*From The Lenin Internet Archives-Speech at the First All-Russia Congress of Working Women (1918)

Click on the headline to link to the "Lenin Internet Archives"-"Speech at the First All-Russia Congress of Working Women (1918)."

Markin comment:

These Bolsheviks, at least in the early days, really were ahead of their times on the woman question. There are many lessons to be learned from their attempts to organize the working women of the world that we should pay attention to, especially as globalization makes proletarians out of the women of the third world.

*From The James P. Cannon Archives- The Meaning Of The Great Minneapolis Teamsters Strike Victory(1934)

Click on the headline to link to a "James P. Cannon Internet Archives" online copy of his 1934 article written in the aftermath of the victory of the Minneapolis Teamsters strike.

Markin comment:

Every once in a while, especially in the last several years when there has been truly a dearth of class struggle here in America, it is good to go back and read about one of our victories written by an American revolutionary labor leader, James P. Cannon. Something by Leon Trotsky is also recommended just to keep the edge up.

*The Latest From "The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee" Website- Free Lynne Stewart And Her Co-Workers

Click on the headline to link to a "Lynne Stewart Defense Committee" Website posting about the next scheduled sentence hearing in her case.


Markin comment:

As always, and until she and her co-workers are freed, Lynne Stewart must not die in jail. Freedom now!

*Books to While Away The Class Struggle- A Distant Mirror Mirrored- Barbara Tuchman’s “ A Distant Mirror”

Click on the title to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for historian Barbara Tuchman.

Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By” and "Films To While Away The Class Struggle By"-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs and films that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some books that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. Markin

A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, Barbara Tuchman, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1978

There was a time when I liked to read virtually anything by the self-made historian Barbara Tuchman. That was back in my very early left-liberal days of the 1960s when I was much enamored of the Kennedy boys. It had been reported that at some point during the Cuban missile crisis (for the younger set, look that up on “Wikipedia”, or some other ancient source) that Jack Kennedy had read Tuchman's “Guns Of August”. The import of that reading by him was that he, supposedly, thought through her contention that the subject matter of that book, the struggle of the various bourgeois governments of Europe to play “chicken” and win before World War I, got out of hand well before the issues could have been resolved short of war. In short, that war was entirely avoidable had cooler heads prevailed. Well, I have long given up my left-liberal past and with it a move away from a dependence on the top governmental view of social and political change like that example. I have also moved away from Tuchman’s premise that merely by acting rationally bourgeois governmental leaders could, and can, solve any problem that confronts them. Still, I like to, on occasion, read her books because, whatever our political differences might have been, I know that she massed a great deal of useful information about the subjects that interested her.

That is certainly the case here with her monumental overview of the 14th century in Western Europe, as seen through the prism of one of the premier noble families of France. A family that was central to much of the political, social, economic and religious action of the century, the Coucy family. Moreover, as her title indicates, she has a thesis here as well- that the calamitous 14th century has some important lessons to tell a late 20th century audience about how to save itself before it is too late. While, as I mentioned above, Tuchman is always a good source for interesting historical data and it s always good to “learn” the lessons of history these lessons seem to be directed, once again, toward bourgeois governmental leaders. I would draw rather different conclusions and look to a different section of the population to learn those "lessons".

Well, why pick on the poor, bedraggled 14th century? For this reviewer, who has mentioned in the past that in his old age he wanted to sit back and study the role of religion in the development of Western capitalist society, especially those early protestant movements, this is an important period where the grip of the Roman Catholic Church and its far-flung bureaucracies were being challenged on many fronts by secular forces (and being defended by other such forces). For Tuchman it is one of those decisive turning points in history as well where such concepts as the rule of law, the notion of a rational elite (as exemplified by the Coucys), the beginning of the flourishing of cities and the emergence of the bourgeois element that would drive (and still drives) Western society, and in the process create nation-states out of the patchwork of duchies, archbishopric sees, counties, and all lesser forms of governance. In short, the outline for modern society that the modern reader can recognize, for good or ill.

If you are looking to delve into the seemingly never-ending fights between various nobilities, mainly in England and France, a bewildering array of very unstable alliances, the ‘skinny’ behind the two Pope (Avignon and Rome) struggle in the Catholic Church that ran riot throughout the later part of the century, or the absurdly complicated manner of solving conflict through an occasional war then this is your first stop. If you are also looking to get a glimpse at the culture, mainly high Church and chivalrous noble culture, the way the various local nobilities lived and intermarried (another cause for bewilderment, if you are not careful), the way wars were fought and who fought them and the place of such phenomena as plagues, pilgrimages, the late Crusades, and such this is also a place to stop. If you want to know everything about the several generations of Coucys, you will get that as well. And all these fairly well-written six hundred plus pages are done with the needs of an interested, but notnecessarily knowledgeable, layperson in mind. And with some very interesting illustrations, as well.

*Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By-Bob Dylan's "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues"

Click on the title to link a "YouTube" film clip of Nina Simone performing Bob Dylan's "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" (audio only, but that is just fine anyway, right?

In this series, presented under the headline “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By”, I will post some songs that I think will help us get through the “dog days” of the struggle for our communist future. I do not vouch for the political thrust of the songs; for the most part they are done by pacifists, social democrats, hell, even just plain old ordinary democrats. And, occasionally, a communist, although hard communist musicians have historically been scarce on the ground. Thus, here we have a regular "popular front" on the music scene. While this would not be acceptable for our political prospects, it will suffice for our purposes here. Markin.

Markin- Any song that starts with "When you're lost in the rain in Juarez and it's Eastertime too..." will always get my attention. And did, along with the other key song from this album, "Desolation Row", back in the day.

Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues Lyrics

When you're lost in the rain in Juarez
And it's Eastertime too
And your gravity fails
And negativity don't pull you through
Don't put on any airs
When you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there
And they really make a mess outa you.

Now if you see Saint Annie
Please tell her thanks a lot
I cannot move
My fingers are all in a knot
I don't have the strength
To get up and take another shot
And my best friend, my doctor
Won't even say what it is I've got.

Sweet Melinda
The peasants call her the goddess of gloom
She speaks good English
And she invites you up into her room
And you're so kind
And careful not to go to her too soon
And she takes your voice
And leaves you howling at the moon.

Up on Housing Project Hill
It's either fortune or fame
You must pick up one or the other
Though neither of them are to be what they claim
If you're lookin' to get silly
You better go back to from where you came
Because the cops don't need you
And man they expect the same.
Now all the authorities
They just stand around and boast
How they blackmailed the sergeant-at-arms
Into leaving his post
And picking up Angel who
Just arrived here from the coast
Who looked so fine at first
But left looking just like a ghost.

I started out on burgundy
But soon hit the harder stuff
Everybody said they'd stand behind me
When the game got rough
But the joke was on me
There was nobody even there to bluff
I'm going back to New York City
I do believe I've had enough.

*Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By-Woody Guthrie's "Deportee"

Click on the title to link a "YouTube" film clip of Arlo Guthrie and Emmylou Harrsi perfroming his father's song "Deportee."

In this series, presented under the headline “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By”, I will post some songs that I think will help us get through the “dog days” of the struggle for our communist future. I do not vouch for the political thrust of the songs; for the most part they are done by pacifists, social democrats, hell, even just plain old ordinary democrats. And, occasionally, a communist, although hard communist musicians have historically been scarce on the ground. Thus, here we have a regular "popular front" on the music scene. While this would not be acceptable for our political prospects, it will suffice for our purposes here. Markin.


Deportees (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)
Lyrics by Woody Guthrie
Music by Martin Hoffman

The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are piled in their cresote dumps
They're flying you back to the Mexico border
To pay all your money to wade back again

My father's own father, he wanted that river
They took all the money he made in his life
My brothers and sisters come working the fruit trees
And they rode the truck till they took down and died

CHORUS
Good-bye to my Juan, good-bye Rosalita
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maris
You won't have a name when you ride the big air-plane
And all they will call you will be deportees.

Some of us are illega, and others not wanted
Our work contract's out and we have to move on
But it's six hundred miles to that Mexican border
They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like theives.

We died in your hills, we died in your deserts
We died in your valleys and died on your plains
We died 'neath your trees and we died in your bushes
Both sides of the river, we died just the same.

CHORUS

A sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos canyon
Like a fireball of lightning, it shook all our hills
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says they are just deportees.

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except deportees?

©1961 (renewed) & 1963 Ludlow Music Inc., New York,NY (TRO)

*Films To While Away The Class Struggle By-"The Salt Of The Earth"

Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for "Salt Of The Earth

Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By”-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some films that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. In the future I expect to do the same for books under a similar heading.-Markin

DVD Review

Salt Of The Earth, starring professional and non-professional actors and actresses, directed by Herbet Biberman,1954

Lately, with the recent coal mining disaster in West Virginia and the struggle for union recognition in the Boran mines in California the subject of unions, union safety committees, and the right to organize unions in the mines has come up, front and center. Those events, as well as the repeated instances in this space of my writing about the Kentucky coal mines and the sagas of bloody Harlan County have provided many lessons about how to proceed with this kind of struggle. So it is apt that the film under review, "Salt Of The Earth", is being reviewed at this time. This rather didactic film, by today's standards at least, with quite a political history of its own brings home in dramatic form almost all the lessons of the struggle in the mines.

A quick overview is in order here. Western zinc miners, mainly Hispanic at this site, were negotiating with the local agents of a huge mining conglomerate based elsewhere over working conditions and mine safety. The negotiations stalled, the mine conditions got worst, and eventually the impasse was resolved in a strike vote. The miners went out and stayed out for several months as the company "stonewalled" on their demands. Along the way every trick in management's book was brought into play from closing off credit to the company-owned store, harassment of various forms, bringing in the local police and goons, and going to the bosses' courts. That last trick worked, or almost worked, except that the miners' wives, who had been organized into an auxiliary, saved the day by 'manning' the picket lines. The struggle continued with more harassment, more threats, and eventually things were brought to a head by an attempt at evictions, first of the main local miners' leader. Still the lines did not break. The company seeing its position, for now, as futile agreed to negotiate in "good faith".

That, "for now", is critical for it is spoken by a senior representative of the company who has let the "cat out of the bag" here. A successful fight for a union contract is just a momentary "armed truce" in the class struggle and is recognized by the bosses as such, if not by most union leaders. It should, however, be recognized as such and etched in the mind of every labor militant. That dramatic finish to the film,however, with a hard fought "temporary" victory, thus let's one see in microcosm all the problems that went before in order to get just this momentary justice. I might add that this film, done in 1954, at a time when unions were still growing and thriving in this country, and when there was still a layer of militants in the secondary leadership of the organized trade union movement would almost seem like a "socialist's paradise" compared with he level of class struggle today.

Although some of the factual aspects of this film may be different- the locale of the mines were in New Mexico not the East, were zinc rather than coal mines, and the miners were mainly Hispanic rather than Appalachians whites this script could have been written today without much exaggeration. I am not generally a fan of the Stalinist-influenced "socialist realism" form of political propaganda, of which this film seems a prime example, but in this case it is very effective as it brings up every possible problem that any union recognition effort runs into.

For openings there are the problems of separate Hispanic mine locals and of Anglo locals and of separate local union contracts rather than a uniform national contract. This is a recurring problem, not fully resolved even during the great strike wave of the 1930s. Another is the problem, endemic to the mining industry, of the physically isolated places that the vast majority of mines are located in which makes wide-spread support more difficult, although as depicted in the film, financial and physical aid did come in during this battle. Another problem mentioned here, and a particular problem of long, drawn out strikes is that of union members going back to work, or trying to, for a whole variety of reasons, none good enough. Also the attempts by the bosses to buy off union militants with promises of advancement or "soft" jobs, or failing that to run them out of the mines, out of town, or into jail.

The thing that makes this one interesting, and brings a rush of solidarity to the cause, is that once the militants were committed to the strike most of them were willing to see it through to the end. They faced down the attempts by the company to bring in scabs, to jail their leaders, to use their legal system to get injunctions and other legal relief in order to break the union. There was nothing the company was not willing to do to break the strike. And they almost did, except, and this is what also makes this one so interesting, is the wives of the miners, not without a great deal of social and personal turmoil, filled the breech when the company got it's injunction. The women, who had formed, the by now classic women's auxiliary first used extensively in the great strike struggles of the 1930s, "womanned" the picket lines, and held them through thick and thin, including arrest of their leaders.

This film is certainly an advanced one for the time in dealing with the women question, especially in an isolated, company-run town where the socially conservative Hispanic male miners had a hard time coming to grips with the need to include the women, and their demands, in the negotiating struggles. Of course, in true "social realist" form, the woman narrator/star also turns out during the course of the film to be an "earth mother" and stalwart militant, or at least evolves into that position during the struggle. In that sense this script follows the tradition of Maxim Gorky's "Mother" in its depiction of the evolution of political class consciousness by the most oppressed layers of society, especially house-bound women with children.

Note: As described in the above-linked entry from "Wikipedia" those involved with the production of this film, including the director, produces and many of the actors faced the "blacklist" during the 1950s "red scare" in America. Frankly, whatever qualms I have about its literary and political deficiencies, this film is a powerful statement about working class struggles and the road forward. Watch it.

*From "The Rag Blog" -Amy Goodman : In Praise of Lena Horne

Click on the headline to link to a "The Rag Blog" entry-Amy Goodman : In Praise of Lena Horne.

Markin comment:

I have made my own comments about Lena Horne elsewhere in this space. But the point that Lena made about the studios cutting her out of films shown in the South makes me want to scream one more time- Mississippi Goddam.

*From The Renegade Eye Blog-Iran: We Will Take Revenge for Farzad and His Comrades!

Click on the headline to link to a "Renegade Eye" Blog entry-Iran: We Will Take Revenge for Farzad and His Comrades!

Markin comment:

Every militant leftist fighter stands behind this commentary, whatever our other poltical differences.

*Brother, Can You Spare A Dime? - The Real Story Of Homelessness In Song

Click on the headline to link to a "YouTube" film clip of a performance of "Hobo's Lullaby"

CD Review

Give Us Your Poor, various artists, Appleseed Recordings, 2007

Sure, I have been homeless. Oh, not the desperate, day in, day out, year in, year out homelessness that drives the stories in this compilation of musical and storytelling artistic efforts to get people who are not homeless, have never been homeless, and hope never to be homeless to pay attention. And to not just walk away, around, or over the problem. I have been homeless enough though , and in dire enough straits at times to have a pretty good sense that the streets are not for dreaming, or for living in, and are definitely to be avoided at all costs. Those are mean streets out there, brothers and sisters. And asking for the occasional spare change, spare cigarette, spare anything is just the tip of the iceberg.

But, hell, let some real folks tell the story. And that is what they do here, interspersed with some celebrity performances, by some people that Appleseed Records (and U/Mass-Boston) has been fortunate enough to garner in and who, in their own ways, give a damn. Especially give a listen to “Land of 10,000 Homeless” –Minnesota” and the story that brother has to tell and Danny Glover’s recitation of “My Name Is Not “Those People”’. For those who are moved by celebrity, listen to Bonnie Raitt and Weepin' Willie Robinson on “Walking The Dog” and Sweet Honey In The Rock on “Stranger Blues”. And for those who want to get misty-eyed about the romance of the road- hobo style, at least vicariously, give a listen to Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger on a song made famous (although not written by) Woody Guthrie, “Hobo’s Lullaby”.

Let me finish with this little thought. I grew up dirt-poor and it was a long time before I knew, for real, that there was some other condition. One of the virtues, and maybe the only one, of being poor is that the vicissitudes, the ups and downs, of the world economy kind of pass me by, personally. However, I have elected, and rightly so, to fight so that poor is a word that is placed in the archives of human history through the struggle for our communist future where being homeless will be merely a relic of a barbaric age. But just in case, I will keep myself in shape. Brother (sister), can you spare a dime?


Hobo's Lullaby
by Goebel Reeves

Go to sleep you weary hobo
Let the towns drift slowly by
Can't you hear the steel rail humming
That's a hobo's lullaby

Do not think about tomorrow
Let tomorrow come and go
Tonight you're in a nice warm boxcar
Safe from all the wind and snow

I know the police cause you trouble
They cause trouble everywhere
But when you die and go to heaven
You won't find no policemen there

I know your clothes are torn and ragged
And your hair is turning grey
Lift your head and smile at trouble
You'll find happiness some day

So go to sleep you weary hobo
Let the towns drift slowly by
Don't you feel the steel rail humming
That's a hobo's lullaby

©1961,1962 (Renewed) Fall River Music, Inc. (BMI)
All Rights Reserved.

*Of Cowboys and Cowgirls- The Music Of Carol Noonan

Click on the headline link to a "YouTube" film clip of Carol Noonan performing "Danny Boy". Yes, I know that is not a classic of the Old West (of America, at least) but I couldn't find anything from the "Big Iro"n CD.

CD Review

Big Iron, Carol Noonan, Noonan Music, 2001

I spent some little time a couple of years ago going over the transformation of the American Old West of cowboys, wild boys, fast guns and faster reputations into the New West populated by characters like Duane, in the series of novels written by Texas writer/bibliophile and flea marketeer, Larry McMurtry. Apparently, the myth of the Old West dies hard though, and for this review I am glad of it.

Why? For singer/songwriter and 'wannabe' cowgirl Carol Noonan (and friends) from ….Maine has given us a potpourri of very nice renditions of some of the old classic Western songs that people of a certain age, my age, grew up with as we absorbed our version of the Old West, via 1950s black and white television, of the likes of Hopalong Cassidy, the Cisco Kid and the Lone Ranger and his sidekick, Tonto.

Of course it helps if one has a beautiful voice, some good instruments and some good friends to harmonize with on this self-produced (I believe) CD. All that is left is to pick a few numbers that stand out in an album that is filled with them. “Red River Valley”, “High Noon”, “Streets Of Laredo”, and “Wayward Wind” readily come to mind. That list is "high" Old West, indeed.

The Streets of Laredo
arranged & adapted by Arlo Guthrie

As I walked out in the streets of Laredo
As I walked out in Laredo one day
I spied a poor cowboy wrapped up in white linen
All wrapped in white linen as cold as the clay

"I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy"
These words he did say as I proudly stepped by
"Come sit down beside me and hear my sad story
I'm shot in the breast and I know I must die

"'Twas once in the saddle I used to go ridin'
Once in the saddle I used to go gay
First lead to drinkin', and then to card-playing
I'm shot in the breast and I'm dying today

"Let six jolly cowboys come carry my coffin
Let six pretty gals come to carry my pall
Throw bunches of roses all over my coffin
Throw roses to deaden the clods as they fall

"Oh, beat the drum slowly, and play the fife lowly
And play the dead march as you carry me along
Take me to the green valley and lay the earth o'er me
For I'm a poor cowboy and I know I've done wrong"

We beat the drum slowly and played the fife lowly
And bitterly wept as we carried him along
For we all loved our comrade, so brave, young and handsome
We all loved our comrade although he done wrong

©1991 Arloco Music Inc
All Rights Reserved.

*Be Still My Heart- On Calling For The Greek Communist Parties And Trade Unions To Take Power

Click on the headline to link ot a "Wikipedia" thumbnail sketch entry for the Greek Communist Party (KKE). Use this entry solely as a start to learn about the KKE. Then push on from there.

Markin comment:

On May 10, 2010 I posted an entry on the situation in Greece in response to a post from the International Marxist Tendency’s Greek section’s analysis of the tasks that confront revolutionaries today. I agreed with the comment in the post that general strikes were of limited value if they did not, at some point, pose the question of who shall rule- working people or the capitalists. I went further and proposed two propaganda points that revolutionaries in Greece, and their supporters internationally, should be fighting for. Right now.

The first point revolved around the fight to create workers councils, committees of action or factory committees in order to fight for a revolutionary perspective. That program, the specifics which are better to left to those on the ground, needs to include refusal to pay the capitalists debts, under whatever guise, defense of the hard fought social welfare gains of the past, the struggle against the current government’s austerity program, the fight against any taint of popular frontism (opposition to alliances, at this critical juncture, with non-working class forces where the working class is the donkey and the small capitalist parties are the riders), and prepare to pose the question of who shall rule. Thus there is plenty of work that needs to be started now while the working masses are mobilized and in a furor over the current situation.

The second point, which flows out of the first, is the call for the Communist parties and trade unions to take power in their own right and in the interest of the working class. Now, clearly, and this is where some confusion has entered the picture, this is TODAY a propaganda call but is a concrete way to pose the question of who shall rule. Of course, we revolutionaries should have no illusions in the Stalinists and ex-Stalinists who run those parties and who, in previous times, have lived very comfortably with their various popular front, anti-monopolist strategies that preserve capitalism. However, today those organizations call for anti-governmental action and are listened to by the masses in the streets.

The point is to call their political bluff, carefully, but insistently. In that sense we are talking over the heads of the leaders to their social bases. Now that tactic is always proper for revolutionaries to gain authority but today we have to have a more concrete way to do so. In short, call on the Greek labor militants to call on their parties and unions to take power. And if not, then follow us. This is not some exotic formula from nowhere but reflects the sometimes painful experience, at least since the European revolutions of 1848.


Note: I headed today’s headline with the expression “be still my heart” for a reason. It has been a very long time since we have been able to, even propagandistically, call for workers parties on the European continent to take power. Especially, after the demise of the Soviet Union, for Stalinist (reformed or otherwise) parties to do so. Frankly, I did not think, as a practical matter, that I would be making such a call in Europe again in my lifetime. All proportions guarded, this may be the first wave of a new revolutionary upsurge on that continent. But, hell, its nice just to be able to, rationally, make that political call. In any case, the old utopian dream of a serious capitalist United States of Europe is getting ready to go into the dustbin of history. Let’s replace it with a Socialist Federation of Europe- and Greece today is the “epicenter”. SYRIZA-KKE to power!

*From The Leon Trotsky Archives- With Greece In Mind Today- A Program Of Action In France (1934)

Click on the headline to link to an "Leon Trotsky Internet Archive" online copy of his "Program of Action for France" in 1934.

Markin comment:

Yes, I know France in 1934 was a long time ago. Yes, I know the conditions then with the very ominous rise of fascism in Europe were somewhat different that today's "democratic" international capitalist globalization. And yes, I know the Soviet Union is gone as a factor in world politics. To our disadvantage. But read some of these points and see if you don't agree that they apply in Greece today. Leon Trotsky is speaking our revolutionary language, wherever he is.

*From The Leon Trotsky Internet Archives- With Greece In Mind- The Lessons of History- "The French Revolution Has Begun " (1936)

Click on the headline to link to a "Leon Trotsky Internet archive" online copy of "The French Revolution Has Begun" from his 1936 pamphlet, "Whither France?".

Markin comment:

Every Greek militant, and every supporter of the working class struggles in Greece today, can benefit, and benefit greatly, from reading Leon Trotsky's works, especially those from the mid-1930s when another period of class struggle was heating up and the struggle for power- working class power- was posed. This time we had better learn our lessons early- and win

*Avenge The Communist Defeat In The Greek Civil War Of 1946-49- The Lessons Of History

Click on the headline to link to a "Marxist Internet Archives" entry for the Greek Civil War Of 1946-49.

Markin comment:

Politics is sometimes a strange business. We all recognize that history does not exactly repeat itself. And it is also true that humankind makes its own history- although not always to its liking. Some things though, like the communist defeat in the Greek Civil War, despite our disagreements with its Stalinist leadership, were definitely not to our liking, but may be capable of reversal. Or at least of a modicum of historical justice. That is the backdrop of today's fight by the working class in the streets of Greece. May they win, and win big.

Avenge the lost in the 1946-49 civil war!

*From The Leon Trotsky Archives-The Lesson Of History- With Greece Today In Mind- "Committees Of Action-Nor People's Front" (1935)

Click on the headline to link to a "Leon Trotsky Internet Archive" online copy of his "Committees Of Action-Nor People's Front" (1935) from his pamphlet "Whiter France?"(1936).

Markin comment:

Once again Leon Trotsky speaks, and speaks our revolutionary language, from wherever the revolutionary pantheon is.

*From The "An Unrepentant Communist" Blog- The Struggle In Greece- Yes, The Peoples Of Europe Rise Up

Click on the headline to link to "An Unrepentant Communist" blog enrty on the struggle in Greece and the lessons for those elsewhere in Europe (and the Americas).

*From The "United For Justice With Peace" (UJP) Website- On The Afghan War Budget-Vote No!

Click on the headline to link to a "United For Justice With Peace" (UJP) Website entry- On The Afghan War Budget-Vote No!

Markin comment:

Okay, vote NO on the war budget but organize out on the streets around - Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries From Afghanistan!

The streets are not for dreaming now.

*Open Letter from the Internationalist Group to the Spartacist League and ICL- A Guest Commentary

Click on the headline to link to an International Communist League statement,"Repudiating Our Position On Haiti Earthquake", dated April 27, 2010, which is the document that the Internationalist Group open letter below is referring to in its polemic.

May 2010

Repentant Social Imperialists

Open Letter from the Internationalist Group
to the Spartacist League and ICL

The Spartacist League/U.S. and the International Communist League it leads are in a heap of political trouble. The International Executive Committee of the ICL has now issued a statement “Repudiating Our Position on Haiti Earthquake,” headlined “A Capitulation to U.S. Imperialism” (27 April 2010). More specifically, it repudiates the SL/ICL’s support to the U.S./U.N. invasion of Haiti in the name of humanitarian aid. The statement doesn’t mince words, characterizing the position taken by the SL’s newspaper Workers Vanguard as “a betrayal of the fundamental principle of opposition to one’s ‘own’ imperialist rulers,” that included “justifying the U.S. imperialist troops as essential to the aid effort” and “polemiciz[ing] against the principled and correct position of demanding the immediate withdrawal of the troops.” You write:

“We accepted Washington’s line that the provision of aid was inextricably linked to the U.S. military takeover and thus helped to sell the myth peddled by the Democratic Party Obama administration that this was a ‘humanitarian’ mission....

“Thus we gutted the revolutionary internationalist essence of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution linking the fight for social and national liberation to the struggle for proletarian state power both in neocolonial and in more advanced countries.”

That’s some pretty strong coffee, as the Germans say, and all true.

Your statement says that this became the “de facto line” of the ICL, which was carried by the presses of a number of other sections. It admits that the Internationalist Group “correctly characterized” the SL/ICL’s line as “social imperialist.” In fact, whole passages of the ICL’s repudiation statement seem to have been taken almost word-for-word from two Internationalist articles, “Spartacist League Backs U.S. Imperialist Invasion of Haiti” (30 January) and “SL Twists and Turns on Haiti” (9 April). Clearly, someone read at least our latest article, agreed with much of it, and said so. But what the IG wrote simply upheld the Leninist position of unconditional opposition to imperialist rule of semi-colonial countries that the SL/ICL stood for when it represented revolutionary Trotskyism.

Your emphatic repudiation of the ignominious position you vehemently pushed for three months shows a degree of candor uncommon on the left, and is a considerable improvement over the Pentagon propaganda you were retailing and your blatant support for U.S. imperialist occupation of Haiti. Yet in your April 27 statement and afterwards, even as you acknowledge the “dishonesty” of your earlier articles, the lies against those who did tell the truth continue unabated. Moreover, your explanations of why and how your fundamental betrayal came about don’t hold water. You admit to the crime, but fail to give a serious explanation of the reasons for it. And that virtually guarantees it will happen again. This isn’t the first time that the SL/ICL bowed to the pressure of its “own” ruling class, nor the first time you have smeared the IG/LFI for our revolutionary opposition to U.S. imperialism.

So let’s begin with the key issues raised by your abrupt reversal about the U.S. troops in Haiti. The most fundamental is: why wasn’t there a gut response of opposition to the imperialist invasion? How could you become active propagandists for U.S. imperialist invasion without any internal turmoil? In any genuinely revolutionary party, a betrayal of class principle would lead to a rip-roaring faction fight and eventual split. Relying on recovered memory of the revolutionary Trotskyism the SL/ICL once championed, it is possible to write a statement. But to actually become a revolutionary leadership requires a hard fight that goes to the root of the betrayals.

It all goes back to the devastating impact on the Spartacist League and International Communist League of the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union and the East European deformed workers states in 1989-92. It began by a turn toward passive propagandism and desertion from the class struggle, and subsequently led to a series of revisions of key programmatic questions. The most fundamental was your declaration (in your 1998 revised program) that the key thesis of Trotsky’s Transitional Program, that the crisis of humanity is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership, was outdated due to a supposed “deep regression of proletarian consciousness.”

We have pointed out how virtually every revisionist, from Ernest Mandel to Nahuel Moreno to Peter Taaffe, embraced the same doctrine of historical pessimism in order to justify abandoning the revolutionary program (see The Internationalist No. 5, April-May 1998). Like all revisionism, this comes down to a loss of confidence in the revolutionary capacity of the proletariat. It is just a “left” version of the bourgeois lie of the “death of communism” – you need only read the notes by the SL’s theoretical spokesman to see this (see WV No. 949, 1 January 2010). As we have remarked, it is the SL/ICL’s consciousness that has suffered a qualitative regression. This is proven by your line of support to the U.S. invasion of Haiti.

Since the April 27 statement vows to carry out a “savage indictment of our line” in the interests of “political rectification,” we would like to pose a few key issues that need to be addressed by any comrade in or around the SL/ICL who wants to get to the bottom of this betrayal.

1) How did this betrayal come about?

We, too, have had some discussion of what the SL/ICL’s support for the U.S. imperialist invasion of Haiti and repudiation mean. No one can be convinced by the ICL’s claim that this betrayal occurred because of the absence of “an organized discussion and vote, instead setting our line through informal consultation.” For a momentary lapse, an article that missed the mark, perhaps, as an explanation for a fundamental betrayal of class principle, crossing the class line, impossible. This was no accidental slip, no oversight by the editor. It was full-throated support for imperialist invasion. Workers Vanguard published five articles in six consecutive issues repeatedly denouncing the IG for calling for U.S./U.N. forces out of Haiti. WV heaped lie upon lie, distortion upon distortion. And now, all of a sudden, the SL flip-flops. All because of a lack of formal discussion? Please.

The ICL statement remarks, “As one leading party comrade argued, the only difference between the position we took and August 4, 1914, when the German Social Democrats voted war credits to the German imperialist rulers at the outset of the First World War, is that this was not a war.” So follow the analogy: “Well, you see we didn’t have a formal discussion with Karl and Rosa there, so we unfortunately ended up voting for the war budget”? The SPD reformists didn’t “correct” their vote, of course, but the centrists who later formed the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) did, voting against war credits in December 1915. Yet the USPD played a key role in preventing proletarian revolution in Germany in 1918-19. Or take the Spanish POUM, which supported the People’s Front in the 1936 elections, then later pulled back as the popular-front government was sabotaging the Civil War against Franco. As Trotsky explained, the centrist POUM played a key role in blocking workers revolution in Spain.

Think about it a minute: how could SLers insist (as they did at a panel discussion with Haitian and Dominican leftists sponsored by the Internationalist Club at Hunter College in New York) that calling for U.S./U.N. troops out of Haiti equaled support for bourgeois nationalism? Because of a lack of “formal discussion”? The ICL gives a definitive answer as to why this is not true. It states, “However, once the line was published in Workers Vanguard it was picked up by many of the ICL’s other sectional presses, indicating that there was little initial disagreement.” You support a U.S. invasion under the guise of humanitarian aid and there is “little initial disagreement.” That says it all: the entire ICL swallowed this betrayal. Had any section strongly objected, we can be sure this would have been noted in the repudiation as saving the ICL’s honor. So even if you had had a discussion, you would likely have come up with the same line.

In fact, you did have a meeting, on March 18, and what did it do? According to the ICL statement, “the motions adopted at that meeting, which became the basis for the article in WV No. 955, reaffirmed that ‘we were correct in not calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake’.” And then, by your own admission, you proceeded to lie about your original line, claiming that you had “made clear in our article” of 29 January that “we were not for the U.S. military going into Haiti,” when in fact you said no such thing. Moreover, the March 18 meeting reportedly passed motions “criticizing the formulation that the U.S. military was the only force on the ground with the wherewithal to deliver aid,” but “did not mandate a public correction of this statement.” And again, by your own account, you “misused the authority” of Trotsky, distorting the meaning of his 1938 article “Learn to Think,” “in order to alibi support to an imperialist occupation.”

The whole business reeks of cynicism. You didn’t just accidentally fall into error by an oversight or lack of clarity. You not only repeatedly screeched that the IG was embracing bourgeois nationalism by opposing the U.S. invasion, you distorted Trotsky and then lied to cover your tracks. You held onto your “zealous apologies for the U.S. imperialist military intervention” (your description) for dear life. But under polemical pounding from the LFI, someone, perhaps the “leading party comrade” referred to in the ICL statement, took note and said this was going too far. This time. Without that call to order, you would still be hailing the 82nd Airborne Division and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit as humanitarian aid deliverers.

You might pause to consider the ramifications of your admitted betrayal. What if no leading party comrade had said, “stop” – where would you be then? “Pentagon socialists” anyone? Ask yourselves, how could an entire organization which declares itself revolutionary, Marxist and communist swallow this apology for U.S. imperialism, hook, line and sinker? Why didn’t a whole layer of comrades vociferously object, saying “this makes me sick to my stomach – I’m revolted and outraged over the apology for the takeover of a semi-colonial country by U.S. imperialism.” Why did this go down without a ripple and remain your line for almost three months?

2) Why did this betrayal come about? It was an extension of previous capitulation to the pressures of U.S. imperialism.

We submit that the origin of this betrayal lies in the fact that repeatedly over the last decade, the Spartacist League and International Communist League have shamefully capitulated to the pressures of U.S. imperialism. As a result, alibiing the U.S. invasion of Haiti must have seemed to many just a logical extension of your previous positions, which it was.

Take a look at what happened after the 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, which clearly shook up the SL and ICL. But having lost your political compass with the demise of the Soviet Union, the SL/ICL reacted by abandoning key elements of the Leninist-Trotskyist program toward imperialist war. You issued a statement (see WV No. 764, 14 September 2001) with paragraphs of denunciations of terrorism but not a word in defense of Afghanistan (which the U.S. immediately targeted for retaliation). After Washington invaded, you belatedly came out in defense of Afghanistan, but still pointedly refused to call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism.

That was not all. You then proceeded to viciously attack the Internationalist Group/League for the Fourth International for our call from the very outset (in our 14 September 2001 statement) for defense of Afghanistan and for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. You wrote that our line amounted to “Playing the Counterfeit Card of Anti-Americanism,” as you stated in a subhead, and of appealing to an audience of “‘Third World’ nationalists for whom the ‘only good American is a dead American’” (Workers Vanguard No. 767, 26 October 2001). Yet the position we put forward was the same program the SL/ICL had proclaimed on the front pages of WV for years, in the Persian Gulf War, Yugoslavia and elsewhere.

Think what that vile accusation meant in the midst of the war hysteria sweeping the United States. Not only was this a monstrous lie, but as anybody could see, it could have encouraged repression against us. And consider the implications for today: if it was okay to go around “anti-American”-baiting opponents on your left, for upholding the political line you abandoned under fire, then it’s small potatoes to say – demagogically, as you now admit – that our call for U.S./U.N. troops out “would result in mass death through starvation.”

Your dropping the call for defeat of U.S. imperialism’s war on Afghanistan and Iraq had many expressions. Our call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism was not an abstract slogan. As we had done in the Spartacist League and ICL, we coupled it with propaganda and agitation calling on transportation workers to refuse to handle (“hot-cargo”) war materiel, and for workers strikes against the war. Yet you abandoned the call for “hot cargoing” military goods precisely when it was most possible to realize it, at the beginning of October 2002 in the midst of the build-up for the Iraq invasion, when the employers shut down the ports with a lockout. (Your excuse: that a Taft-Hartley injunction on the West Coast docks supposedly made this too dangerous.)

As for workers strikes against the war, you ridiculed this in 1998 when our comrades of the Liga Quarta-Internacionalista do Brasil (LQB) raised this call (over a U.S. attack on Iraq by the Democratic government of Bill Clinton), saying this had no “resonance” among the workers. And on May Day 2008, when it turned out the demand had plenty of “resonance” among the workers and the ILWU longshore union shut down every port on the Pacific Coast to stop the war, you claimed that this was just flag-waving support for the Democratic Party, it was only about Iraq, not Afghanistan, it didn’t have any impact, etc. The fact that the union delegates, in voting to shut the ports, denounced the Democrats for helping continue the war – and that in fact there was a striking dearth of American flags in the San Francisco march – made no difference. Here, as well, your goal of covering your own tracks made you twist the facts. And you repeat the lies put out by the bureaucracy that bitterly fought against calls for strikes against the war.

Your refusal to call loud and clear for the defeat of U.S. imperialism, your dropping calls for “hot-cargoing” war goods, your sneering at the first workers strike in the United States against a U.S. war are all capitulations to “your own” imperialist bourgeois rulers. And then, when Obama dispatched an invasion force to Haiti in the name of providing earthquake relief, you alibied it. That step placed you squarely in the camp of social imperialism; it crossed the class line to open support for the bourgeoisie. But it was another step on a road you had been going down for years.

3) How can you claim to uphold permanent revolution while denying the possibility of workers revolution in Haiti?

Having admitted that the Internationalist Group was right in opposing the U.S. imperialist invasion of Haiti, you still accuse the IG of “Third Worldist fantasies,” of seeing the earthquake as being an “opening for revolution” because we wrote that the “small but militant proletariat can place itself at the head of the impoverished urban and rural masses seeking to organize their own power” while the Haitian capitalist state machinery lay in tatters. Evidently you continue to hold that Haiti has “virtually no working class.” We have suggested various ways to test this claim, including photos of more than 10,000 Haitian workers marching on parliament demanding an increase in the miserable minimum wage. However, again, the fact of the existence of a Haitian proletariat has no impact on your position.

But if it is a “Third Worldist fantasy” to say that a proletarian revolution could begin in Haiti – as we do, while emphasizing that it must spread to the Dominican Republic, other parts of Latin America and above all the U.S. imperialist heartland if it is to succeed – then how can you claim to uphold Trotsky’s perspective of permanent revolution in Haiti? That program emphasizes that in the imperialist epoch in order to achieve even the democratic tasks of the classic bourgeois revolutions, the workers (led by their communist party) must take power and go on to undertake socialist tasks and spread the revolution internationally. If there is no working class, it can’t take power, and revolution can only come from without. That was your position from January 29 to April 27. Do you maintain this?

The SL/ICL also accuses us of being “apologists for Third World nationalism,” though no specifics are given. (In 2001, the “proof” for this claim was that the IG and LFI called for defeat of U.S. imperialism.) In particular, there is no mention of your bogus claim that we support Aristide, perhaps because your main “proof” of this lie was that “the IG’s shrieking about the supposed imperialist ‘invasion’” of Haiti somehow portrayed Aristide as “the embodiment of national independence.” Since you now agree there was a “U.S. military invasion,” this charge falls flat.

And if you are curious about the existence of a Bolivian working class, which the SL/ICL also denies, you might watch a video of a recent demonstration by factory workers in La Paz, Bolivia, available on the Internet at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67JkH0srEE. What comes through here from the SL is rank American imperialist chauvinism and disdain for the struggles of the workers in semi-colonial countries. In loudly proclaiming that they no longer “advocate” independence for Puerto Rico and then extending that internationally to other colonies, they abandon one of thecardinal points of the Leninist struggle against imperialism. Up until now SL members have shrieked that to say such a thing is sheer “provocation.” Perhaps they will be less quick to do so now. But that remains to be seen.

4) What does your support for the U.S. invasion/occupation of Haiti mean for the ICL’s claim to be the embodiment of revolutionary continuity? A “revolutionary leadership” doesn’t betray the class interests of the proletariat.

We hear from the Grupo Internacionalista, Mexican section of the LFI, that members of the Grupo Espartaquista came to the May Day marches with a rote response to justify the ICL’s claim to represent the revolutionary vanguard. Other communist formations have committed “errors” in the past, they argued, but didn’t cease to be communists. For example, when the Polish Communist Party supported the putsch by the ex-Socialist Josef Pilsudski in 1926. This is just grasping at straws. The Polish CP’s “May error” was a reflection of the general “right-centrist” degeneration of the Comintern, as Trotsky explained in The Third International After Lenin.

What the GEM members considered their trump card was Trotsky’s call on the eve of World War II for a “Proletarian Military Policy,” for trade-union control of military training (for the imperialist armies). After all, Max Shachtman, the renegade from Trotskyism, polemically exposed what was wrong with the PMP, but he remained a centrist while the SWP, which upheld Trotsky’s policy, was revolutionary.

To equate this mistaken call by Trotsky with the SL/ICL’s “zealous apologies for the U.S. military intervention” in Haiti is grotesque. Are you saying that Trotsky betrayed the world’s workers with the PMP? Also, why do we say that the SWP remained the revolutionary party? In the first place, the error represented by the PMP was not equivalent to active support to U.S. imperialist takeover of a semi-colonial country. Moreover, on the key issue in dispute with Shachtman, the SWP defended the Soviet Union against imperialism, despite Stalin’s betrayals, while Shachtman with his “Third Camp” position refused to defend the bureaucratically degenerated workers state. The SL/ICL, however, had abandoned the call for defeat of its “own” imperialist rulers in war against semi-colonial Afghanistan (and then Iraq) years before its Haiti betrayal. This call, which it used to raise with regularity on the front page of WV, is now only mentioned as a whispered aside, if at all.

This desperate search for historical precedents is a textbook case of scholasticism, of a piece with WV’s convoluted comparison of the question of aid to Haiti today with the SWP’s line on aid to the Soviet Union in World War II. A clever (?) comeback can’t explain away a betrayal.

Your basic argument is that you repudiated your support for the U.S. imperialist invasion, and indeed “savagely” attacked it, so that supposedly proves you are still the revolutionaries. As in the Catholic church, it seems you can confess to all sorts of venial and even some mortal sins, but as long as you admit all (and don’t question the role of the Catholic church as the one true representative of Christianity), you can be absolved. But unlike religions, revolutionary politics is not a revealed doctrine and self-enclosed movement of the elect. The vanguard party has a dialectical relationship to the proletariat, representing both the fundamental interests of the class and the revolutionary program that is the product of historical experience. It has to earn its spurs by providing revolutionary leadership in the class struggle.

This was at the core of the fight over the ICL intervention in Germany, where you proclaimed the ICL was the (self-anointed) revolutionary leadership and declared comrades apostates for saying that we were struggling to become it. With your position of vociferous support to the U.S. invasion of Haiti, you grievously misled whoever still believed that you were the revolutionary leadership, which mercifully is not very many. Despite your pious proclamations today, how is one to know that what you say tomorrow isn’t a continuation of what you said yesterday? The only way to tell is if there is a revolutionary consistency to the program, but the ICL has been anything but consistent over the last decade and a half (just reread what you wrote about your last two conferences). And the program must be carried out. As we pointed out, even when the SL claimed to oppose imperialist occupation of Haiti, it was essentially meaningless: one short article at the time of the 2004 U.S./French/Canadian invasion. And then silence.

You can’t just say, “Oh, we really messed up, but we confessed and washed away our sins, so everything is okay.” Your members go right on vituperating at the Internationalist Group that the SL is “the real thing,” as if nothing had happened. How about a little recognition of what you have just done? The ICL statement says, “Without a public accounting and correction, we would be far down the road to our destruction as a revolutionary party.” Actually, the SL/ICL ceased some while ago to be a revolutionary party, as your own account of your betrayal in Haiti makes abundantly clear. What is true is that if you hadn’t repudiated your line of support for the U.S. imperialist invasion, you would be far down the road to outright reformism. By pulling back from that, you only demonstrate that the ICL is today, and has been for the last decade, a centrist political formation. The next zigzag, the next upheaval, the next revelation – these are only a matter of time.

It is hardly convincing to proclaim that, “Only through a savage indictment of our line can we avoid the alternative of going down the road that led the founders of the IG to defect from our organization in the pursuit of forces other than the proletariat” when you yourselves have had to admit that we upheld the class line as against your “zealous apologies” for U.S. imperialism.

Which brings us to a matter that keeps coming up in your voluminous polemics against the IG and League for the Fourth International (which you never mention). In this instance you say the founders of the Internationalist Group “defect[ed]” from the ICL, on other occasions you have claimed we “fled,” “broke from” or “departed from our ranks.” You resort to these circumlocutions in order to avoid dealing with the simple fact that the founders of the IG and the LFI were expelled from the ICL sections in the U.S., Mexico and France in a political purge. You thereby try to equate us with the misnamed International Bolshevik Tendency, whose founders quit, and indeed fled from, the ICL at the height of Cold War II, objecting to our hard-edged defense of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Poland. In the case of the founders of the IG, we were thrown out precisely because we wouldn’t quit.

Judging by its own description of its last three conferences, the SL/ICL seems to have a penchant for “correcting correct verdicts,” as Chinese Stalinist leader Deng Xiaoping put it. Stalin, too, made many zigzags during his time as a centrist. But he was based on the material reality of the bureaucracy that had at its disposal the enormous resources of the Soviet state. What does the SL have? When we read, in your account of your latest conference – which was dominated by a huge faction fight – that your “central task” is “to arm the party programmatically and theoretically, from Spartacist to the maintenance of our Central Committee archive,” the picture is that of an inwardly turned group voluntarily walled off from the class struggle. You can practically hear the embalming fluid dripping. But for all the importance of archival work, the ICL hasn’t been doing such a good job arming the party programmatically, has it?

The SL/ICL declares that, in this period, the struggles of the working class no longer have any link to the goal of socialist revolution. That supposed theoretical justification allows it to haughtily dismiss the possibility that sectors of the working class could be won to key aspects of the revolutionary program, or carry out actions that concretize them (like strikes against the war or “hot-cargoing”). This “revolutionary” rationale is really just an adaptation to what is, to the bourgeois order. As the ICL statement rightly stated, your line on Haiti was the “politics of the possible,” the phrase of Michael Harrington, the “socialist” advisor of Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson. This current has a long history going back to the French possibilists in the 1880s, who reflecting demoralization following the bloody 1871 defeat of the Paris Commune said one could only fight for what is possible, which was not workers revolution.

While other groups may limit themselves to bourgeois democratic demands or low-level trade-union struggle, the ICL line is “Stop the class struggle, I want to get off.” This is your particular version of the demoralization that affected large sectors of the left (even those who denied the Soviet Union was any kind of workers state) as a result of the victory of counterrevolution in the USSR. The SL/ICL pulled back from its support for the U.S. invasion when it saw its image in the mirror of reformism. But for those who do not wish to keep on gyrating in centrist confusion while insisting they “are” the revolutionary leadership, there must be a thorough-going search for the causes of the betrayal. Those genuinely looking for the roots of the SL’s pro-imperialist “politics of the possible” over Haiti would do well to examine the real record of its adaptations and capitulations to “its own” bourgeoisie over the past years.

Your leadership will undoubtedly tell you (and themselves) that this is the most serious challenge the ICL has faced. Indeed. However, the challenge is not to defend the revolutionary pretensions of the ICL at all costs, but to fight for revolutionary programmatic clarity. Of course, if you do undertake such a fight, you will doubtless soon discover the limits of the desired political rectification.

Internationalist Group/League for the Fourth International
8 May 2010

*From The International Marxist Tendency- The Struggle In Greece- a Guest Commentary

Click on the headline to link to a "In Defense Of Marxism" entry from the International Marxist Tendency on the current situation in Greece.

Markin comment:

This guest commentary makes the right point about the limits of a general strike strategy without the goal of a struggle for state power. Two thing stick out-immediately. We are in a pre-revolutionary situation in Greece, whether we are prepared for it or not. The need to create workers councils down at the base and for revolutionaries to fight for their program in them is paramount. Secondly, to break the hold of the Stalinist and ex-Stalinist parties on the Greek working class, and that sit just to the left of the governing Socialist Party, in order get on that road to socialism it is time for revolutionaries to call for the formation of a workers government. If the Stalinist and others will not do fight for that, we will. Given the relationship of forces this is a propaganda call today, but the situation in Greece is so fluid things could turn around quickly. For A KKE-SYRIZA government!