ruling class does actually conspire, it is understandable that some conspiracy theories leave people confused. The rise of conspiracy theories coincides with a rise in public skepticism and distrust towards the government. And since the government is indeed untrustworthy, how do we tell what’s real and what isn’t? We should look at a few of these conspiracy theories and examine how we can tell fact from fiction.

First, on a fundamental level, how do we know anything? How do we know if what we think is correct or not? Marxism-Leninism provides us with a scientific theory of knowledge based on dialectical materialism. Knowledge is based on experience in social practice, in the class struggle, in production, and in scientific experimentation. Based on these experiences, we can formulate theories, test those theories against material reality in practice, and then use that practical experience to refine our theories. In doing this, we can come to understand the laws that govern different processes and find out how to interact with those laws to move forward effectively.

In the case of conspiracy theories, it can be helpful to understand a principle of critical thinking from philosophy called Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor basically says that if something could be explained equally well in more than one way, then the explanation that requires fewer guesses, assumptions and leaps is more likely to be true. So, when faced with any question, we should ask ourselves what we actually know about what’s going on, and what our guesses and assumptions are. If we find that there is another explanation that explains all aspects of the phenomenon equally well but requires less guesses and assumptions, we should operate from that explanation. The Chinese leader and Marxist theorist Mao Zedong put this another way when he said, with his characteristic directness, that we should “seek truth from facts.”

Let’s focus, then, on some of the more dangerous conspiracy theories. Take for example, the conspiracy theories currently promoted by U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This is a man known to promote a host of conspiracy theories, from the idea that vaccines cause autism to the idea that chemicals in our water are responsible for turning children transgender. This is happening, according to these conspiracy theories, due to the maniacal schemes of a shadowy group of conspiring elites.

These assertions are not based on evidence, but that doesn’t matter to these people like RFK Jr. who promote them, because it takes far more time and effort to untangle and debunk them than to just throw them out there and see what sticks. They feed on conservative fear and uncertainty and protect themselves from rational and scientific refutation by saying that anyone attempting to debunk the theory must be in on the conspiracy or an agent of those who are.

Relying on conspiracy theories to whip up a political base is a strategy regularly employed by demagogues, from Hitler’s reliance on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to Trump’s promotion of ideas like the “Great Replacement.” According to this conspiracy theory, certain “elites” (here an anti-Semitic dog whistle) intend to engage in “genocide” against white people through policies of immigration.

The right-wing outcry against so-called “Cultural Marxism” and “woke” culture dovetails with this white genocide conspiracy theory, in that it argues that things like affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion programs are an insidious plot from “globalists” (another dog whistle) to oppress white people. This dovetails with another popular conspiracy theory, that left-wing protest is funded by the “globalists.” Often this has been expressed by saying that Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other groups are funded by George Soros. These theories all trace their roots back to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' based on a forged document detailing an alleged plot for Jewish world domination.

All of these conspiracies rely on spurious evidence and outright lies, and require a tangled web of guesses and assumptions to string together. They attempt to explain events in terms of conspiring groups of powerful elites, who are pulling the strings like super-villains right out of comic books. In reality, history is driven by objective laws, not the whims of secret cabals.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a financial oligarchy that has come to dominate much of the world. But this isn’t some secret cabal operating from the shadows. It is the billionaire class of U.S. monopoly capitalists who control many of the world’s financial institutions. This class of monopoly capitalists use their money and power to control the levers of state power, to dominate the media, and to maximize profits at the expense of the rest of us.

They don’t rule from the shadows, but openly wage war against the poor and oppressed in broad daylight. And they don’t do this because they got together and decided to do some imperialism, but because the laws of motion of capitalism demand it. The growing crises of the capitalist system required imperialist expansion in search of super-profits to delay this rotten system's inevitable demise. Ultimately, it isn’t the individual capitalists who determine things, but the overall, law-governed motion of the capitalist system.

The demagogue's trick is often to rely on lies, and also on distortions based on half-truths. The monopoly capitalist class does indeed conspire to dominate the world. Its real conspiracies are well documented and clearly evident. Examples include the counterintelligence programs against communist and national liberation groups in the United States (COINTELPRO), or attempts to destabilize and overthrow governments that go against the interests of imperialism. The conspiracy theorists will then make all kinds of leaps from this without any evidence to make their claims. Further, they will twist and invert facts to support their ideas. For example, often anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists will claim that one arm of the alleged Jewish plot for world domination is to use “the Jewish lobby” to control the U.S. government. This is a distortion. The reality is that things are the other way around. U.S. support for Zionism and the Israeli apartheid state, is cynically used by U.S. imperialism to justify its foothold for hegemony in the Middle East. Between Israel and the U.S., it is the U.S that is in charge, as it uses Israel as a proxy for military control of the region.

What, then, is the point of these conspiracy theories? It isn’t difficult to understand. Trump used allusions to the white-genocide, “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory to scapegoat immigrants for problems like unemployment – problems which are rooted in capitalist crisis. These lies serve to justify inequality and national oppression that is visited upon African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, native peoples and others.

Trump also used conspiracy theories to attack his political opponents. Early on, he was an outspoken proponent of “Birtherism” during Barack Obama’s presidency, a racist conspiracy theory which claimed that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and was thus not eligible to be president. He also promoted the idea there was a “deep state” conspiracy, which connected to the absurd QAnon conspiracy, to claim that the election was stolen from him in 2020 by an evil shadow government, from which he alone could save the American people.

Conspiracy theories are ideological. Ideology arises from the material base of society. Ruling class ideology has the function of reinforcing and reproducing that base. That means that bourgeois ideology props up the prevailing relations of production, the class relations of ownership and power, and the sum of existing social relations. This ideology is expressed in many forms through media, education and cultural institutions.

Capitalist ideology finds expression in the basic principles of liberalism and the tenets of the “American Dream.” But it is also served by the promotion of conspiracy theories. They are promoted by those who have an interest in distorting facts and spreading misinformation and confusion. While they often give the appearance of being outwardly subversive or anti-government, the reality is that the objective effect of the conspiracy theory is to misdirect people away from the real causes of their problems, rooted in the capitalist system itself. Instead they are sent on a wild goose chase, hunting for the clues of a secret cabal of shadowy conspirators.

In order to effectively organize and change society, we need to understand it and the laws that drive it. Ultimately the point of analysis is to change the world. The source and aim of Marxism-Leninism is the practical, revolutionary struggle of the working class. The broad masses of the people need to come to understand the nature of the class that oppresses them, and to understand that the way to defeat them, at the most basic level, is to act together in their own class interests. We have to identify the real enemy to know how to fight them. Conspiracy theories stand in the way of developing this class consciousness. They spread confusion where the advance of the class struggle demands scientific and sober analysis. The best way to fight the spread of conspiracy theories is to fuse the science of Marxism-Leninism with the movement of the multinational working class.

J. Sykes is the author of “The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism”. The book can be purchased by visiting tinyurl.com/revsciMLbook.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory

Max Shachtman was one of the original founders of the Trotskyite movement in the United States. He was a pragmatist, an opportunist even among opportunists, who led the first major split from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1940. At that time, he broke with the orthodox Trotskyite position that the USSR should be understood as a “degenerated workers state” and that it instead had come to be ruled by a new “bureaucratic collectivist” class.

Under the cloak of the theory of the “degenerated workers state” the Trotskyites kept up the pretense of support for the Soviet Union while making every effort to subvert and delegitimize it. Shachtman abandoned that pretense and raised the slogan of “Neither Washington nor Moscow, but international socialism.” Shachtman instead said the Trotskyites should form a so-called “Third Camp” equally opposed to both. In reality, however, the Third Camp Trotskyites aimed most of their fire at the communist movement and the Soviet Union.

Shachtman didn’t limit himself to opposing socialism in the USSR. He also opposed national liberation here in the United States. Shachtman wrote an entire book devoted to denying the right to self-determination for the African American Nation in the Black Belt. In his essay “Race and Revolution” from 1933, while Communist-led sharecroppers were militantly resisting Jim Crow terror in the Deep South, Shachtman argued that national self-determination for African Americans was a “reactionary utopia.”

Later, two other figures rose to prominence among the Trotskyites that would come to shape Shachtmanite Trotskyism as it developed: Hal Draper and Tony Cliff. Draper was part of the group who split with Shachtman from SWP, while Cliff was a founder of British Trotskyism.

To put it briefly, Hal Draper argued that so-called “Stalinism” (that is, Marxism-Leninism) represented “socialism from above” whereas Trotskyism represented “socialism from below.” According to Draper, “Stalinism” imposes socialism on the masses “from above” while Trotskyism seeks the “self-emancipation” of the masses, “from below.” Of course, this is nonsense, as anyone with experience with either can attest.

Anyone who has ever encountered Trotskyism in practice can attest to its commandist, rule-or-ruin methods among the masses. This is what working class “self-emancipation” by the Trotskyites looks like! On the contrary, the Marxist-Leninist organizational method of the mass line, based on the principle of “from the masses to the masses'' represents the dialectical method of leadership, where correct ideas are drawn from the felt needs of the masses, concentrated and honed by theory, and then propagated among the masses through struggle. This is the way to build towards revolution. “Socialism from above” and “socialism from below” aren’t metaphysically separated as the Trotskyites would have it, but are dialectically intertwined.

Tony Cliff was a British Trotskyite who disagreed outwardly with Max Shachtman on many points, but truly represents an extension of his Third Camp theory. Cliff’s book State Capitalism in Russia critiques Trotsky’s theory of the “degenerated or deformed workers states” and Shachtman’s theory of “bureaucratic collectivism” in favor of the theory that the socialist countries are “state capitalist.”

According to Cliff, the socialist countries are “state capitalist” because the Law of Value still operates, they still engage in commodity production, and surplus value still exists. Cliff argues that a “permanent arms economy” prevents cyclical crises, ignoring the fact that constant military spending isn’t sufficient to prevent crises of overproduction in the imperialist countries. Regarding countries like Cuba and China, that Trotsky would call “deformed workers states,” Cliff says they are undergoing “deflected, state capitalist, permanent revolution.”

The simple truth is that Cliff argues from an idealist position. He fails to understand, as outlined by Marx in “Critique of the Gotha Program” and further explained by Lenin in The State and Revolution, that socialism cannot help but carry forward elements of capitalism. In reality, however, the fundamental contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between socialized production and private accumulation. This contradiction is at the heart of the crises that plague capitalism over and over again. The reason the socialist countries don’t experience these crises is that this contradiction largely no longer exists in socialist countries, or where it does it is only on a very small scale. The commanding heights of the economy in the socialist countries are controlled by the state, and the value created by the workers goes primarily into the betterment of society rather than the pockets of the members of the capitalist class.

Of course, problems exist in the socialist countries. Contradictions continue in the period of the socialist transition, including classes and class struggle. But socialism’s reason for existence is to eliminate those problems step by step. This demands a scientific and materialist approach, starting not with ideals, but with the way things really are.

In the United States, the most significant group to come out of this current was the International Socialist Organization (ISO), a group that constantly placed itself on the wrong side of nearly every struggle. The ISO were Third Camp Trotskyites who drew heavily from Draper and Cliff. They opposed the anti-imperialist struggles and the socialist countries internationally, and took either a rule-or-ruin approach to the mass struggles here, or merely shouted from the sidelines. Like the SWP in the 1930s, with its dissolution and entry into the Socialist Party to commandeer the SP or steal away its members, history has repeated itself with the ISO. The ISO likewise dissolved itself in 2019, and by now most of its former members are hiding out in the social-democratic big-tent organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

These modern-day Shachtmanites now try to inject their petty bourgeois ideology into the people’s struggles through DSA. For example, in an article from June 23, 2023 in The Tempest, entitled “Time for DSA’s internationalists to show solidarity with Ukraine,” they argue for the U.S. State Department’s line of support for the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia and argue in favor of U.S. taxpayer money funding arms for Ukrainian forces. This position only diverts money away from people’s needs at home while supporting the imperialist war waged by the United States. It is shameful for so-called “socialists” and “internationalists” to support the cynical scheme to send the Ukrainian people to die as proxies for the hegemonic ambitions of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and their NATO allies. U.S. imperialism is the main enemy of the working class and oppressed people of the world. This is a point these “third camp” Trotskyites emphatically refuse to understand.

From every angle, beginning with Trotsky himself and moving through Cannon and Shachtman to Draper and Cliff, Trotskyism again and again presents itself as a lapdog of the U.S. ruling class against socialism and anti-imperialist struggles. Under the cover of its demand for “socialism from below” it opposes socialism everywhere it exists. While pretending to uphold proletarian democracy, it approaches the masses with a sectarian and dogmatic rule-or-ruin attitude. It is an ideology that has failed to lead a successful revolution anywhere, and it is a trap laid at the feet of the workers movement. It is an important task of Marxist-Leninists to expose the true nature of this ideology everywhere it rears its head.

#UnitedStates #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

As we wrap up our series on Trotskyism, let’s turn to the sad and shameful record of Trotskyism in the United States. This article will look at the Socialist Workers Party.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is the oldest Trotskyite group in the United States, tracing its origins back to the expulsion of the Trotskyites, who were led by James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman, from the Communist Party in 1928. They formed a group called the Communist League of America, which shortly thereafter merged with the American Workers Party to form the Workers Party of the United States. That organization dissolved itself and entered the Socialist Party of America (SP) in its entirety, attempting to try to take it over or pull activists away from it.

It didn’t take long before the Trotskyists were expelled from the SP and formed the Socialist Workers Party in 1938. By 1940, the SWP would split, with Max Shachtman taking a sizable minority with him to form a new Trotskyite organization called the Workers Party.

The great U.S. communist leader, William Z. Foster, wrote about the origins of the Socialist Workers Party in his important 1952 book, The History of the Communist Party of the United States. He explains that the formation of the SWP was rooted in the expulsion of the Trotskyites from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Comintern in 1928. It will be worthwhile to quote Foster on this at length.

“At the time of the sixth congress of the Comintern in 1928 Trotsky was in exile, as a criminal against the Revolution. He made an appeal to the congress to try to get it to repudiate the decision of the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union. The congress, however, overwhelmingly rejected this insolent proposal. Nevertheless the scheme found a secret supporter in James Cannon, one of the Communist Party delegates from the United States. Upon Cannon’s return to this country he began at once to spread clandestine Trotskyite propaganda with his friends. They advocated withdrawal from the existing unions, abandonment of the united front, and carried on a bitter factional struggle. The Bittelman-Foster leaders, learning what was going on, preferred charges against Cannon, Max Shachtman, and M. Abern, and all were promptly expelled by the Party as splitters, disrupters, and political degenerates. About 100 of Cannon’s followers were also finally ousted from the Party.

“Upon their expulsion the Trotskyites formed themselves into an opposition league, which, after several internal splits and two slippery amalgamations–first with the Musteites in 1934, and the second with the Socialist Party in 1936–finally emerged, in January 1938, as the Socialist Workers Party … The reason-for-being for this party, which is the American section of the so-called Fourth International, with its pathological antagonism toward the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, is to serve as a tool of reaction. It carries on its counter-revolutionary work against the Party and the U.S.S.R. under cover of a cloud of super-revolutionary phrases.”

The Socialist Workers Party today is similar, except to say that it is even smaller, more sectarian, and more irrelevant than ever. It still opposes Marxism-Leninism and socialism under the cover of an attack on “Stalinism,” and it still opposes national liberation struggles in the name of “permanent revolution.”

As a result of its role in the 1934 Teamster strike in Minneapolis, the SWP managed to stay afloat throughout the 1930s. It also grew as a result of its entry into and then expulsion from the Socialist Party, by taking part of their membership with them in the split. After that, the SWP was the largest Trotskyite grouping in the world, and the most prominent force in Trotsky’s “Fourth International.”

The SWP began to decline in strength when Max Shachtman led a large split in 1940. He argued that the mainstream Trotskyite view of the USSR as a “degenerated workers state” was wrong, and that the Soviet bureaucracy formed a new ruling class. Shachtman called this “bureaucratic collectivism.” While the SWP gave lip-service to defense of the Soviet Union as they attacked and denounced in the same breath, Shachtman and his followers abandoned the pretense, instead arguing for a Trotskyite “third camp” opposed to both capitalism and the USSR.

Today, the SWP tails behind the most backward section of the U.S. working class. Take for example, the article in the SWP newspaper, The Militant, entitled “Biden brags about ‘State of the Union’ as boss attacks on workers grind on,” from February 27, 2023. There, they decry “Democrats’ ‘woke’ anti-woman policies on gender and promotion of ‘critical race theory’ — policies that are detested by millions of workers.” These and their many statements like them are bare-faced repetitions of transphobic, right-wing talking points that shamelessly attempt to pit LGBTQ people against women, alongside far-right attacks on education and the Black Liberation movement.

In another article from June 12, 2023, ironically entitled “A genuine revolution means leading masses in their millions,” SWP leader Mary-Alice Waters repeats again the right-wing talking point that schools “teach those whose skins are white that they are racists by birth,” raising once more the boogeyman of the Republican far right, Critical Race Theory, to unite with the reactionaries. She goes on to bemoan being called a transphobe for “defending the biological fact that there are two sexes.” She doesn’t stop there, however. She digs in even deeper, saying, “Whether under the flag of ‘cancel culture,’ ‘critical race theory,’ the anti-Jewish ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ movement or something else, these are reactionary forces alien to the working class and its allies,” repeating the Zionist lie that support for the liberation of Palestine is antisemitic.

This should all come as no surprise from Trotskyites, but it is still appalling to see people who call themselves socialists and who claim to speak for the working class carry water for the most reactionary elements within the U.S. ruling class, and to try and help them spread their poisonous ideology amongst the workers movement.

The Socialist Workers Party was always a sad shadow of the genuine communist movement in the United States, and it has only fallen farther and farther as it tries to desperately find its footing in a world where it has lost any scrap of relevance. In 2019, a U.S. Trotskyite group, the International Socialist Organization, dissolved itself. Hopefully the SWP isn’t far behind.

#UnitedStates #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

Minneapolis, MN – The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism, published by the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, is a concise and fantastic book detailing the fundamentals of Marxism. Written by J. Sykes, the book is an excellent introduction for those looking to learn the science of revolution, the history, methods and outlook of scientific socialism. It breaks down complex questions of philosophy, organizing and others into easily understandable terms, making it good for beginners and an excellent primer for those who already have a grasp on Marxism-Leninism and are looking to sharpen their understanding. For those seeking to do away with capitalism and its system of corporate exploitation, class oppression and national oppression, this is the book for you.

Introducing the science of revolution

The book begins with an explanation, not only of the purpose of its publication, but of a brief history of Marxism-Leninism. Sykes makes clear that Marxism didn’t just fall out of the sky one day, it arose out of the three component parts: socialism, political economy, and philosophy, and was (and continues to be) refined over the course of the practical experience and application of it in the struggles of working and oppressed people the whole world over.

In addition to dealing with the basics of Marxism, the book addresses problematic bourgeois ideological currents like post-modernism, Sakai’s take on settler colonialism, and pragmatism, which are harmful to the efforts to construct a revolutionary movement in this country.

Theory and practice

As Sykes says,

“Practice is the sole criterion of truth”, continuing, “Revolutionary theory is a guide to action, and it changes and develops as the world changes and develops, building upon itself just as Marx and Engels built upon the advanced theory of their time. In the early part of the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin and the experience of the October Revolution and socialist construction in the Soviet Union further developed the science of revolution in many ways. Lenin’s analysis of the further development of capitalism into monopoly capitalism led to his development of the theory of Imperialism and the importance of anti-imperialist struggles for national liberation.”

This is why The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism doesn’t focus simply on communist theory in the abstract, separated from real world conditions and struggles, but in the source (practice) its application, and use of it in those struggles. It also doesn’t take Marxism as an unchanging dogma, but as a science that is constantly being developed and enriched in its source, practice, as a tool that becomes sharper, not duller, with use.

Sykes explains how knowledge and theory develops from practical experience, to be summed up and learned from, to apply again. The book as well explains the “mass line,” the communist method of organizing and leadership from and to the masses, and how not only we as revolutionaries learn with it, but how the people as a whole learn from the process of taking our felt needs, issues and demands, studying and breaking them down, and synthesizing them into actionable plans, demands and slogans, and so raising the consciousness of the people.

A book for revolutionaries new and old

Throughout the entirety of The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism, important concepts such as imperialism, historical materialism and national oppression are all explained in an easily digestible manner. Questions of organizing, history and leadership are explained in clear and concise terms, and the book never steps away from discussing the practical use and understanding of each concept, and ties Marxist-Leninist theory firmly with the struggles of the masses that continues to develop and enrich it.

This book comes at a period of major importance today. As Mick Kelly, political secretary of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, states in the forward, “Not since the rise of the new communist movement in late 1960s and early 70s have we seen such large numbers of people arriving at the conclusion that monopoly capitalism is a failed system, and that revolution and socialism are necessities. Many new revolutionaries are making the leap and helping to build revolutionary organization.”

For those revolutionaries, new and old, looking to build such an organization, this book will undoubtedly be a vital and practical read.

The book can be purchased from FRSO organizers, or by visiting tinyurl.com/revsciMLbook.

#MinneapolisMN #BookReviews #MLTheory #redTheory

By now it should come as no surprise that Trotskyism, with its ultra-left emphasis on “pure proletarian revolution” originating in Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution,” that Trotskyism’s errors extend to the national question.

But, before we can get into Trotsky’s view on the subject, what is the national question? When Marxists talk about the “national question” we’re talking about the analysis of the problems posed to the revolutionary movement by the materialist process by which nations form and develop, and the role that plays in revolutionary change. Practically, we’re talking about how the proletarian revolutionary movement should relate to oppressed nations and nationalities.

Marx and Engels wrote about this in relation to a number of important issues while they were alive, especially concerning the Irish and Indian struggles for national liberation against the British Empire, and in the context of the Black liberation struggle, especially in relation to the abolition struggle and the U.S. Civil War. Their support for these struggles was unequivocal. Lenin and Stalin further developed Marxist-Leninist theory on the national question. Lenin and Stalin understood that it was necessary for communists to support self-determination for oppressed nations as an essential element of the struggle against our common enemy, monopoly capitalism, or imperialism. African American Marxist-Leninists like Harry Haywood and Claudia Jones applied these theories to the concrete analysis of the national question in the United States.

In 1933, Trotsky says plainly, in “The Negro Question in America,” “The Negroes are a race and not a nation.” In almost the same breath, Trotsky claims to support self-determination for African Americans. But if Black people in the U.S. are not a nation, what could this possibly mean? Lenin was crystal clear on the meaning of self-determination, practically: “The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation.” Trotsky would have us believe there is some other kind of self-determination, some kind of racial, rather than national, self-determination. For Trotsky, the slogan of “self-determination” should be used as “transitional demand” to recruit Black workers to the cause of a purely proletarian revolution. This isn’t support, but rather it is the cynical manipulation of the demand for Black self-determination. He pays lip-service to self-determination but robs it of its meaning in order to twist it to his own aims.

The U.S. Trotskyite theoretician Max Shachtman isn’t any better on the question. In some ways he’s even worse. He likewise states, in his pamphlet Race and Revolution from 1933, “The American Negroes do not constitute a nation separate and apart from the rest of the population of the country.” His conclusion is that African American liberation in the Black Belt is a “reactionary utopia.” He is opposed even to Trotsky’s lip-service to self-determination. At least, unlike Trotsky, he doesn’t mince words.

Shachtman argues that an oppressed nation must be distinct in every way from the nation that oppresses it. It is not enough for Shachtman, for example, that the African American people speak a common language (English), but rather they must speak a common language unique to them. The same holds true of culture, economic life, and so on. He also gives a lot of weight to the migrations of African Americans out of the Black Belt South, in order to deny that this is their historically constituted national territory. But would anyone deny that Ireland and Palestine remain the national territory of the Irish and Palestinian people, despite migrations resulting from the oppression of imperialism and its lackeys in Ireland and Palestine? Only the imperialists and their agents would make such a claim.

To the Trotskyites, the question of Black liberation or Chicano liberation is a race question. It is a question of overcoming racial prejudice to unite the multinational working class against the capitalist classes and strata, large and small. It is a purely ideological struggle, with no real material basis. Further, by limiting the question to a question of race, the Trotskyites fail to comprehend the inherently anti-imperialist nature of the national liberation struggles. They call the national bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie reactionaries, and would exclude them from being allies in the united front against monopoly capitalism.

We have already seen how the Trotskyites demand for pure proletarian revolution has led them astray on the issues of the alliance with the peasantry and the united front. Their wrong views on the national question are a branch from the same poisonous weed. The only way the working class in the United States will win socialism is to build a united front against monopoly capitalism, and the cornerstone of that united front is the strategic alliance between the multinational working class and the movement of oppressed nationalities for national liberation. There is no path for victory that does not include support for the self-determination of the African American Nation in the Black Belt South, the Chicano Nation in Aztlan in the Southwest, and the Hawaiian Nation. By denying that essential point, the Trotskyites would set the proletarian revolution up to fail.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

Trotskyism disagrees with Marxism-Leninism on a number of important theoretical points. These disagreements aren’t limited to the field of theory but have a real practical impact on the movements of working class and oppressed peoples. In our day-to-day struggles, we see them come up again and again. Practically, the question of the united front illustrates very clearly the glaring difference between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. This is a question of extreme theoretical importance, with tremendous practical consequences, so we should examine it closely.

What is the united front? It is the organizational expression of a broad unity of action by diverse forces against a common enemy. The purpose of the united front, the reason for its existence, is to unite the many to defeat the few.

In order to defeat the monopoly capitalist class – the imperialists who seek to plunder and rule the world through monetary influence and force of arms – the masses in their millions must unite broadly in order to attack the enemy from every angle. This requires a broad unity, beyond the tight, militant discipline demanded by revolutionary communists. We can and must unite millions of people – everyone whose material interests are opposed to those of the monopoly capitalists. One certainly doesn’t have to be a communist to understand that the interests of the monopoly capitalists are opposed to our own.

We can and must fight together with the mass organizations of the working class, such as the trade unions. And we must also unite broadly with classes outside of our own. Building the strategic alliance between the working class and the movements of oppressed nationalities is essential to building the united front against monopoly capitalism. Thus, we should build and unite with the Black and Chicano liberation movements, including uniting with the national bourgeoisie who wants to fight back against the imperialist system at the core of national oppression. We must also seek to unite with progressive forces among the petty bourgeoisie, a doomed class crushed daily under the weight of the monopoly capitalists.

The Trotskyites aren’t interested in this kind of united front, this uniting broadly with different class forces who are materially at odds with the monopoly capitalists. As always, they want pure proletarian revolution, and their understanding of the united front reflects that. To them, the united front should be a unity of socialist forces dominated by the Trotskyites. It is a unity of working-class forces arrayed against all other classes and strata. This is what we saw in how they addressed the Bolshevik revolution in opposition to the peasantry, and the Chinese revolution as well.

The united front, properly understood, means that there are many contradictory forces at work, all seeking to lead it based on their own material interests. Thus, the communists must strive to maintain the independence and initiative with the united front, and should strive to lead it in a revolutionary direction. But how should communists exercise leadership in the united front? Through persuasion and example, and through the use of the mass line.

Mao Zedong explained the mass line like this.

“In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily ‘from the masses, to the masses’. This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.”

Understanding the mass line is crucial to understanding how communists should relate to the mass organizations of the united front. We have to understand, as Mao put it, that the masses are composed of advanced, intermediate and backwards elements. The advanced are the activists who want to fight to make things better. The intermediate are the broad group who are not yet active, but aren’t opposed to progress. The backwards are the reactionaries who push back against change, oppose progress and champion the ideas of the enemy among the masses.

The role of communists among the masses is to organize and unite with the advanced, active fighters. These are the people who are articulating the masses' felt needs. Together with the advanced, we can develop organizations, struggles and campaigns around these felt needs in order to mobilize the broad intermediate section of the masses while isolating or winning over the backwards in the course of the struggle. By doing this, we can win important victories and land blows against the enemy. Through the course of these mass struggles, we can raise the level of consciousness and organization among the masses. By helping to lead and sum up these fights, we can win the advanced fighters over to Marxism-Leninism and build communist organization. This is the correct, Marxist-Leninist method of leadership.

The Trotskyites utterly fail to understand any of this. To the Trotskyists, what does united front organizing look like? They have two main, interrelated methods: entryism and commandism. What does this mean?

Because the Trotskyites fail to grasp the mass line in united front work, their idea of organizing among the masses isn’t “from the masses, to the masses.” They have no real interest in the felt needs of the masses, or in the ideas of the advanced. Instead, they go into the mass organizations from outside, to seize control of them, maneuvering to dominate them and force their line onto them. This “entryism” is completely at odds with any clear understanding of the mass line in the united front. The purpose of going among the masses isn’t to dominate them and make the mass organizations into mere extensions of the communists. The mass organizations should arise from the needs of the masses, fight for what the masses want to fight for, and should have a much broader level of unity than that demanded of communist cadres. To make the mass organizations into a mere “front” of the communists robs them of what makes them useful to the masses, and what makes them valuable as an element of the united front in the revolutionary struggle. Instead, it twists the mass organizations into a shell, occupied by the parasitic, Trotskyite entryists. Once this happens, the advanced and intermediate soon abandon the organization, leaving the Trotskyites alone in their ideologically pure “mass” organization.

If this fails, the Trotskyites have another option, one that they also frequently use. Their other method is to simply form these pure “mass” organizations whole cloth. These fake mass organizations are not made up of advanced activists from among the masses, but instead are composed almost entirely of Trotskyites. They use these organizations to try to command the masses. They stand in for the masses and speak for the masses, with no real connection to the actual struggles of working and oppressed people. From here they shout their slogans and peddle their papers, not as mass line tools of organizing, but as dictates from the sidelines of the struggle. Woe to the advanced activist who wanders into one of these Trotskyite “mass” organizations. They will quickly see that their options are to join ranks with the Trotskyites or be gone. This is the way the Trotskyites organize.

The purpose of united front work is to unite all who can be united to defeat the monopoly capitalist enemy. The role of communists among the masses is a dialectical one, while the Trotskyites are mechanical in their approach. The Trotskyites seek to enforce their pure, idealistic formulas, while Marxism-Leninism seeks to transform real people in the crucible of real struggle.

#UnitedStates #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism #Trotsky #Trotskyism

Given the trajectory of Trotsky’s line on the USSR, it shouldn’t surprising that his theories missed the mark on China as well. In fact, if they had been followed, it is clear that they would have done considerable harm to the Chinese revolution. On the question of China, there are two main things that stand out regarding the position of Trotsky and his followers. First, there is the ever present failure to grasp the national-colonial question in the era of imperialism, and second, there is the failure to understand the united front in relation to that.

The Chinese revolution, led by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China (CPC), applied the theories of Lenin to the concrete conditions of China. Mao made a materialist analysis of the class forces at work in China in his 1926 “Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society.” That important article laid the foundation for the strategic orientation of the revolution, concluding,

“... our enemies are all those in league with imperialism—the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks.”

Based on this analysis, Mao and the CPC led the Chinese masses through a long and complex revolutionary struggle from 1927 to 1949. The CPC participated in two united fronts with the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT), first against warlordism (warlords sponsored by the imperialist powers) from 1924 to 1927, then again against Japanese imperialism from 1937 to 1945. When the CPC overthrew the KMT in 1949 and declared the formation of the People’s Republic of China, they entered the period of the New Democratic revolution.

The New Democratic revolution was a transitional stage in the Chinese revolution, based on the “bloc of four classes” with the aim of overthrowing feudalism and colonialism, laying the groundwork for the development of socialism. These four classes at the core of the New Democratic revolution are the proletariat, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. Just as Lenin said about the “revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” in Russia, the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship” is a particular form of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China. Based on the particularities of Chinese reality, new democracy was based on the strategic alliance of these four classes, under the leadership of the working class and the CPC.

All of this was firmly grounded in Leninist principles and the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the concrete conditions faced by the Chinese revolution, taking place as it was in a large, semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. But of course, Trotskyism takes issue with all of this, opposed the united front with the KMT, and advocated a policy of pure proletarian revolution as the way forward for the Chinese revolution.

The essence of the matter is this: It’s the same old story with Trotsky, who would have the working class stand alone, opposed to every other class. In “The Third International After Lenin” from 1928, Trotsky writes,

“The Russian bourgeoisie was the bourgeoisie of an imperialist oppressor state; the Chinese bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie of an oppressed colonial country. The overthrow of feudal Czarism was a progressive task in old Russia. The overthrow of the imperialist yoke is a progressive historical task in China. However, the conduct of the Chinese bourgeoisie in relation to imperialism, the proletariat, and the peasantry, was not more revolutionary than the attitude of the Russian bourgeoisie towards Czarism and the revolutionary classes in Russia, but, if anything, viler and more reactionary. That is the only way to pose the question.”

Trotsky here begins with an acknowledgement that the bourgeoisie of Russia and China are different, and play a different role on the stage of historical events, but then he backpedals, and treats them as if they’re the same. In practice, the bourgeoisie is the bourgeoisie, plain and simple. He makes no distinction between the Chinese comprador bourgeoisie in league with imperialism and China’s national bourgeoisie, who oppose it. And since, according to Trotsky’s abstractions, the interests of the bourgeoisie are everywhere the same, whether in Russia or in China, the task of the proletariat is, according to Trotsky, again the same: not to ally with any section of them, but to fight all of them.

The Marxist-Leninists understood that the national bourgeoisie were not a reliable ally and would try to seize the leadership of the movement themselves. Likewise, they understood that while it was in the national bourgeoisie’s interest to be rid of imperialist domination, they would not lead the country to socialism. Instead, they would lead the country to compromise with imperialism. Thus, Mao always insisted the CPC must maintain its independence and initiative in the united front, in order to be able to lead the revolution forward towards socialism.

Even so, to fail to unite with the national bourgeoisie would have had two disastrous consequences. It would have prevented the national liberation struggle from defeating the imperialist-backed warlords, and then later Japanese imperialism, militarily. At the same time it would rob the CPC of an important organizational vehicle for its own growth and development in the course of those mass struggles. The fact is, the masses had to learn that the CPC was their true leader in practice, through their experience in the united front with KMT. They had to learn it through deeds, through experiences both positive and negative, and not just through phrases and proclamations.

Essentially, the Trotskyites made three major errors in relation to China. First, they approached the problems of the Chinese revolution dogmatically, without taking into account the particularities of the time, place and conditions. Second, they sought to isolate the Chinese working class from its allies, namely the national bourgeoisie, the peasantry, and the urban petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals. And third, they approached the revolution, as always, from the sidelines, with agitation and propaganda alone, instead of utilizing the mass line to educate the masses through their direct experience.

As a result of these three errors, it advocated an adventurist and ultra-left position in China – breaking the united front and immediately forming Soviets to contend for power. These Trotskyite positions were always out of step with the experience, understanding, and organization of the masses, based on abstractions and dogma. The fact is, had the Chinese Communists followed the Trotskyites, they would have faced disaster and defeat.

Today, the Trotskyites call the People’s Republic of China a “deformed workers state.” This is following from their claim that the USSR was a “degenerated workers state.” They say it is “deformed” because, they claim, the Chinese revolution was “crippled” from the moment of its birth by the leadership of the “Stalinist bureaucracy” in the Soviet Union and the Comintern. Trotskyites today directly and openly oppose the People’s Republic of China, almost universally.

The facts about China are quite different. In short, the CPC transformed China from a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, plundered by foreign capital and its domestic agents, into a major, independent, industrial power. They rapidly wiped out illiteracy and have since eradicated extreme poverty, accounting for three quarters of total global poverty reduction. They accomplished this on the basis of proletarian democracy and the building of a socialist economy, in line with China’s concrete conditions.

In the next articles, we will look more closely at the Trotskyite view of the national question and the united front. Whereas Marxism-Leninism succeeded in China, we again see Trotskyism fall into ultra-leftism and dogmatism, both in theory and practice, and we’ll see all of those same mistakes arise for the Trotskyites again and again.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

Trotsky argued, before and after the revolution of 1917, that building socialism in one country was impossible, and that the success of the revolution was dependent on the immediate expansion of the revolution to Western Europe. Once this didn’t happen, Trotsky’s only way to persist in this theory was to say that the Soviet Union wasn’t truly building socialism.

Despite Trotsky’s protests to the contrary, the Soviet Union, in fact, accomplished a great deal. By putting the means of production under the control of the proletarian dictatorship, the Soviet Union, in just a few decades, went from a backwards country built upon horse-drawn plows, to a country with an industrial output rivaling the U.S. The living standards of the Soviet people increased at a rate never achieved before. The landlords were expropriated and agriculture was collectivized. The USSR established free, high quality education and health care, with low priced, state-subsidized food, housing and utilities. Huge strides were made to promote real national and gender equality. By the late 1930s, the USSR had the world’s most democratic constitution.

By any measure, socialism in the Soviet Union was achieving unprecedented success prior to any other countries joining the socialist camp. Of course, this didn’t mean that there was no danger of capitalist restoration from within or without. Thanks to the heroic efforts of the Communist Party and the masses of Soviet workers and peasants, the USSR beat back imperialist attacks both immediately after their revolution, and later when they turned back the tide of the German Nazi invasion.

In the late 1950s, however, the party leadership abandoned Marxism-Leninism for revisionism, and so began a slow march to capitalist restoration that culminated in 1991. Of course, the Trotskyites celebrate this historic defeat of socialism, and claim that they were right all along as a result. But again, they fail to concretely understand what took place.

The Trotskyist understanding of socialism in the USSR is that it was a “degenerated workers’ state.” According to the Trotskyites, the dictatorship of the proletariat was no longer truly in the hands of the working class, but in the hands of a “Stalinist bureaucracy.” After Lenin’s death in 1924, Trotsky and his supporters first insisted upon following a forged “will'' that they claimed Lenin had left behind. This “last testament” of Lenin’s said that Stalin should be removed from his leading posts and that Trotsky should lead in his stead.

Valentin A. Sakharov, and after him, Grover Furr, have dealt at length with the question of Lenin’s “testament” as a supposed historical document. Even the famous right-wing anti-communist historian Stephen Kotkin doubts the veracity of this “testament of Lenin.” But even were it real, the idea that leadership of the state and party should be decided by one person, even Lenin, is not democratic at all, and it isn’t the way the Soviet Party and state worked. Stalin’s leadership of the party and state was determined collectively, and Trotsky overwhelmingly lost his bid for power on the basis of Soviet democracy.

Trotsky insisted that he was the victim of a bureaucracy at work. “Perhaps this is a workers' state, in the last analysis,” Trotsky writes, “but there has not been left in it a vestige of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have here a degenerated workers' state under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.”

The real issue at hand, then, is the question of bureaucracy. Opponents of socialism always level the charge of “bureaucracy” against it, and the Trotskyites are no different. Of course, the struggle against bureaucracy in the USSR was nothing new. Stalin himself said, in 1928, “Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress.” The key to the struggle against bureaucracy was the struggle for revolutionary democracy. According to Stalin, this meant organizing mass criticism from below. “How are we to put an end to bureaucracy in all these organizations?” Stalin asks. “There is only one sole way of doing this, and that is to organize control from below, to organize criticism of the bureaucracy in our institutions, of their shortcomings and their mistakes, by the vast masses of the working class.” Clearly, the problem for Trotsky isn’t bureaucracy, which the Soviet leadership struggled against tooth and nail, but the Trotskyite strawman of “Stalinist” bureaucracy!

Based on his anti-Soviet theory of the “degenerated workers’ state,” Trotsky and his followers would go from petty factionalists into a gang of wreckers and saboteurs, in the hopes of inspiring a counter-revolutionary revolt against the Communist Party. “The inevitable collapse of the Stalinist political regime,” says Trotsky, “will lead to the establishment of Soviet democracy only in the event that the removal of Bonapartism comes as the conscious act of the proletarian vanguard.” Trotsky saw himself and his followers as just such a vanguard.

So, the question is, was Trotsky outmaneuvered by a “Stalinist bureaucracy,” or did he simply lose out in fair, democratic, inner-party struggle? The U.S. revolutionary Harry Haywood was a student in the University of the Toilers of the East in the Soviet Union during the 1920s, when Trotsky was organizing his opposition within the Party. He explains in his autobiography, Black Bolshevik, that Trotsky’s “writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collectives. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country.”

Haywood explains that they had regular, open discussions of the issues of the inner-party struggle taking place. “The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky's works were widely circulated for everyone to read.” Haywood explains that, at a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, “Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor about three hours.” Nevertheless, “Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body.” It is clear that Haywood is correct to conclude that:

“Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin's control of the Party apparatus – as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities. He was doomed to defeat because his ideas were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.”

Always an opportunist, Trotsky painted his own personal defeat as the defeat of Soviet democracy itself. Haywood goes on to say,

“I witnessed Trotsky's opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside of Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses — all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.

“At the Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky's followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of 'Down with Stalin.'”

Trotsky continued in the same manner long after he was expelled from the Party and exiled from the Soviet Union, and he went on to make alliances with all of the greatest enemies of the USSR if it suited his anti-Soviet agenda. The fact is, the defeat of Trotsky and his clique didn’t mark the degeneration of proletarian democracy, but its success. As Haywood put it, Trotsky’s defeat was a broadly democratic one, and Trotsky’s opportunist rejection of his own democratic defeat is the true rejection of socialist democracy.

The Trotskyites continue to insist on the failure of “Stalinism” to build socialism in one country, and shout their nonsense about a “degenerated workers’ state.” For the Trotskyites, it was “Stalinism” that led to the eventual defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union in 1991. And yet, just like Trotsky, the revisionists themselves hid their attacks on Marxism-Leninism behind attacks on “Stalinism.”

At the end of his book, The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky writes that “to cause doubts and evoke distrust” of the Soviet leadership among the working class and its intellectual allies “is the very goal we have set ourselves.” Trotsky insists that to do so is a revolutionary act. The Trotskyites go on like this not because it coincides with the facts, but because it fits with Trotsky’s opportunist desire to cause doubt and evoke distrust. This is why ideological struggle against Trotskyism is important, because they seek to confuse things, to misdirect and mislead the struggle of the working and oppressed masses away from Marxist-Leninist revolutionary science and away from a correct summation of real revolutionary struggles for socialism.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

One of the main pillars of Trotskyism is the denial of the possibility of building socialism in a single country. This is an outgrowth of Trotsky’s permanent revolution theory, which argued that the revolution in Russia depended on the immediate success of revolution in western Europe to avoid defeat. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did indeed build socialism in one country, so we should look at the disagreements between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism on this point and try to understand where they come from.

Trotsky’s permanent revolution theory was, from the beginning, opposed to the idea that socialism could be built in a backwards, peasant country like Russia.

As Stalin writes in The Foundations of Leninism, “Lenin fought the adherents of ‘permanent’ revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they under-estimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat.”

Lenin, as we have seen, understood far better, and more concretely than Trotsky, how to bring the revolution from its bourgeois-democratic stage into its proletarian-socialist stage. For Lenin, the key was to build the alliance between the workers and the peasantry that would form the backbone of both stages of the revolution. For Trotsky, this was a doomed project; he believed because that relationship was fundamentally antagonistic, and that the success of the revolution relied upon its immediate spread to western Europe. Thus, Trotsky said, in 1906, “Without direct State support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia cannot maintain itself in power and transform its temporary rule into a durable Socialist dictatorship. This we cannot doubt for an instant.”

Trotsky wanted socialism to sweep through Europe all at once, as though all of the countries in the capitalist world were equally ripe for revolution. Lenin’s view, on the other hand, was based on his understanding that capitalism developed unevenly. Indeed, it is essential to understand that Lenin’s analysis is based on the understanding that the present stage of capitalism is its monopoly capitalist stage – imperialism.

In an article in the Swiss Social-Democrat called “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” Lenin argued, “The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone forever.” Instead, Lenin argues, “A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism – about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one … because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.” Lenin then explains that “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of Socialism is possible first in a few or even in one single capitalist country taken separately.”

Trotsky rejects the Leninist theory of uneven development. In his article, “The Program for Peace,” from 1917, arguing against Lenin in favor of the slogan for a “United States of Europe”, Trotsky says,

“The only more or less concrete historical consideration put forward against the slogan of the United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Social-Democrat in the sentence which follows: ‘Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.’ From this the Social-Democrat drew the conclusion that the victory of Socialism was possible in a single country, and that, therefore, there was no point in making the creation of a United States of Europe the condition for the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. But this very unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of England, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa or Asia all these countries represent capitalist ‘Europe’, which has grown ripe for the social revolution.”

Trotsky dismisses the Leninist theory of uneven development by saying that Europe is comparatively on the same plane of development if you compare it to the colonies. With this rhetorical flourish, Trotsky dismisses the contradictions between the imperialist states themselves, and the contradictions between those states in relation to their colonies. Again, Trotsky sees only workers and capitalists, incapable of concrete, materialist analysis of the complex contradictions at work in each country. And so, Trotsky says, all of Europe is ripe for revolution, presumably because all of Europe is capitalist, concrete conditions be damned!

Based on these idealist abstractions Trotsky continues his argument:

“That no single country should ‘wait’ for others in its own struggle is an elementary idea which it is useful and necessary to repeat, in order to avoid the substitution of the idea of expectant international inaction for the idea of simultaneous international action. Without waiting for others, we begin and continue our struggle on our national soil quite sure that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if that should not happen, then it would be hopeless, in the light of the experience of history and in the light of theoretical considerations, to think, for example, that a revolutionary Russia could hold its own in the face of conservative Europe or that a Socialist Germany could remain isolated in the capitalist world.”

Trotsky here combines ultra-revolutionary phrase-mongering with pessimism. It is his usual refrain: revolution must sweep through all of Europe or we are doomed.

Later, in 1922, Trotsky still persists in his rejection of the possibility of building socialism in one country. He writes, “The assertion, repeated several times in ‘A Program of Peace,’ that the proletarian revolution cannot be carried through to a victorious conclusion within the boundaries of one country may appear to some readers to be refuted by almost five years’ experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be groundless.”

Here, even as late as 1922, Trotsky insisted, “genuine advance in the construction of Socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe.” Trotsky simply rejects facts in order to avoid having been proved wrong. The only way out for Trotsky, if he is to remain right, is to say that what is being built in Russia isn’t really socialism.

In 1923, Lenin, in the article “On Cooperation,” argued that the victory of socialism in Russia was indeed possible. Lenin wrote,

“…state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc. – is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.”

In other words, Lenin understood clearly that the material basis for building socialism existed in Russia, and that the most important thing was correctly resolving the internal contradictions of the revolution itself, especially the correct handling of the contradiction between the workers and peasants. And as history has shown, correctly handling these internal contradictions formed the basis for dealing with the external contradictions between the Soviet Union and the imperialist countries. It gave them the material foundation needed to resist imperialist intervention when the Soviet people turned back the German Nazi invasion.

The Trotskyite theory was proven false in practice by the Bolshevik party, as socialist construction and agricultural collectivization cemented the bond between the proletariat and the toiling masses of the peasantry. Despite all of Trotsky’s protests to the contrary, the Bolsheviks did indeed build socialism in their country, which shown as a beacon to the working and oppressed people of the entire world.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #Theory #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

The disagreement between Trotsky’s “absurdly Left” (according to Lenin) theory of “Permanent Revolution” and the Leninist theory of revolution in two stages boils down to the question of how to deal with the question of the peasantry.

Trotsky argued for a socialist revolution that would be antagonistic to the tsar, the imperialist bourgeoisie and the broad mass of the peasantry, and that therefore depended on support from socialist revolutions in Western Europe, without which it would be crushed by counter-revolution.

Lenin, on the other hand, advocated a revolution in two stages. The first stage would be a bourgeois-democratic revolution against tsarism and feudal autocracy. The second stage would be a proletarian-socialist revolution against the imperialist bourgeoisie. Both of these, according to Lenin, would be led by the working class in alliance with the peasantry.

Indeed, Lenin called for the “revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” and warned against confusing the particularities of “the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution.”

It is worth looking at the Leninist theory of revolution in two stages, as it proved itself in practice in the course of the Russian revolution of 1917.

The first stage, the bourgeois-democratic revolution, lasted from 1903 to February 1917. At this stage, the aim was to overthrow the tsar and the landlords. The Bolsheviks led the proletariat, in a strategic alliance with the peasantry. Lenin and the Bolsheviks understood that the liberal bourgeoisie (the Cadets) would compromise with monarchism and tsarism, and they struggled to isolate them from the peasantry. This period revealed in practice that the Cadets had no interest in the demands of the peasantry for land and liberty, that the tsar supported the landlords, and the Cadets supported the tsar. Thus, the peasantry could rely on no one but the proletariat.

Because the working class was able to lead the peasantry in the struggle against tsarism, the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia had the effect of weakening the bourgeoisie overall, paving the way for the proletarian socialist revolution, culminating in the Great October Revolution of 1917. The second stage of the revolution lasted through the eight short months between the February and October revolutions. In this period the proletariat consolidated its alliance with the peasantry. The new Provisional Government, dominated by the imperialist bourgeoisie together with the Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries, refused to pull out of the imperialist war or to confiscate and redistribute the landlords’ land. Under Bolshevik leadership, the proletariat again demonstrated in practice that it was the only reliable ally to the poor peasants. Thus, it was possible to advance, under the Bolsheviks’ slogan of “Land, Bread and Peace,” from the bourgeois democratic revolution to the proletarian socialist revolution.

Trotsky believed that the socialist revolution would inevitably put the proletariat into conflict with the masses of the peasantry as a whole. For Trotsky, the revolution was not a protracted struggle, proceeding carefully, step by step. It was a sweeping, global event. Lenin, however, built a plan for revolution in the countryside based on a concrete analysis of the real, material conditions that presented themselves to the proletarian dictatorship. Lenin argued that the majority of the peasantry could be drawn into the process of socialist construction through the development of agricultural co-operatives. By introducing collectivization in the countryside gradually, instead of through coercion and “tightening the screws” as Trotsky would have it, this antagonism between the working class and the broad peasant masses was avoided. As a result, the broad masses of poor peasants participated enthusiastically in the class struggle in the countryside and struggled sharply together with the working class against the resistance of the rich peasants (kulaks).

This gets us to the main problem at the root of Trotsky’s many errors: Trotskyism again and again demands a “pure proletarian revolution,” a “revolution without the peasantry.” This sort of narrow “workerism” leads the Trotskyites to wrong positions in relation to national liberation struggles and how to organize a united front. Instead of uniting with other classes in common cause against the monopoly capitalists, they treat the would-be allies of the proletariat as enemies.

Instead of uniting with democratic demands, they propose the nebulous concept of “transitional demands.” This Trotskyite organizational method is tied to their “all at once” concept of pure proletarian revolution. We should consider the Trotskyite notion of “transitional demands” in light of the Marxist-Leninist method of the Mass Line. Trotsky was an agitator and an orator, not an organizer, and this is reflected in how the Trotskyites approach the masses. Instead of uniting with the advanced masses around their felt needs, developing higher and higher levels of understanding, organization and struggle, shoulder to shoulder with the masses, the Trotskyites reduce the immediate demands of the masses to mere agitational slogans for socialism, shouted from the sidelines, with no concern for how to get from here to there.

We will see the Trotskyite opposition to revolution in two stages arise again when we look at the revolution in China. We’ll look more closely at this in a later article dealing with China in detail, but for now, let’s touch on it briefly. The main point here is that Trotsky and his followers failed to understand that the Chinese revolution’s first stage must involve an agrarian struggle against feudalism as an essential part of a national liberation struggle against imperialism. Thus, Trotsky opposed the formation of a national united front composed of the proletariat together with the peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, and the anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie. This was in direct opposition to the approach taken by Mao Zedong, which was proved correct in practice.

Again and again, the Trotskyites put forward a pure proletarian, all or nothing, approach to revolution. They shout their ultra-left slogans from the sidelines of the struggles of the workers and oppressed, and oppose the strategic allies of the working class. For the Trotskyites, it is always all or nothing, which, of course, amounts to nothing.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #Theory #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

When Lenin gave his brief and scathing overview of Trotsky’s career in his 1914 article “Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity,” so that “the younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are dealing with,” he made a point of referring to Trotsky’s “absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.” What is the role of this “permanent revolution” theory within Trotskyism, and why is it “absurdly Left,” as Lenin says?

Karl Marx himself said in his 1850 address to the Communist League,

While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.

The Trotskyites will always bring out this quote as evidence of the “orthodoxy” on the question. Why then does Lenin characterize the Trotskyist interpretation as “absurdly Left” if this is the case?

To understand this, we need to look concretely at the revolutionary movement in Russia. While everyone agreed that the first order of business was the bourgeois-democratic revolution against the tsar, after that things get more complex.

The Mensheviks argued that the bourgeois-democratic revolution should be led by the liberal bourgeoisie with the support of the working class. It should lead, according to the Mensheviks, to the formation of a capitalist republic, which would develop the productive forces and set the conditions for a socialist revolution, to come much later.

Trotsky explained his view in the essay “The Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution.” According to Trotsky,

The perspective of the permanent revolution may be summed up in these words: The complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is inconceivable otherwise than in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat basing itself on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which will inescapably place on the order of the day not only democratic but also socialist tasks, will at the same time provide a mighty impulse to the international socialist revolution. Only, the victory of the proletariat in the West will shield Russia from bourgeois restoration and secure for her the possibility of bringing the socialist construction to its conclusion.

Lenin opposed both the Menshevik and the Trotskyite formulation. Against the Mensheviks, Lenin insisted that the proletariat could, and must, lead the revolution against feudal autocracy and tsarism. Against Trotsky’s view, Lenin advocated for revolution in two stages by leading the peasantry against the feudal autocracy and then against the bourgeoisie. Lenin argued that the first stage would be followed immediately by the second, and indeed it was, with the February Revolution to overthrow the Tsar in 1917 followed by the socialist revolution against the bourgeoisie in October. For Lenin, this relied on the strategic alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, the “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.”

Trotsky wrote in “The Permanent Revolution,” that “I accused Lenin of overestimating the independent role of the peasantry. Lenin accused me of underestimating the revolutionary role of the peasantry.” Trotsky argued that the revolution, in the socialist period, would inevitably form an antagonistic contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry, leading the peasants to abandon and even to oppose the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution, according to Trotsky, would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations,” leading into inevitable conflict with the masses of peasants. Indeed, according to Trotsky, “The contradictions in the position of a workers' government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.” In other words, as a result of this inevitable antagonism between the proletariat and the peasantry, the revolution in Russia was doomed to failure unless the revolution was spread immediately to Western Europe.

For Lenin, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the world’s first socialist country has a special character. “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the toilers, and the numerous nonproletarian strata of the toilers (the petty bourgeoisie, the small craftsman, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.) or the majority of these.” Lenin believed that the revolution depended on the unity of the toiling masses, of the working class together with the poor peasants. Harry Haywood points out that “Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muzhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks).” Haywood goes on to point out that this is in contradiction to the Leninist analysis and strategy of the worker-peasant alliance and is “at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.”

Because of this, Trotskyism holds that socialism couldn’t be built in a single country, but that it must sweep away the entire capitalist and imperialist system at once. This is what characterizes Trotsky’s theory as “absurdly Left.” It sounds very revolutionary, but at its core it doesn’t coincide with facts. Indeed, Marx argued that socialism must take hold “not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world.” There is nothing controversial about that. But Trotsky mistakes the final victory of socialism for the present task of the revolution. It is all or nothing.

For the Trotskyists, “permanent revolution” is held up as a matter of principle, but in reality, it is an abstraction based on the underestimation of the peasantry and a fundamental failure to understand who the allies of the working class are. As Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, said in 1925, “Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point. This is the reason why he so under-estimates the role played by the peasantry.”

Harry Haywood put this another way:

Behind Trotsky's revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic social-democratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did not regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky's slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers' Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”

This is a problem that arises again and again for the Trotskyists, as they lead with abstractions instead of concrete Marxist analysis, coming to erroneous positions on the socialist countries and the national-colonial question, both in the U.S. and in the anti-imperialist national liberation struggles abroad.

In the following articles, we’ll look more closely at the Leninist theory of revolution in two stages and then at the possibility of building socialism in a single country, and how these differed from the Trotskyite view. In any case, Trotsky and his followers have been sidelined by the course of history, while Marxism-Leninism has been proved in practice again and again.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

The Trotskyites always paint Trotsky as the true inheritor of the revolutionary legacy of Lenin. This is pure opportunism. They see the tremendous respect and admiration for Lenin that is held by working and oppressed people all over the world and seek to gain some of that respectability simply by association. They say Trotsky was Lenin’s true heir and comrade-in-arms, and that Stalin and the USSR betrayed Leninism.

But this is nonsense. The fact remains that Trotsky was never truly a Leninist, and between the theories of Trotsky and those of Lenin there are great differences. In fact, there were sharp disagreements between Lenin and Trotsky both before and after the revolution of October 1917. An overview of those disagreements will be helpful. Let’s look at some of them here.

First, let’s look at the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. This was a disagreement within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) about revolutionary organization and strategy. To put it simply, the Mensheviks (meaning minority), argued for a legal, mass party where anyone sympathetic to the party program could join, without being bound by strict revolutionary discipline. Lenin and the Bolsheviks (meaning majority) argued that the revolution required a smaller, more disciplined party made up of professional revolutionaries, bound by democratic centralism and deeply rooted in practical mass organizing. Trotsky sided with the Mensheviks, against Lenin.

Trotsky himself said in 1913, “The whole construction of Leninism is at present built up on lies and contains the poisonous germ of its own disintegration.”

In the 1914 article “Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity,” Lenin writes, “The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him…”

In this article from 1914, Lenin sums up Trotsky’s trajectory from 1901 to that point:

“Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901-03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906-07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional” vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.”

As Lenin says, regarding Trotsky, “The younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are dealing with…”

Indeed, during the debates over the direction of the Russian revolution, Trotsky aligned himself with many different forces at different times. By 1912, Lenin and the Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks, who sought to liquidate the underground Russian Social Democratic Labor Party as a revolutionary organization, replacing it with an entirely legal, above ground, reformist organization. The expulsion of the liquidators allowed Lenin to consolidate the party into a more disciplined fighting organization of revolutionary cadres.

After this, the Mensheviks, Trotskyites, and other anti-Bolshevik factions came together to form the “August Bloc.” At this time, Trotsky took up a “centrist” position, claiming to seek to reconcile and unite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. However, Lenin saw Trotsky’s centrist position for what it was: a smokescreen for the Menshevik liquidators.

Lenin wrote around this time, “Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and of deceiving the workers, a policy of shielding the liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the shielding of their deeds by ‘revolutionary’ phrase-mongering abroad – there you have the essence of the policy of ‘Trotskyism’.”

At this time, Lenin took to referring to Trotsky as “Judas Trotsky” because he pretended to side with the Bolsheviks but actually was aiding the opponents of Bolshevism. This is a trend that will continue throughout Trotsky’s life.

In the summer of 1917, after the victory of the February Revolution against Tsarism and on the eve of the October Revolution that would overthrow the Russian bourgeoisie and establish the proletarian dictatorship, Trotsky and his small “centrist” group renounced their Menshevism and joined the Bolsheviks. The victory of the October Revolution brings us to another major disagreement between Trotsky and Lenin.

The first order of business after 1917 was to end Russia's involvement in World War I. Negotiations between Russia and Germany began in 1918 in Brest-Litovsk. Lenin’s view was that the survival of the newborn Soviet state required that peace be signed. Trotsky was given the task of negotiating the peace agreement at Brest-Litovsk.

Trotsky believed that the young Soviet state couldn’t survive without the success of the revolution in Western Europe, and that the victory of the German revolution was necessary to secure the victory of the Soviets. According to Trotsky, it was necessary to risk all of the gains of Soviet victory in order to keep Germany in the war, thereby aiding the German revolution.

Those opposed to signing the peace agreement with Germany formed a faction led by Bukharin and Trotsky, against Lenin. A vote was taken, and Lenin’s position won out. Nevertheless, Trotsky refused to submit to democratic centralism and refused to sign the treaty. Trotsky was therefore forced to resign as Commissar of Foreign Affairs.

Lenin wrote that, by delaying the signing of the peace agreement, these “pseudo-Lefts” actually bore “responsibility for sowing illusions which actually helped the German imperialists and hindered the growth and development of the revolution in Germany.”

The final major political disagreement between Trotsky and Lenin himself occurred regarding Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP). To understand the NEP, it is necessary to contextualize it following the period of the Civil War, where “war communism” demanded surplus grain appropriation in order to sustain the defense of the revolution. The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – Short Course, sums it up like this:

“The Central Committee realized that the need for the surplus-appropriation system had passed, that it was time to supersede it by a tax in kind so as to enable the peasants to use the greater part of their surpluses at their own discretion. The Central Committee realized that this measure would make it possible to revive agriculture, to extend the cultivation of grain and industrial crops required for the development of industry, to revive the circulation of commodities, to improve supplies to the towns, and to create a new foundation, an economic foundation for the alliance of workers and peasants.

“The Central Committee realized also that the prime task was to revive industry, but considered that this could not be done without enlisting the support of the working class and its trade unions; it considered that the workers could be enlisted in this work by showing them that the economic disruption was just as dangerous an enemy of the people as the intervention and the blockade had been, and that the Party and the trade unions could certainly succeed in this work if they exercised their influence on the working class not by military commands, as had been the case at the front, where commands were really essential, but by methods of persuasion, by convincing it.”

Contrary to this view, Trotsky demanded that the trade unions be “governmentalized,” and called for “tightening the screws.” Trotsky opposed democratizing the trade unions and favored the continuation of the compulsory methods of war communism. This debate was taken to the Tenth Party Congress in March of 1921, where the overwhelming majority of the party sided with Lenin and endorsed his plan.

Lenin addresses this debate at length in his article, “The Trade Unions, the Present Situation, and Trotsky’s Mistakes.” There, Lenin argues that Trotsky’s errors on this question are mistakes about “the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

“Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: ‘Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?’ The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that.”

The Trotskyites today still parrot Trotsky’s error regarding a “workers’ state.” Lenin is correct to point out that this disregards the role of the peasantry. Indeed, the October Revolution established the proletarian dictatorship, and in the case of the former Russian Empire, the dictatorship of the proletariat was built upon the alliance of the working class together with the poor peasants. Why does Lenin stress this point about the “workers’ state'' in Trotsky’s formulation? He does so because this is an essential point that Trotsky fails to grasp. In the following articles, we’ll look more closely at the sharp disagreement between Lenin and Trotsky on the role of the peasantry in the revolution. It should be clear from this brief overview that Trotsky was never a Leninist, and that to call Trotsky a Leninist, the Trotskyites must opportunistically distort Leninism to fit their Trotskyism.

#UnitedStates #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

Trotskyism has been one of the most persistent and damaging opportunist ideological opponents of Marxism-Leninism within the left. In the next several articles, we’re going to look at the origin and development of this ideology, what it is and what it seeks to accomplish. But first, who was Trotsky, and what is Trotskyism?

Who was Trotsky? Briefly, Leon Trotsky was a Menshevik who came over to the Bolsheviks on the eve of the October Revolution in 1917. He was a skilled writer and speaker. After the February Revolution, he joined a centrist social-democratic group called the “interboroughites.” This small grouping joined the Bolshevik party in the Summer of 1917, and Trotsky with it. During the October Revolution he was a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee, but of course, as someone so new to the organization, he could not be one of the group that directed, organized and led the uprising. During the Civil War that followed, he became Military Commissar of the Red Army. This wasn’t a position of military leadership, but of political leadership within the military. He was basically the chief propagandist of the Bolshevik forces, while questions of strategy, operations and tactics were directed by skilled and tested military figures under the leadership of the Central Committee.

Before and after the October Revolution, he was often in strong disagreement with Lenin and the Bolshevik majority. Again and again, Trotsky’s minority views were discussed and debated, but didn’t win out within the democratic centralist structures of the party. Eventually, Trotsky and his supporters degenerated from a faction within the party into a gang of wreckers against the party and were expelled as such. From there they only grew more desperate, taking any opportunity to disrupt and sabotage the Soviet state.

So much for Trotsky. What is Trotskyism? Trotskyism isn’t just the ideas of Trotsky in that period, but a persistent, developed ideology that originated then. Trotskyism is a petit bourgeois ideology within the working-class movement. What does this mean? Every ideology has a material basis within the class struggle. For example, liberalism is the ideological expression of the material interests of the monopoly capitalist class, and Marxism-Leninism is the expression, in the field of theory, of the material, practical interests of the working class.

The petite bourgeoisie is an intermediate class that always seeks to attain the heights of wealth and privilege held by the big capitalists, but is instead driven down by the inner logic of monopoly capitalism. Because of the pressures placed upon this class, some of its members look towards the revolutionary workers movement. Many are able to transform themselves and take up Marxism-Leninism, but some aren’t able to shake the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie and are instead drawn to Trotskyism, which dovetails with bourgeois ideology in numerous ways.

Indeed, Trotskyism is an ideology that stands in the doorway between the ruling class and the working class, with one foot in each room. It seeks to present itself as a working class ideology, but always seeks to compromise with the ideology of the ruling class. Because of this dual nature, it presents itself as being very “left,” but in essence it remains on the right.

To do this, Trotskyism has come up with a number of theories, each of which run counter to Leninism and each of which we will examine in detail. For example, Trotskyism upholds a theory called “permanent revolution,” and argues that it is not possible to build socialism in one country, but that it is only possible to have a worldwide revolution that sweeps away the entire capitalist order in one stroke. Similarly, Trotskyism argues against the Leninist idea that revolution should proceed step by step, in alliance with the peasantry, instead arguing that the revolution should oppose the peasantry as a counter-revolutionary force from the beginning. This is the foundation of Trotskyism’s wrong positions on the national-colonial question, the united front, and other essential questions of anti-imperialist liberation struggles and socialist revolution. In the articles that follow we will examine each of these points in detail.

We will also have to look at some questions of history, which the Trotskyites distort in order to prop themselves up. We will look at Trotsky’s ongoing struggle against the Bolsheviks, in the leadup to the October Revolution and after. We will examine the history and development of Trotsky’s relationship with the Soviet Union, the world’s first socialist country. Finally, we will also look at Trotskyism in relation to China, the Philippines and the United States.

The real test of any revolutionary theory is practice. Trotskyism has failed this test everywhere, over and over again. Trotskyism has only brought schisms, splits and disruption. Marxism-Leninism has proven itself in practice as the ideology of successful proletarian revolution. Marxism-Leninism has brought victory to the working class and its allies in socialist revolutions all over the world, and has proved itself again and again as the way forward for the working and oppressed people of the world.

#UnitedStates #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #AgainstTrotskyism

After waging revolution from 1927 to 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed from Tiananmen Gate that “the Chinese people have stood up!” This marked the end of imperialist domination in China and the beginning of socialism in the newly founded People’s Republic of China, led by the Communist Party. The Chinese revolution has continued through socialist construction from then until today, and we would do well to sum up some of its many heroic achievements in order to better understand, from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, the process of socialist revolution and socialist construction.

The achievements of socialism in China during Mao Zedong’s lifetime were tremendous. In 1949, Chinese life expectancy was 38 years. By the 1970s it had risen to 68 years. As John Ross says in his book China’s Great Road, “China’s rate of increase of life expectancy in the three decades after 1949 was the fastest ever recorded in a major country in human history.” China’s current life expectancy has overtaken that of the U.S. and is now 78.2 years.

Literacy also dramatically increased. In 1949, approximately 80 to 90% of China’s population was illiterate. The Communist Party launched a mass literacy and education campaign, and within ten years adult illiteracy fell to 43% and has steadily declined since. By 1979 illiteracy was only 16.4% in the cities and 34.7% in the countryside. Currently, the literacy rate in China is 99.8%, greatly exceeding the U.S. at 79%.

All of this was achieved as a direct result of the socialist system, which avoids the anarchy of production and the chronic cycles of boom and bust. In fact, since 1978, China has had the fastest sustained growth in a major economy in all of human history, with an annual average growth rate of 9.5%. Because China isn’t a capitalist country, the economy isn’t affected by the cyclical crises that are characteristic of and plague the capitalist mode of production.

Among China’s greatest achievements is the elimination of extreme poverty. Over just the past 40 years, the number of people in China living in extreme poverty has fallen by 800 million, accounting for three quarters of total global poverty reduction. This process began in the 1930s, with land reform in the liberated areas at the beginning of the Chinese revolution. This meant the expropriation of the landlords, division of their land among the peasants, and canceling debts. This is how the Communist Party of China (CPC) destroyed feudalism in the countryside.

After taking power in 1949, the CPC expanded land reform from the liberated areas to the entire country, and started setting up agricultural production cooperatives to mechanize agriculture and develop the forces of production throughout the country. The means of production were nationalized. China’s industrial output increased at an average annual rate of 13.5%. By 1977, China’s industrial output was 38 times what it was in 1949 when the revolution took power.

China has also succeeded in building a harmonious society composed of many different nationalities. The CPC helped to liberate the oppressed nationalities, such as the Tibetan people, from feudalism. The People’s Republic of China constitution and laws grant equality to the country’s nationalities and promotes economic and cultural development. Discrimination is outlawed and Articles 112 through 122 of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China detail the rights of the formerly oppressed nationalities to autonomous self-government.

As a result of their vast revolutionary experience, the Chinese communists have also made many great contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory. In the course of the civil war and the war of resistance against Japan, Mao Zedong developed the theory of protracted people’s war, a military strategy of advancing a revolution in stages by surrounding the cities from the countryside, applicable broadly to semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries with a large peasantry like China was.

Mao and his comrades also developed the theory of the United Front and the Mass Line as core strategic methods of organizing and mobilizing the broad masses of the people for revolution. Mao also made important contributions to Marxist philosophy with his essays “On Practice” and “On Contradiction,” among many others. And after Khrushchev came to power in the Soviet Union in the mid-1950s, the CPC made important contributions to the defense of Marxism-Leninism against revisionism in the polemics of the Great Debate.

China has been a beacon to oppressed nations and peoples all over the world, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In the United States, Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution were a guiding light to the Black liberation movement, especially for groups like the Black Panther Party, which used the Little Red Book, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, as a revolutionary handbook. After the Communist Party USA’s abandonment of Marxism-Leninism for revisionism in the 1950s, the young communists who set out to build a new communist party in the 1970s also drew upon the theory and practice of Mao Zedong and the CPC.

In 1985 in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev instituted his liberal reforms, Perestroika and Glasnost, hurling the USSR towards the precipice of capitalist restoration in 1991. Similar counterrevolutionary currents arose in other parts of the socialist world, including China. Many in the USSR and Eastern Europe failed to defeat counterrevolution. Mick Kelly sums up the trajectory that led to a similar situation in China in the 1989 work Continuing the Revolution is Not a Dinner Party: “While the intentions were the best, the ultra-left errors of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1975) slowed the development of socialism in China. Right errors in the post Mao/Hua period then created the material conditions and allowed the political space to open for bourgeois liberalization.” But when right opportunists led by Zhao Ziyang attempted to restore capitalism in China in 1989, the CPC managed to rise to the challenge. They held firm to Marxist-Leninist principles, overcame the crisis, defended socialism and the proletarian dictatorship, and came out stronger on the other side.

The Communist Party of China has proved in practice that it is prepared to avoid the fate of the USSR. As Xi Jinping said in a speech in 2021, “It is easier to breach a fortress from within. In this sense, degeneracy, corruption and betrayal from within the Party have been the gravest threat since its founding. The Party would lose the people’s support if it betrays its political character as a Marxist party and fundamental purpose. Over its century-long journey, our Party has stayed alert to risks of corruption and disintegration, and maintains its progressive and wholesome nature.” In this regard, China has launched a successful anti-corruption campaign to make sure the Party continues to serve the people.

As China develops its productive forces in order to eliminate scarcity and bring common prosperity to the Chinese people, China is also breaking new ground in combining socialist construction with ecological sustainability. In his article, “China is Building a Truly Ecological Civilization,” Carlos Martinez writes that the People’s Republic of China is aggressively pursuing decarbonization, reducing reliance on coal in favor of wind and solar energy. China is also carrying out the largest reforestation project in the world, expanding forest coverage from 12% to 23% from 1980 to 2020. China is able to do this because they have a socialist, planned economy, whereas capitalism can only blindly pursue the highest rate of profit.

Similarly, as a result of its socialist system, China is able to prioritize public health over profit, as seen by its COVID policy. The United States has had over one million deaths as result of its poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, while, at the time of this writing, China’s has had over 1000 times fewer, relative to its population.

What China has accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary. From when Mao and his comrades first set out on their Long March, until today, the Chinese revolution has served to teach and inspire revolutionaries all over the world.

As Xi Jinping said at the recent 20th National Congress of the CPC, “Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded and thrive. Our experience has taught us that, at the fundamental level, we owe the success of our Party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to the fact that Marxism works, particularly when it is adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of our times,” and “…only by applying dialectical and historical materialism can we provide correct answers to the major questions presented by the times and discovered through practice, and can we ensure that Marxism always retains its vigor and vitality.”

#UnitedStates #PeoplesStruggles #Socialism #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #redTheory

How is it possible that the Soviet Union, bastion of socialism and proletarian internationalism, collapsed in 1991? What factors led to its collapse, and what were the results? We should look at both the material and ideological basis for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. As Marxist-Leninists, what lessons can we draw from the experience of the fall of the Soviet Union?

Capitalism was restored in the USSR in 1991, but the process that led to that point began much earlier. Nikita Khrushchev came to lead the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) shortly after the death of Stalin in 1953. Under his leadership, the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 marked the first major turning point towards revisionism in the USSR. Revisionism, in the name of “revising” Marxism, advocates for Marxism in words, but opportunism in deeds.

Ideologically, Khrushchev’s revisionism attacked the foundations of Marxism-Leninism in a number of ways, namely by advocating the transformation of the proletarian dictatorship into a “state of the whole people,” the party of the working class into the “party of the whole people,” by advocating for “peaceful coexistence between capitalism and socialism,” and by advocating for the “peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism.”

Like Trotsky before him, in the name of attacking “Stalinism,” Khrushchev set about to attack Marxism-Leninism. In his so-called “secret speech” Khrushchev launched his campaign of “de-Stalinization.” Of course, this didn’t go without resistance, so in order to carry this out, he maneuvered to defeat the revolutionary left in the party leadership, which made up the majority in the politburo. Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and the rest of the left were all sidelined by Khrushchev as an “Anti-Party group.”

From there, the communists of China and Albania led the way in criticizing the errors of Khruschev’s revisionism and the dangers it posed to the international communist movement. As the Communist Party of China wrote in “On the Question of Stalin'' in 1963, “In repeating their violent attacks on Stalin, the leaders of the CPSU aimed at erasing the indelible influence of this great proletarian revolutionary among the people of the Soviet Union and throughout the world, and at paving the way for negating Marxism-Leninism, which Stalin had defended and developed, and for the all-out application of a revisionist line.” By attacking Stalin’s leadership and the history of the CPSU, Khrushchev struck a blow at Marxism-Leninism itself, weakening the confidence of the international communist movement in Marxism-Leninism.

In a significant article from 1992 entitled “An Assessment of the Collapse of the Soviet Union,” the outstanding Belgian communist leader, Ludo Martens, wrote, “the revisionism of Khrushchev opened a transitional period from socialism to capitalism. Old and new bourgeois elements needed thirty years to grow strong enough to capture and consolidate their power in the fields of politics, ideology and the economy. The process of degeneration, begun in 1956, took three decades to finish off socialism.”

Practically, as Keeran and Kenny emphasize in their 2004 book Socialism Betrayed, “Khrushchev favored incorporating a range of capitalist or Western ideas into socialism, including market mechanisms, decentralization, some private production, the heavy reliance on fertilizer and the cultivation of corn, and increased investment in consumer goods.” After this, the Kosygin Reforms in 1965 further liberalized the economy, emphasizing profitability, material incentives and commodity production to an even further degree. Guided by revisionism instead of Marxism-Leninism, these policies had a corrosive effect on the socialist system.

In those ensuing decades, we see first Brezhnev and then Gorbachev as the principal leaders of the USSR. While Brezhnev corrected some of Khruschev’s worst errors, he continued down the path that Khrushchev set out upon in the 20th Congress. The Soviet Union during the period of his leadership saw the party further divorce itself from the masses of the people as bureaucracy grew. Furthermore, the U.S. made every effort to destabilize the USSR during this period, most successfully by funding the Mujahideen to bog the Red Army down in Afghanistan, draining the Soviet Union’s resources.

Bad leadership, and a lack of Marxist-Leninist scientific clarity, only exacerbated the problem, leading to Gorbachev’s liberal “Perestroika” and “Glasnost” reforms, and finally to the open liquidation of the CPSU and the USSR, against widespread protest, under Yeltsin. In a 1991 referendum, the Soviet people overwhelmingly voted against dissolving the USSR. Nearly 80% wanted to maintain the Soviet Union, but Yeltsin and Gorbachev defied both the Soviet constitution and the Soviet people.

Like Khrushchev before him, Gorbachev put forward his attacks on Marxism-Leninism as an attack on “Stalinism.” The result was “shock therapy” and impoverishment for the masses of the people, total privatization, the rampant plundering of the state and national economy, and the unbridled hegemony of U.S. imperialism no longer counterbalanced by the USSR.

Life expectancy declined dramatically after 1991. The economy of the former Soviet Union suffered a crisis worse than the Great Depression. Indeed, despite all of its flaws during the period from 1956 to 1991, the collapse of the USSR was a disaster for the masses of the people of the USSR and the whole world.

We can draw at least four important lessons from this experience.

First, adhering to the principles of Marxism-Leninism is vital. Marxism-Leninism is the scientific analysis of our concrete conditions and summation of our practical experiences that lets us navigate the complex contradictions with which we are faced. If we abandon Marxism-Leninism for revisionism, accepting ideas like “peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism,” counter to objective laws, we disarm ourselves for the tasks ahead of us. The opponents of socialism love to claim that “socialism is great in theory but doesn’t work in practice.” On the contrary, when the Soviet Union united their revolutionary practice with Marxist-Leninist theory, socialism worked wonders. Indeed, when the USSR held to Marxist-Leninist principles, from 1917 to the mid-1950s, they piled success on top of success. When they cast Marxism-Leninism aside at the 20th Congress, they set about piling difficulty on top of difficulty.

Second, the party and the state must maintain its class character: the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The revisionist theories of “party of the whole people” and “state of the whole people” opened up the party and state to the influence of the class enemy. The working class is the only class with no material interest in the exploitation of others, and only the working class is capable of guiding the transition through socialism from capitalism to communism. Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a weapon necessary to resist the forces of reaction and capitalist restoration from bourgeois forces within and without. The party of the working class must lead the proletarian state to construct socialism, restrict bourgeois right, and combat the forces of counterrevolution and reaction.

Third, classes and class struggle do not end with the establishment of socialism. This experience confirms what Lenin said in 1919: “The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms.” The communist party must persevere in carrying out the class struggle under socialism in order to restrict and overcome bourgeois right and guide society towards the goal of communism. According to Lenin, the socialist state is tasked with “creating conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist, or for a new bourgeoisie to arise.” Starting in the mid-1950s, the USSR took the opposite approach, but there were errors even earlier. Ludo Martens, in his important book Another View of Stalin, writes, “After 1945, the struggle against opportunism was restricted to the highest circles of the Party and did not assist in the revolutionary transformation of the entire Party.” Thus the broad masses and party as a whole were unprepared to resist the revisionist turn of the mid-1950s. Proletarian democracy, mass education in Marxism, and criticism and self-criticism are safeguards to the working class’s success in the class struggle under socialism.

Fourth, capitalist restoration is a protracted process, that ends with a sudden leap. Some in the international communist movement mistook the rise of revisionism in the USSR for the complete restoration of capitalism. This led them to see the Soviet Union as an enemy. Some even went so far as to claim that the USSR was “social-imperialist.” Against this view, Harry Haywood wrote in 1984, “Without a monopoly capitalist class and without capitalist relations of production there is no fundamental and compelling logic in the Soviet economy that creates a need to export capital and exploit other countries through trade. As a result, it also has no colonies and no empire to sustain.” On the contrary, the reality is the USSR was a bulwark against U.S. hegemony and a powerful ally to movements for revolution and liberation all over the world.

We have to understand this from a dialectical materialist point of view. Marxism holds that material reality isn’t simply determined by the ideas of a few leaders, and while those ideas can affect material reality, that is a process that takes time. Socialist revolution follows dialectical laws. According to those dialectical laws, the principle and secondary aspect of a contradiction can exchange places in a qualitative leap. Under socialism, the proletariat in power is the principal, determining aspect of this contradiction, and the bourgeoisie is secondary. Quantitative accumulation of strength by the bourgeoisie can flip this relationship, which is exactly what happened over the course of 30 years in the USSR. Revisionism weakened the socialist state and disarmed it against the threat of capitalist restoration. But the Soviet Union’s course towards capitalist restoration wasn’t irreversible, and its final collapse was a tragedy for working and oppressed people everywhere.

Despite the fall of socialism in the USSR, we have the People’s Republic of China, Democratic Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba, which all continue to advance and are a beacon to working and oppressed people everywhere. Imperialism is in decline and the movements for revolution and national liberation are today gaining ground. Socialism may face attacks from within and without, and those attacks may lead to setbacks, but in the long view, the victory of socialism is inevitable. As Mao Zedong once put it, though the road is torturous, the future is bright!

#UnitedStates #PeoplesStruggles #Socialism #MarxismLeninism #MLTheory #redTheory