Wednesday, December 23, 2015

A View From The Left-Japan: Protests Against Militarism-Down With U.S.-Japan Counterrevolutionary Alliance!

Workers Vanguard No. 1080
11 December 2015
 
Japan: Protests Against Militarism-Down With U.S.-Japan Counterrevolutionary Alliance!
Defend China!
 

TOKYO—Amid widespread opposition and mass protests, the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) rammed new “National Security Laws” (NSL) through the Upper House of parliament in an overnight session on September 18. The NSL authorize the Japanese military to engage in combat overseas in support of an ally such as the United States or in pursuit of so-called collective security. Not without symbolism, the parliamentary session took place on the anniversary of the “Manchu Incident,” which signaled the start of the 1931 invasion of China by Japanese imperialism.
The central purpose of the current laws is to further strengthen the military encirclement of China, a bureaucratically deformed workers state created by the overthrow of capitalist rule in the 1949 Chinese Revolution. In this intent, Japan collaborates closely with U.S. imperialism. While overshadowed by the American military behemoth, the Japanese state has at its disposal a standing army—euphemistically called the “Self-Defense Forces”—of close to 250,000 active troops. With the seventh largest military budget in the world, Japan possesses top-notch military technology in some fields, such as ultra-silent submarines. For 2016, the government is proposing Japan’s highest military budget in the post-World War II (WWII) period.
If the hawkish Abe administration had counted on its anti-China scaremongering to line up a majority of the population to support or at least acquiesce to these laws, the task proved to be not so easy. An anti-government protest movement, of a scope quite unprecedented in recent years, developed in opposition to the warmongers. Protest rallies repeatedly mobilized tens of thousands, ranging from mothers’ organizations and kindergarten nurses to workers’ assemblies, with students playing a leading role in initiating a broad protest movement. Notably, support ratings for the Abe administration, very high for years, fell to 30 to 40 percent at the height of the protest movement over the summer.
The first protests last May were small but the events grew steadily. Over 100,000 people surrounded the parliament building on July 15, when the government forced the bills through the Lower House. Even after the legislation was passed, 25,000 people rallied against it on September 23. Smaller protests continue on a regular basis. The prominent protest group Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy (SEALDs) describes its aim as “bringing together the forces of liberalism” in Japan. These young people reject the bourgeoisie’s refrains about the need to sacrifice for the country, and many say they wish for a “peaceful world.”
Opponents of the drive toward militarism often base their arguments on the provisions of the postwar Japanese constitution, imposed on the country by the American occupation forces after Japan’s defeat in WWII. The Constitution’s Article 9 states that Japan forever renounces the use of force to settle international disputes. As communist opponents of the Japanese bourgeoisie, the Spartacist Group Japan of course opposes any reactionary revisions of the Constitution. But we forthrightly combat illusions that this document or any other piece of paper can “prevent war.” No capitalist ruling class in history has ever been constrained by its own laws from employing violent repression and war when it feels its own class interests are at stake.
While the protests’ dominant politics do not go beyond liberalism and pacifism, nonetheless it is a good thing that there is a widespread horror of imperialist war and distrust of the government. The SGJ has participated in a number of the protests, selling our press and discussing our views with workers and youth. We have explained that the working class worldwide needs to defend the Chinese workers state against the Japanese imperialists and have argued that militarism is inherent to capitalist rule and can only be finally defeated by socialist revolution.
The LDP had planned a series of activities to rally the population around the bills, but canceled many of them, recognizing they would likely draw more protesters than supporters. Anger against the new militarization laws was shown when Abe was booed in Okinawa when he attended a ceremony commemorating Japanese war dead. In Tokyo, a key leader of the LDP, Sadakazu Tanigaki, met with a similarly hostile reception on June 7. In the face of this opposition, on September 16, the government unleashed its cops against anti-militarism demonstrators, making numerous arrests. Protest leader Aki Okuda has reportedly received death threats.
The Abe government is following in the footsteps of the previous Democratic Party government (2009-12), which also pursued military buildup targeting China, most notably the Japanese government’s declaration nationalizing the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea in September 2012. The NSL are a message that in any military conflict with China or North Korea, which is also a deformed workers state, the Japanese bourgeoisie intends to bring its military power fully to bear in league with the U.S. imperialist forces. The new laws are part of the ongoing strengthening of the counterrevolutionary U.S.-Japan military alliance. The key sectors of big business stand fully behind Abe on this question, as declarations by the major bosses’ associations have shown. As communists, we say: Down with the NSL! Down with Japanese imperialism!
Defend the Gains of the Chinese Revolution!
The 1949 Chinese Revolution was a world-historic event that still defines the political situation in East Asia. It ended the rule of the rapacious indigenous capitalists and landlords and liberated the most populous nation on earth from imperialist subjugation. Enormous strides forward in the living standards of the masses, in education, health and nutrition as well as women’s access to society more broadly—especially in comparison to other poor countries that have remained capitalist, such as India—are living proof that a collectivized economy is superior to capitalism and represents a historical advance.
Resulting from the military victory of peasant-guerrilla forces led by the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in a civil war, the workers state issuing out of the 1949 Revolution was bureaucratically deformed from its inception. While bourgeois property relations were smashed and a collectivized economy established, the Revolution brought to political power a Stalinist, nationalist bureaucratic regime which is an obstacle to development toward socialism (a classless society) and which opposes the revolutionary conquest of power by workers in other lands.
Until it was destroyed by imperialist-backed counterrevolution in 1991-92, the Soviet Union was the industrial and military powerhouse of the states where capitalism had been overthrown and hence the chief target of the imperialist powers led by the U.S. Today, China has taken center stage in their counterrevolutionary designs. We unconditionally defend China against imperialism and internal counterrevolution and fight for proletarian political revolution to oust the Stalinist rulers. The best defense of China’s gains is workers revolutions in the imperialist centers. Since its emergence as an imperialist power in the late 19th century, the Japanese ruling class has longed to dominate China. Today this appetite is redoubled as the rulers in Tokyo and Washington seek to undo the 1949 Revolution and reconquer China for unrestricted imperialist plunder.
Okinawa Bases: Dagger Aimed at China
In recent years, the U.S. imperialists, even while bogged down in the Near East quagmire, have been moving some of their most advanced military hardware into the Asia-Pacific region. The important Yokosuka naval base is the home port for a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Hand in hand with the U.S., Tokyo is now moving to build new military bases in Okinawa and is creating an amphibious landing force directly targeting China. The frequent pretext is “defense of the Senkaku Islands.” We defend China’s control of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and also fully support China’s development projects—including military installations—in the South China Sea. This area has become a critical focal point of imperialist efforts to encircle China. This is recognized by such bourgeois ideologues as Robert D. Kaplan: “Just as German soil constituted the military front line of the Cold War, the waters of the South China Sea may constitute the military front line of the coming decades” (Asia’s Cauldron—The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific, 2014). This fall, the U.S. provocatively sent a Yokosuka-based American destroyer into the seas around the Spratly (Nansha) Islands to dramatically underline its opposition to China’s construction of new islands.
Following its victory in WWII, the U.S. moved immediately to establish direct military administration of Okinawa (in fact the island was returned to Japanese civil administration only in 1972, two decades after the rest of the country). As Chinese Communist forces were driving out the corrupt bourgeois forces of Chiang Kai-shek in the late 1940s, the U.S. fortified Okinawa as a military bastion, establishing bases often by direct confiscation of land. These bases were soon to be used in the counterrevolutionary wars against the workers and peasants in Korea and later in Vietnam.
U.S. military planners have long termed Okinawa the “keystone of the Pacific”; today as part of the anti-China buildup, its military significance, and that of the surrounding islands and islets, is growing. Now, Japanese imperialism is increasing its own presence with the building of new military bases as well as increasingly sharing military facilities with the U.S. In Henoko, Okinawa—against strong local opposition—the Japanese government is building a super-modern base for U.S. Marines. Today intended to be a launching pad for U.S. and Japanese marauding and provocations in the region, it is also a potential future base for the Japanese navy.
The island’s military bases have been a focus of popular protest by Okinawa’s people for decades. Demonstrations were often sparked by particular instances of U.S. soldiers’ male-chauvinist pig behavior toward local women, but the opposition on Okinawa to military bases is deeply rooted. Last summer, one LDP “study group” meeting in Tokyo openly mooted the suppression of the two main bourgeois newspapers in Okinawa, which reflect the dominant anti-bases sentiment, prompting a storm of protest. The passing of the NSL also puts wind in the sails of ultramilitarist right-wingers; indeed the night after the new laws were passed, a group of violent rightists, obviously in cahoots with the cops, assaulted anti-bases protesters at Henoko. We say: All U.S. military bases out! Down with the U.S./Japan Military Security Treaty! Smash the counterrevolutionary U.S.-Japan military alliance through workers revolution on both sides of the Pacific!
Pacifism and the Protest Movement
Today in Japan (as in the United States), the view is widespread that World War II was a “war against fascism” in which the Anglo-American “Allies” were fighting for “democracy.” But WWII, like WWI, was an interimperialist war fought for control of colonies, markets and spheres of influence. The late-arriving imperialist powers, Germany, Italy and Japan, had been mostly shut out of what they saw as their share of Asia and Africa.
Authentic Marxists opposed all the imperialist powers in WWII and fought for international working-class solidarity and for revolutionary struggle against the capitalist rulers at home. At the same time, our revolutionary forebears unconditionally defended the Soviet Union against the imperialists. They also championed the movements for national independence which emerged in the colonies while the imperialists were busy fighting each other. In contrast, after Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941, the parties of the Stalinized Communist movement were patriots and opponents of class struggle in the capitalist countries that were allied with the USSR; in the oppressed colonies of those Allied imperialists they opposed pursuing the struggle for national and social liberation.
When the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Japan was already defeated. The bombs, whose purpose was to showcase the new weapon in order to intimidate the Soviet Union, killed some 200,000 people. The war and Japan’s defeat instilled in broad layers of the Japanese population deep fear and hatred of war that remain important factors in politics today. One of the consequences is that there remains strong popular attachment to the “peace Constitution.” Although what the bourgeoisie really wants is the outright revision of the Constitution, it does not feel confident enough right now to go for that, which would require a referendum. From this hesitancy came the tactic of passing laws that “re-interpret” the Constitution.
Following Japan’s defeat in 1945, a powerful workers upsurge began, sparked by a strike by Chinese and Korean prisoners of war and forced laborers in the mines of Hokkaido (the northernmost Japanese island). There were massive strikes, which led in some industries and parts of the country to the establishment of “production control” committees—workers committees that took over factories and exercised, in different degrees, control over production, challenging bourgeois property rights. It was in this context that the U.S. occupiers basically wrote and imposed the Constitution on Japan.
The working people had suffered great material privation in the war, and the power structure had lost all authority through defeat. Thus, the top priority for the occupation was to ensure orderly capitalist rule in Japan. The Constitution naturally enshrined private property and, importantly, upheld the emperor system, a crucial institution of social stability, nominally at variance with the professed democratic values of America. As the strike wave was growing, in January 1946 General Douglas MacArthur, supreme commander of the occupation, wrote to Dwight Eisenhower (U.S. Army Chief of Staff) that Japan would collapse if the emperor were removed. At the same time, the occupation aimed to prevent the re-emergence of a challenge to U.S. power in the Pacific; hence the Constitution stipulates that Japan “will never” maintain “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential” (Article 9).
On the heels of the outbreak of strikes in September 1945 and with the aim of establishing stable worker-management relations, the occupation mandated new union rights for Japanese workers. The American overlords also voided the repressive laws that had illegalized Communists since 1925 and let the surviving leftist prisoners out of Japanese hellhole jails. The Japanese Communist Party (JCP) immediately began to play a prominent role in the labor struggles.
But the JCP used its authority to betray the strike wave in the name of supporting bourgeois “democracy.” In line with its position that Japan was some kind of semi-feudal society, it hailed the occupation for moving against “feudalistic elements” and painted it as playing a progressive role. This was a continuation of the JCP’s line of supporting the Allies in the war. Of course, the occupation soon shifted course: soon after the JCP’s betrayal of the 1947 general strike, a campaign was unleashed against leftists and workers’ leaders, with tens of thousands of militants fired between 1949 and 1951. The 1948 ban on strikes by government workers, who had been in the forefront of labor militancy, was an important step.
The repression escalated after the Chinese Revolution, and during the Korean War the JCP was proscribed and its leadership forced to go underground. Through this repression, and together with the willing collaboration of the Socialist Party to undermine Communist influence in the unions, the wave of labor militancy was defeated. After criticism from Moscow, in 1950 the JCP retrospectively disavowed its support for the U.S. occupation, but political support for bourgeois forces in the name of “democracy” remains the JCP’s program (as it remains that of other social-democratic reformists in Japan and worldwide).
Today the JCP works overtime to push the widespread view that the Constitution can prevent imperialist war and that a people’s movement can bring about a peaceful Japan. These illusions are suicidal for the working class. Imperialism and militarism are inherent in the capitalist system; to put an end to imperialist war, a series of workers revolutions is necessary, which will rip the means of production out of the hands of the capitalists and establish an international planned economy.
After the 1949 Chinese Revolution, American policy toward Japan took a U-turn. Formerly seen mostly as a rival for economic domination of the Pacific region, Japan became the key ally in the U.S. crusade to stop the “Communist menace” in Asia. Thus, based on a directive by the U.S. occupiers, the Japanese government established the forerunner of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) in 1950 during the Korean War. Imperialist rivalry, which can never truly be eliminated, was subordinated to unity against China and the USSR and against the threat of further anti-capitalist upheavals, such as would indeed break out in Korea and Vietnam. The postwar economic recovery really took off when Japan became the quartermasters for the U.S. forces in the Korean War. On the political level, anti-Communist cooperation remains the dominating factor in U.S./Japan relations up to today.
For Class Struggle Against the Bourgeoisie!
A few days before the government pushed through the NSL, it passed in parliament an important economic attack on the working class: legislation to further extend temporary work. These laws eliminate any time limit for a company employing a temp worker for a specific job (there had been a limit of three years). They favor the increasing use of temporary workers instead of full-time employees with benefits, greater job security and union rights. While there were small protests and clear anger among workers, the bureaucrats at the head of the trade unions, devoted to the lie of a shared “national interest” of workers and bosses, did not mount any serious opposition to these laws.
At the same time, the demonstrations against the new war laws have brought out workers, with union banners present at many protests. Anti-NSL sentiment has been shown in some strategic industries such as shipbuilding and steel. Some unions affiliated to Rengo, the largest union federation, have issued protest declarations, while a number of unions affiliated to the JCP-led Zenroren federation formally voted to empower their leaderships to declare a political strike in opposition to the laws.
The Zenroren-affiliated health workers union, which has about 170,000 members, motivated its opposition by noting that if a war breaks out its members would immediately be directly involved. The Zenroren-affiliated metal workers union JMIU (about 9,000 members) voted to authorize calling a strike and held meetings in workplaces around the country, where non-organized workers also joined their assemblies. It is clear that the pressure from the base must have been very strong; the JCP’s newspaper Akahata quotes a worker: “We were waiting for the union to propose some action.” However, the class-collaborationist bureaucracies of all three trade-union federations (in addition to the above mentioned two there is also Zenrokyo, associated with the Social Democratic Party) are dead set against really mobilizing the power of the working class. Thus the leadership of the JMIU on September 9 declared a token “strike” for half an hour in one company, involving a couple of dozen workers. This action demanded: stop the war laws and the law on temporary jobs.
The reformist leaderships at the top of the unions must be defeated politically; revolutionaries must fight in the unions for a new leadership on a program of class struggle and political opposition to the capitalist rulers. The sentiment against the NSL needs to be turned toward mobilizing the working class in class struggle against the capitalist class and their war machine. A small but powerful example was the workers action that occurred in 2001 in the port of Sasebo when about 200 dockworkers organized in Zenkowan (All Japan Dockworkers Union) refused to load war matériel for the Japanese navy heading to support the U.S. imperialists in their war in Afghanistan. Such actions of international solidarity point toward an understanding of the power of the working class to destroy the rule of the bourgeoisie.
The Fight for Revolutionary Leadership
There is a section of bourgeois opinion that opposes the aggressive militaristic anti-China course of the current government from the standpoint that it endangers Japanese business interests in China. This tendency is represented in the main by the Democratic Party but also includes such figures as Uichiro Niwa (ex-boss of the trading giant Itochu and former ambassador to China) and LDP former honcho Makoto Koga. While at present they have little direct influence on government policy, this could change. In fact, the Democratic Party is no less militaristic than the LDP, but it prefers to maintain the fiction of a “defensive” military and fears becoming drawn into far-flung military conflicts by the U.S. Thus the Democratic Party together with the right-wing bourgeois “Japan Restoration Party” had introduced militarization bills into the last parliamentary session, seeking to strengthen the collaboration of the SDF and coast guard in waters surrounding Japan, targeting China.
Some elements on the right of the bourgeois spectrum are criticizing Abe for not seeking open revision of the Constitution. They are represented by such academics as Keio University professor Kobayashi Setsu, who is concerned that Abe’s method is causing “instability in law”—i.e., that any government might be able to change the “interpretation” according to its whim (as Abe has done). The JCP was explicit in seeking to bloc not only with the Democratic Party but even with openly pro-militarist academics based on common opposition to Abe changing the Constitution. The day the government passed the new laws, the JCP leadership issued a call for a new “People’s coalition government” with the sole aim of rescinding them. This includes an offer of electoral collaboration.
The SEALDs are also aggressively pushing for an “alliance of opposition parties.” Thus, they held a meeting on November 19 with the heads of five opposition parties including the Democratic Party, the JCP and a hardcore neoliberal party. In Marxist terms, this is a popular front—a bloc containing both reformist working-class groups and bourgeois political formations, which aims to take over the reins of a capitalist government. Naturally the bourgeois elements will ensure that the program of any such class-collaborationist formation will be a capitalist program.
In pursuit of this appetite, the JCP assures the bourgeoisie that if it were ever allowed to participate in government, it would fully support Japanese imperialism. Thus JCP leader Kazuo Shii, in a major interview in the bourgeois daily Nikkei Shimbun (October 3), pledged not to make any moves against the U.S.-Japan military alliance (although abrogation of that treaty is in the JCP’s program). Shii also pledged: “We will co-exist with the Emperor system. There is no need to worry.” The JCP has missed no opportunity to repeat how they don’t want “our” SDF forces in “harm’s way”; i.e., the SDF should only “defend” Japan and “not get involved in the U.S.’s wars.” In this vein, JCP head Shii gave a major press conference at a critical time of the protests in June, stressing that “Even if the JCP takes over the reins of government, we will maintain the SDF.”
The Chukaku group postures to the left of the JCP and has been running polemics against the JCP’s social-patriotic declarations (Zenshin, 6 July). Chukaku attacks the JCP position that the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands are “Japanese territory,” correctly noting that this places the JCP on the same plane as Abe in using the supposed “Chinese threat” as justification for further militarization. However, to point to these facts without taking a position in defense of the Chinese workers state is a capitulation to Japanese imperialism.
Chukaku also puts forward the position that the Constitution, which enshrines capitalist private property and the reactionary emperor system, is not bourgeois. It says the Japanese constitution as represented by Article 9 “was a by-product of revolution, forced on the ruling class in exchange for the defeat of the post-war revolution.” Chukaku claims that the purpose of the constitutional revision that the LDP has sought for decades is “to establish the absolute rule by capital”—as though the present system had any other class character! Their occasional use of “revolutionary” rhetoric is a veneer to obscure their real program, which is merely to fight for defense of the Constitution, which is also the central concern of the JCP.
In political struggle against reformism, what is needed is a revolutionary workers party. Such a party would fight to win the working class and youthful protesters to the understanding that to defeat militarism and break the power of imperialism there is no road short of workers revolution which will expropriate the capitalists as a class and establish a workers state as part of the construction of an internationally planned economy. This program of international revolution animated the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and the early Communist International under the leadership of V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky. This is our tradition and the program we stand on today. Reforge the Fourth International!

A View From The Left- Anti-Abortion Terror in Colorado-Defend Planned Parenthood! -For Free Abortion on Demand!

Workers Vanguard No. 1080
11 December 2015
 
Anti-Abortion Terror in Colorado-Defend Planned Parenthood! -For Free Abortion on Demand!
 

One day after Thanksgiving, gunman Robert Lewis Dear opened fire at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, killing three and injuring nine others. Eleven people have now been murdered by anti-abortion fanatics since 1993. The killer’s rant “no more baby parts” belied the disingenuous claims by the media and politicians that the motives of the attack were unknown. The triggerman may be a lone evangelical recluse and wife beater, yet his script was written by the preachers from the pulpits and the circus of Republican presidential candidates leading the crusade against women’s right to abortion. This summer’s video sting operation by the deceitfully named Center for Medical Progress launched the lying campaign that Planned Parenthood’s legal and medically vital practice of making available fetal tissue for life-saving research was akin to “harvesting” human brains for profit. With anti-abortion terrorists further emboldened, in the last few months Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington and California have been attacked by arsonists while others received bomb threats.
Left in the shadows following the slaughter in Colorado is the daily violence against abortion providers by bigoted fanatics. This reality is powerfully documented in the recent book Living in the Crosshairs—The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism (2015) by lawyers David Cohen and Krysten Connon:
“Because of their work, abortion providers have been murdered, shot, kidnapped, assaulted, stalked, and subjected to death threats. Their clinics have been bombed, attacked with noxious chemicals, invaded, vandalized, burglarized, and set ablaze. Individual abortion providers have been picketed at home and have received harassing mail and phone calls. Their family members have been followed where they work, their children have been protested at school, and their neighbors’ privacy has been invaded.”
The ongoing legislative assault on abortion rights serves to legitimize such tactics of terror and intimidation. For decades, Democrats, liberals and feminists have offered up one concession after another to the right wing, resulting in the chipping away of access to abortion. In turn, anti-woman bigots have launched deeper legislative offensives aiming to erect insurmountable barriers to abortion access, such as mandatory waiting periods and parental consent, and extreme TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws. While remaining nominally legal, the right to abortion has been effectively gutted: 89 percent of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider, and only 14 percent of obstetrician-gynecologists perform the procedure.
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health care in the country. Among the plethora of services (including education) it provides, abortions account for only 3 percent. Texas and a handful of other states, including Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana, have moved to end Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Those most hurt by the offensive to defund the organization are the poor, minority and working-class women, as well as young teenagers, who are in desperate need of affordable health care and who make up the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s patients. While most news outlets centered their condolences on the police officer killed during the stand-off, the real face of the victims of the witchhunt against Planned Parenthood is shown by the fact that the other two killed were a black man and a Hawaiian woman, who were accompanying friends to the facility.
There is a crucial need to defend Planned Parenthood and the few besieged abortion facilities remaining. In the 1990s, liberal and left-wing activists mobilized in mass clinic defense actions at the height of Operation Rescue’s nationwide anti-abortion terror campaign. The Spartacist League and its supporters participated and noted that if such mobilizations were bolstered by the power of labor, they would make a real show of strength in support of women’s rights. We pointed out that the only thing capable of stopping “god-fearing” reactionaries from spreading their murderous attacks against poor and working women was to put some real “fear of god” into them. Yet bourgeois feminist groups such as NOW and NARAL consciously demobilized clinic defense, diverting the struggle into pressuring the false friends in the Democratic Party to implement so-called buffer-zone laws to keep anti-abortion protesters at a distance from clinics. Such laws have not stopped the mobs besieging staff and patients. As we emphasized from the start, these laws are also used to arrest clinic defenders.
Abortion is a simple medical procedure, safer than childbirth. But because it provides women with some control over whether or not to have children, abortion is seen as a threat to the patriarchal family, which is the main source of women’s oppression and a key prop of capitalist class rule. The regulation of abortion and contraception—both of which open the possibility of women being able to have sex without having children—has historically been a powerful weapon in the hands of organized religion and the capitalist state to enforce conservatism and social conformity. Unrestricted access to both abortion and contraception, as part of quality health care for all that is free at the point of delivery, is a vital necessity for women and for working people as a whole. For free abortion on demand!
Democrats and Republicans: Enemies of Women
Loathing the right-wing bible-thumpers of the Republican Party is an act of sanity, but support to the Democrats is no way to defend abortion rights. The first major attack on abortion rights following the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling took place under the “born again” Christian and Democrat Jimmy Carter, who in 1977 signed into law the Hyde Amendment that eliminated abortion coverage from the Medicaid health plans of 23 million poor women. It has been renewed every year, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House. Cut from the same cloth, in 2010 Obama signed an executive order ensuring that federal funds from his signature Affordable Care Act are not used for abortion.
Back in 1992, the Clinton of the male persuasion won the presidency with support from women for his pro-Roe stance, and then proceeded to carry out a relentless campaign aimed particularly at poor and black women. During Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, welfare for mothers was axed, the number of abortion providers plummeted, and state after state passed laws restricting abortion rights. Current Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, while defending Planned Parenthood in words, constantly panders to the religious right. She has stated that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.” The Democrats’ “pro-choice” position is at best hollow, catering to middle-class and bourgeois women who have always had the means to get an abortion when they need to. Skilled in spouting family values moralism, the Democrats pander to fundamentalist reactionaries whose goal is to keep women “in their place,” i.e., subordinate to men as mere baby-making vessels.
Feminists keep pushing the repeat button when it comes to relying on bourgeois politicians and the federal government to supposedly protect women. Following the Colorado Springs attack, NARAL issued a petition demanding that the Department of Justice “investigate clinic violence as domestic terrorism.” It is of course crystalline hypocrisy that the U.S. rulers do not deem anti-abortion attacks terror because Christians, not Muslims, carry them out. But anything that strengthens the capitalist state’s “war on terror” will be another dagger aimed at the working class, the oppressed and immigrants, who are already in the crosshairs of the government, its cops and courts. Since the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, homegrown white supremacists and anti-government extremists have perpetrated more acts of terrorism on U.S. soil than Islamic jihadists. Nonetheless, those the state targets as “domestic terrorists” continue to be leftists, militant trade unionists, black radicals and Muslims.
President Obama’s main contribution to the abortion “debate” has been to seize on the Colorado Springs attack to push for more gun control. Gun control ensures that the beleaguered abortion providers are disarmed, effectively denying their right of self-defense in the face of anti-abortion terror. Meanwhile, the “army of god” zealots and crazies will still be able to get their hands on weapons. As Living in the Crosshairs quoted Dr. Warren Hern, a late-term abortionist based in Colorado: “Our adversaries are at war with us. They will stop at nothing, up to and including assassination.” Knowing that the fortified walls and security entrances of a clinic cannot guarantee immunity from a fanatic’s gun, many providers are accustomed to going to work armed and wearing bulletproof vests. All of them recall the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller at his church. For over 35 years, Tiller heroically provided abortions to women, including late in pregnancy, despite massive legal and extralegal harassment.
Innocent people are killed precisely because they are unarmed and defenseless in the face of reactionary killers incited by the bigotry and inequality which pervade every aspect of American society. Every day, abortion clinic workers, as well as patients and their volunteer escorts, have to run a gauntlet of anti-woman bigots on their own without assurance of protection by law enforcement. Living in the Crosshairs provides accounts from abortion providers in some areas whose complaints of harassment have been willfully ignored and from other providers who have witnessed collaboration between cops and anti-abortion protesters. Placing more restrictions or outright bans on gun ownership tramples on the population’s basic rights while allowing the capitalist state—with its police and military—to have a monopoly of violence and to further consolidate its repressive powers.
Racist, Anti-Woman Homegrown Terror
In this racist and anti-woman capitalist society, the onslaught against abortion is directly linked to generalized social reaction, particularly against black people. The legal right to abortion was won as a result of the massive social struggles of the 1960s and ’70s, the civil rights movement and the radicalization of the Vietnam War years. Following those upheavals, whole sections of the U.S. bourgeoisie sought to reverse the limited gains won by both women and black people. Since the early 1980s, this reactionary backlash has been spearheaded by the Christian fundamentalist right. While the current focus of this crusade is the war on women’s right to abortion, the right-wing evangelical movement, which became politically mainstream during the Carter administration, came to prominence through defending racial segregation at private Christian schools.
It is no coincidence that the states of the former Confederacy have some of the most restrictive abortion laws. A week before the Planned Parenthood carnage, a black abortion provider, Dr. Willie Parker, wrote a New York Times opinion piece (18 November) describing the immense difficulty women have in obtaining abortions in the South, where they often travel hundreds of miles for an appointment. Dr. Parker is among the shrinking number of doctors willing to perform abortions in the poorest state of the country, Mississippi, where only one clinic remains. His courageous commitment to women’s rights is all the more striking because it goes against the black church, which promotes social backwardness around issues of sex, especially abortion.
Dr. Parker noted: “A majority of pregnancies in the South are unintended. More than a quarter end in abortion.... In some areas of Mississippi, the rate of death for black pregnant women mirrors that of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” Impoverished and desperate conditions will continue to force poor, black and immigrant women into squalid back-alley abortions. A 2013 law restricting abortions in Texas has forced the closure of around half of the 40 clinics in the state. Since then, hundreds of thousands of women there have tried to self-induce abortions, using potentially unsafe methods without medical supervision.
The whittling away of abortion rights exemplifies the fact that reforms benefiting the working class and the oppressed can easily be reversed under capitalism. Abortion must be defended, but the right to abortion does not mean equality for women in the broader sense. Contrary to the reformist left and the feminists, we revolutionary Marxists understand that women’s liberation cannot be achieved by relying on the ruling class, its political parties or its state: it requires a revolutionary transformation of society through a workers revolution, which will sweep away the system of capitalist exploitation to which black oppression and women’s subordination is integral. Only after capitalism is overturned can we lay the basis to build a society where women will be able to have children (or not) with full social support including free quality childcare and medical care including contraception and abortion.

From The Archives Of Marxism- Marxism and Religion

Workers Vanguard No. 1080
11 December 2015
TROTSKY
LENIN
Marxism and Religion
(Quote of the Week)
 

In this holiday season of vainglorious splurging by the wealthy, the millions who live in homelessness and desperate poverty are offered a smidgen of charity and heapings of religious consolation. As Karl Marx pointed out long ago, the struggle against religious illusions must be part of the struggle against the material conditions which produce them.
The basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.
—Karl Marx, “Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law” (1844)
 

From the Archives of Marxism-“Karl Marx” by V.I. Lenin-Part Six

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From the Archives of Marxism-
Workers Vanguard No. 1078
13 November 2015
 
From the Archives of Marxism-“Karl Marx” by V.I. Lenin-Part Six
 
We print below the concluding section of Lenin’s outline of Marx’s life and ideas—from dialectical materialism to surplus value to socialism. The first five installments were published in WV Nos. 1073-1077 (4 and 18 September and 2, 16 and 30 October).
 
Tactics of the Class Struggle of the Proletariat
 
After examining, as early as 1844-45, one of the main shortcomings in the earlier materialism, namely, its inability to understand the conditions or appreciate the importance of practical revolutionary activity, Marx, along with his theoretical work, devoted unremitting attention, throughout his lifetime, to the tactical problems of the proletariat’s class struggle. An immense amount of material bearing on this is contained in all the works of Marx, particularly in the four volumes of his correspondence with Engels, published in 1913. This material is still far from having been brought together, collected, examined and studied. We shall therefore have to confine ourselves here to the most general and brief remarks, emphasising that Marx justly considered that, without this aspect, materialism is incomplete, one-sided, and lifeless. The fundamental task of proletarian tactics was defined by Marx in strict conformity with all the postulates of his materialist-dialectical Weltanschauung [worldview]. Only an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of an advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are regarded, not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (whose laws are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class). Motion, in its turn, is regarded from the standpoint, not only of the past, but also of the future, and that not in the vulgar sense it is understood in by the “evolutionists,” who see only slow changes, but dialectically: “...in developments of such magnitude twenty years are no more than a day,” Marx wrote to Engels, “though later on there may come days in which twenty years are embodied” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 127). At each stage of development, at each moment, proletarian tactics must take account of this objectively inevitable dialectics of human history, on the one hand, utilising the periods of political stagnation or of sluggish, so-called “peaceful” development in order to develop the class-consciousness, strength and militancy of the advanced class, and, on the other hand, directing all the work of this utilisation towards the “ultimate aim” of that class’s advance, towards creating in it the ability to find practical solutions for great tasks in the great days, in which “twenty years are embodied.” Two of Marx’s arguments are of special importance in this connection: one of these is contained in The Poverty of Philosophy and concerns the economic struggle and economic organisations of the proletariat; the other is contained in the Communist Manifesto and concerns the political tasks of the proletariat. The former runs as follows: “Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance—combination.... Combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups...and in face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them [i.e., the workers—Lenin] than that of wages.... In this struggle—a veritable civil war—all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.” Here we have the programme and tactics of the economic struggle and of the trade union movement for several decades to come, for all the lengthy period in which the proletariat will prepare its forces for the “coming battle.” All this should be compared with numerous references by Marx and Engels to the example of the British labour movement, showing how industrial “prosperity” leads to attempts “to buy the proletariat” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, p. 136), to divert them from the struggle; how this prosperity in general “demoralises the workers” (Vol. 2, p. 218); how the British proletariat becomes “bourgeoisified”—“this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie” (Vol. 2, p. 290); how its “revolutionary energy” oozes away (Vol. 3, p. 124); how it will be necessary to wait a more or less lengthy space of time before “the British workers will free themselves from their apparent bourgeois infection” (Vol. 3, p. 127); how the British labour movement “lacks the mettle of the Chartists” (1866; Vol. 3, p. 305); how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (in reference to [George] Holyoak[e], Vol. 4, p. 209); how, owing to Britain’s monopoly, and as long as that monopoly lasts, “the British workingman will not budge” (Vol. 4, p. 433). The tactics of the economic struggle, in connection with the general course (and outcome) of the working-class movement, are considered here from a remarkably broad, comprehensive, dialectical, and genuinely revolutionary standpoint.
The Communist Manifesto advanced a fundamental Marxist principle on the tactics of the political struggle: “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.” That was why, in 1848, Marx supported the party of the “agrarian revolution” in Poland, “that party which brought about the Cracow insurrection in 1846.” In Germany, Marx, in 1848 and 1849, supported the extreme revolutionary democrats, and subsequently never retracted what he had then said about tactics. He regarded the German bourgeoisie as an element which was “inclined from the very beginning to betray the people” (only an alliance with the peasantry could have enabled the bourgeoisie to completely achieve its aims) “and compromise with the crowned representatives of the old society.” Here is Marx’s summing-up of the German bourgeoisie’s class position in the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution—an analysis which, incidentally, is a sample of a materialism that examines society in motion, and, moreover, not only from the aspect of a motion that is backward: “Without faith in itself, without faith in the people, grumbling at those above, trembling before those below...intimidated by the world storm...no energy in any respect, plagiarism in every respect...without initiative...an execrable old man who saw himself doomed to guide and deflect the first youthful impulses of a robust people in his own senile interests....” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848; see Literarischer Nachlass, Vol. 3, p. 212.) About twenty years later, Marx declared, in a letter to Engels (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 224), that the Revolution of 1848 had failed because the bourgeoisie had preferred peace with slavery to the mere prospect of a fight for freedom. When the revolutionary period of 1848‑49 ended, Marx opposed any attempt to play at revolution (his struggle against [Karl] Schapper and [August] Willich), and insisted on the ability to work in the new phase, which in a quasi-“peaceful” way was preparing new revolutions. The spirit in which Marx wanted this work to be conducted is to be seen in his appraisal of the situation in Germany in 1856, the darkest period of reaction: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 2, p. 108). While the democratic (bourgeois) revolution in Germany was uncompleted, Marx focussed every attention, in the tactics of the socialist proletariat, on developing the democratic energy of the peasantry. He held that [Ferdinand] Lassalle’s attitude was “objectively...a betrayal of the whole workers’ movement to Prussia” (Vol. 3, p. 210), incidentally because Lassalle was tolerant of the Junkers [landowning aristocrats] and Prussian nationalism. “In a predominantly agricultural country,” Engels wrote in 1865, in exchanging views with Marx on their forthcoming joint declaration in the press, “...it is dastardly to make an exclusive attack on the bourgeoisie in the name of the industrial proletariat but never to devote a word to the patriarchal exploitation of the rural proletariat under the lash of the great feudal aristocracy” (Vol. 3, p. 217). From 1864 to 1870, when the period of the consummation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Germany was coming to an end, a period in which the Prussian and Austrian exploiting classes were struggling to complete that revolution in one way or another from above, Marx not only rebuked Lassalle, who was coquetting with [German chancellor Otto von] Bismarck, but also corrected [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, who had lapsed into “Austrophilism” and a defence of particularism; Marx demanded revolutionary tactics which would combat with equal ruthlessness both Bismarck and the Austrophiles, tactics which would not be adapted to the “victor”—the Prussian Junker—but would immediately renew the revolutionary struggle against him also in the conditions created by the Prussian military victories (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, pp. 134, 136, 147, 179, 204, 210, 215, 418, 437, 440-41). In the celebrated Address of the International of September 9, 1870, Marx warned the French proletariat against an untimely uprising, but when an uprising nevertheless took place (1871), Marx enthusiastically hailed the revolutionary initiative of the masses, who were “storming heaven” (Marx’s letter to [Ludwig] Kugelmann). From the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism, the defeat of revolutionary action in that situation, as in many others, was a lesser evil, in the general course and outcome of the proletarian struggle, than the abandonment of a position already occupied, than surrender without battle. Such a surrender would have demoralised the proletariat and weakened its militancy. While fully appreciating the use of legal means of struggle during periods of political stagnation and the domination of bourgeois legality, Marx, in 1877 and 1878, following the passage of the Anti-Socialist Law, sharply condemned [Johann] Most’s “revolutionary phrases”; no less sharply, if not more so, did he attack the opportunism that had for a time come over the official Social-Democratic Party, which did not at once display resoluteness, firmness, revolutionary spirit and a readiness to resort to an illegal struggle in response to the Anti-Socialist Law (Briefwechsel, Vol. 4, pp. 397, 404, 418, 422, 424; cf. also letters to [Friedrich] Sorge).
“Karl Marx” by V.I. Lenin
Part Six
We print below the concluding section of Lenin’s outline of Marx’s life and ideas—from dialectical materialism to surplus value to socialism. The first five installments were published in WV Nos. 1073-1077 (4 and 18 September and 2, 16 and 30 October).
Tactics of the Class Struggle of the Proletariat
After examining, as early as 1844-45, one of the main shortcomings in the earlier materialism, namely, its inability to understand the conditions or appreciate the importance of practical revolutionary activity, Marx, along with his theoretical work, devoted unremitting attention, throughout his lifetime, to the tactical problems of the proletariat’s class struggle. An immense amount of material bearing on this is contained in all the works of Marx, particularly in the four volumes of his correspondence with Engels, published in 1913. This material is still far from having been brought together, collected, examined and studied. We shall therefore have to confine ourselves here to the most general and brief remarks, emphasising that Marx justly considered that, without this aspect, materialism is incomplete, one-sided, and lifeless. The fundamental task of proletarian tactics was defined by Marx in strict conformity with all the postulates of his materialist-dialectical Weltanschauung [worldview]. Only an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of an advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are regarded, not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (whose laws are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class). Motion, in its turn, is regarded from the standpoint, not only of the past, but also of the future, and that not in the vulgar sense it is understood in by the “evolutionists,” who see only slow changes, but dialectically: “...in developments of such magnitude twenty years are no more than a day,” Marx wrote to Engels, “though later on there may come days in which twenty years are embodied” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 127). At each stage of development, at each moment, proletarian tactics must take account of this objectively inevitable dialectics of human history, on the one hand, utilising the periods of political stagnation or of sluggish, so-called “peaceful” development in order to develop the class-consciousness, strength and militancy of the advanced class, and, on the other hand, directing all the work of this utilisation towards the “ultimate aim” of that class’s advance, towards creating in it the ability to find practical solutions for great tasks in the great days, in which “twenty years are embodied.” Two of Marx’s arguments are of special importance in this connection: one of these is contained in The Poverty of Philosophy and concerns the economic struggle and economic organisations of the proletariat; the other is contained in the Communist Manifesto and concerns the political tasks of the proletariat. The former runs as follows: “Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance—combination.... Combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups...and in face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them [i.e., the workers—Lenin] than that of wages.... In this struggle—a veritable civil war—all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.” Here we have the programme and tactics of the economic struggle and of the trade union movement for several decades to come, for all the lengthy period in which the proletariat will prepare its forces for the “coming battle.” All this should be compared with numerous references by Marx and Engels to the example of the British labour movement, showing how industrial “prosperity” leads to attempts “to buy the proletariat” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, p. 136), to divert them from the struggle; how this prosperity in general “demoralises the workers” (Vol. 2, p. 218); how the British proletariat becomes “bourgeoisified”—“this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie” (Vol. 2, p. 290); how its “revolutionary energy” oozes away (Vol. 3, p. 124); how it will be necessary to wait a more or less lengthy space of time before “the British workers will free themselves from their apparent bourgeois infection” (Vol. 3, p. 127); how the British labour movement “lacks the mettle of the Chartists” (1866; Vol. 3, p. 305); how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (in reference to [George] Holyoak[e], Vol. 4, p. 209); how, owing to Britain’s monopoly, and as long as that monopoly lasts, “the British workingman will not budge” (Vol. 4, p. 433). The tactics of the economic struggle, in connection with the general course (and outcome) of the working-class movement, are considered here from a remarkably broad, comprehensive, dialectical, and genuinely revolutionary standpoint.
The Communist Manifesto advanced a fundamental Marxist principle on the tactics of the political struggle: “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.” That was why, in 1848, Marx supported the party of the “agrarian revolution” in Poland, “that party which brought about the Cracow insurrection in 1846.” In Germany, Marx, in 1848 and 1849, supported the extreme revolutionary democrats, and subsequently never retracted what he had then said about tactics. He regarded the German bourgeoisie as an element which was “inclined from the very beginning to betray the people” (only an alliance with the peasantry could have enabled the bourgeoisie to completely achieve its aims) “and compromise with the crowned representatives of the old society.” Here is Marx’s summing-up of the German bourgeoisie’s class position in the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution—an analysis which, incidentally, is a sample of a materialism that examines society in motion, and, moreover, not only from the aspect of a motion that is backward: “Without faith in itself, without faith in the people, grumbling at those above, trembling before those below...intimidated by the world storm...no energy in any respect, plagiarism in every respect...without initiative...an execrable old man who saw himself doomed to guide and deflect the first youthful impulses of a robust people in his own senile interests....” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848; see Literarischer Nachlass, Vol. 3, p. 212.) About twenty years later, Marx declared, in a letter to Engels (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 224), that the Revolution of 1848 had failed because the bourgeoisie had preferred peace with slavery to the mere prospect of a fight for freedom. When the revolutionary period of 1848‑49 ended, Marx opposed any attempt to play at revolution (his struggle against [Karl] Schapper and [August] Willich), and insisted on the ability to work in the new phase, which in a quasi-“peaceful” way was preparing new revolutions. The spirit in which Marx wanted this work to be conducted is to be seen in his appraisal of the situation in Germany in 1856, the darkest period of reaction: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 2, p. 108). While the democratic (bourgeois) revolution in Germany was uncompleted, Marx focussed every attention, in the tactics of the socialist proletariat, on developing the democratic energy of the peasantry. He held that [Ferdinand] Lassalle’s attitude was “objectively...a betrayal of the whole workers’ movement to Prussia” (Vol. 3, p. 210), incidentally because Lassalle was tolerant of the Junkers [landowning aristocrats] and Prussian nationalism. “In a predominantly agricultural country,” Engels wrote in 1865, in exchanging views with Marx on their forthcoming joint declaration in the press, “...it is dastardly to make an exclusive attack on the bourgeoisie in the name of the industrial proletariat but never to devote a word to the patriarchal exploitation of the rural proletariat under the lash of the great feudal aristocracy” (Vol. 3, p. 217). From 1864 to 1870, when the period of the consummation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Germany was coming to an end, a period in which the Prussian and Austrian exploiting classes were struggling to complete that revolution in one way or another from above, Marx not only rebuked Lassalle, who was coquetting with [German chancellor Otto von] Bismarck, but also corrected [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, who had lapsed into “Austrophilism” and a defence of particularism; Marx demanded revolutionary tactics which would combat with equal ruthlessness both Bismarck and the Austrophiles, tactics which would not be adapted to the “victor”—the Prussian Junker—but would immediately renew the revolutionary struggle against him also in the conditions created by the Prussian military victories (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, pp. 134, 136, 147, 179, 204, 210, 215, 418, 437, 440-41). In the celebrated Address of the International of September 9, 1870, Marx warned the French proletariat against an untimely uprising, but when an uprising nevertheless took place (1871), Marx enthusiastically hailed the revolutionary initiative of the masses, who were “storming heaven” (Marx’s letter to [Ludwig] Kugelmann). From the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism, the defeat of revolutionary action in that situation, as in many others, was a lesser evil, in the general course and outcome of the proletarian struggle, than the abandonment of a position already occupied, than surrender without battle. Such a surrender would have demoralised the proletariat and weakened its militancy. While fully appreciating the use of legal means of struggle during periods of political stagnation and the domination of bourgeois legality, Marx, in 1877 and 1878, following the passage of the Anti-Socialist Law, sharply condemned [Johann] Most’s “revolutionary phrases”; no less sharply, if not more so, did he attack the opportunism that had for a time come over the official Social-Democratic Party, which did not at once display resoluteness, firmness, revolutionary spirit and a readiness to resort to an illegal struggle in response to the Anti-Socialist Law (Briefwechsel, Vol. 4, pp. 397, 404, 418, 422, 424; cf. also letters to [Friedrich] Sorge).
“Karl Marx” by V.I. Lenin
Part Six
We print below the concluding section of Lenin’s outline of Marx’s life and ideas—from dialectical materialism to surplus value to socialism. The first five installments were published in WV Nos. 1073-1077 (4 and 18 September and 2, 16 and 30 October).
Tactics of the Class Struggle of the Proletariat
After examining, as early as 1844-45, one of the main shortcomings in the earlier materialism, namely, its inability to understand the conditions or appreciate the importance of practical revolutionary activity, Marx, along with his theoretical work, devoted unremitting attention, throughout his lifetime, to the tactical problems of the proletariat’s class struggle. An immense amount of material bearing on this is contained in all the works of Marx, particularly in the four volumes of his correspondence with Engels, published in 1913. This material is still far from having been brought together, collected, examined and studied. We shall therefore have to confine ourselves here to the most general and brief remarks, emphasising that Marx justly considered that, without this aspect, materialism is incomplete, one-sided, and lifeless. The fundamental task of proletarian tactics was defined by Marx in strict conformity with all the postulates of his materialist-dialectical Weltanschauung [worldview]. Only an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of an advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are regarded, not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (whose laws are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class). Motion, in its turn, is regarded from the standpoint, not only of the past, but also of the future, and that not in the vulgar sense it is understood in by the “evolutionists,” who see only slow changes, but dialectically: “...in developments of such magnitude twenty years are no more than a day,” Marx wrote to Engels, “though later on there may come days in which twenty years are embodied” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 127). At each stage of development, at each moment, proletarian tactics must take account of this objectively inevitable dialectics of human history, on the one hand, utilising the periods of political stagnation or of sluggish, so-called “peaceful” development in order to develop the class-consciousness, strength and militancy of the advanced class, and, on the other hand, directing all the work of this utilisation towards the “ultimate aim” of that class’s advance, towards creating in it the ability to find practical solutions for great tasks in the great days, in which “twenty years are embodied.” Two of Marx’s arguments are of special importance in this connection: one of these is contained in The Poverty of Philosophy and concerns the economic struggle and economic organisations of the proletariat; the other is contained in the Communist Manifesto and concerns the political tasks of the proletariat. The former runs as follows: “Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance—combination.... Combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups...and in face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them [i.e., the workers—Lenin] than that of wages.... In this struggle—a veritable civil war—all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.” Here we have the programme and tactics of the economic struggle and of the trade union movement for several decades to come, for all the lengthy period in which the proletariat will prepare its forces for the “coming battle.” All this should be compared with numerous references by Marx and Engels to the example of the British labour movement, showing how industrial “prosperity” leads to attempts “to buy the proletariat” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, p. 136), to divert them from the struggle; how this prosperity in general “demoralises the workers” (Vol. 2, p. 218); how the British proletariat becomes “bourgeoisified”—“this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie” (Vol. 2, p. 290); how its “revolutionary energy” oozes away (Vol. 3, p. 124); how it will be necessary to wait a more or less lengthy space of time before “the British workers will free themselves from their apparent bourgeois infection” (Vol. 3, p. 127); how the British labour movement “lacks the mettle of the Chartists” (1866; Vol. 3, p. 305); how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (in reference to [George] Holyoak[e], Vol. 4, p. 209); how, owing to Britain’s monopoly, and as long as that monopoly lasts, “the British workingman will not budge” (Vol. 4, p. 433). The tactics of the economic struggle, in connection with the general course (and outcome) of the working-class movement, are considered here from a remarkably broad, comprehensive, dialectical, and genuinely revolutionary standpoint.
The Communist Manifesto advanced a fundamental Marxist principle on the tactics of the political struggle: “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.” That was why, in 1848, Marx supported the party of the “agrarian revolution” in Poland, “that party which brought about the Cracow insurrection in 1846.” In Germany, Marx, in 1848 and 1849, supported the extreme revolutionary democrats, and subsequently never retracted what he had then said about tactics. He regarded the German bourgeoisie as an element which was “inclined from the very beginning to betray the people” (only an alliance with the peasantry could have enabled the bourgeoisie to completely achieve its aims) “and compromise with the crowned representatives of the old society.” Here is Marx’s summing-up of the German bourgeoisie’s class position in the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution—an analysis which, incidentally, is a sample of a materialism that examines society in motion, and, moreover, not only from the aspect of a motion that is backward: “Without faith in itself, without faith in the people, grumbling at those above, trembling before those below...intimidated by the world storm...no energy in any respect, plagiarism in every respect...without initiative...an execrable old man who saw himself doomed to guide and deflect the first youthful impulses of a robust people in his own senile interests....” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848; see Literarischer Nachlass, Vol. 3, p. 212.) About twenty years later, Marx declared, in a letter to Engels (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, p. 224), that the Revolution of 1848 had failed because the bourgeoisie had preferred peace with slavery to the mere prospect of a fight for freedom. When the revolutionary period of 1848‑49 ended, Marx opposed any attempt to play at revolution (his struggle against [Karl] Schapper and [August] Willich), and insisted on the ability to work in the new phase, which in a quasi-“peaceful” way was preparing new revolutions. The spirit in which Marx wanted this work to be conducted is to be seen in his appraisal of the situation in Germany in 1856, the darkest period of reaction: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 2, p. 108). While the democratic (bourgeois) revolution in Germany was uncompleted, Marx focussed every attention, in the tactics of the socialist proletariat, on developing the democratic energy of the peasantry. He held that [Ferdinand] Lassalle’s attitude was “objectively...a betrayal of the whole workers’ movement to Prussia” (Vol. 3, p. 210), incidentally because Lassalle was tolerant of the Junkers [landowning aristocrats] and Prussian nationalism. “In a predominantly agricultural country,” Engels wrote in 1865, in exchanging views with Marx on their forthcoming joint declaration in the press, “...it is dastardly to make an exclusive attack on the bourgeoisie in the name of the industrial proletariat but never to devote a word to the patriarchal exploitation of the rural proletariat under the lash of the great feudal aristocracy” (Vol. 3, p. 217). From 1864 to 1870, when the period of the consummation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Germany was coming to an end, a period in which the Prussian and Austrian exploiting classes were struggling to complete that revolution in one way or another from above, Marx not only rebuked Lassalle, who was coquetting with [German chancellor Otto von] Bismarck, but also corrected [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, who had lapsed into “Austrophilism” and a defence of particularism; Marx demanded revolutionary tactics which would combat with equal ruthlessness both Bismarck and the Austrophiles, tactics which would not be adapted to the “victor”—the Prussian Junker—but would immediately renew the revolutionary struggle against him also in the conditions created by the Prussian military victories (Briefwechsel, Vol. 3, pp. 134, 136, 147, 179, 204, 210, 215, 418, 437, 440-41). In the celebrated Address of the International of September 9, 1870, Marx warned the French proletariat against an untimely uprising, but when an uprising nevertheless took place (1871), Marx enthusiastically hailed the revolutionary initiative of the masses, who were “storming heaven” (Marx’s letter to [Ludwig] Kugelmann). From the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism, the defeat of revolutionary action in that situation, as in many others, was a lesser evil, in the general course and outcome of the proletarian struggle, than the abandonment of a position already occupied, than surrender without battle. Such a surrender would have demoralised the proletariat and weakened its militancy. While fully appreciating the use of legal means of struggle during periods of political stagnation and the domination of bourgeois legality, Marx, in 1877 and 1878, following the passage of the Anti-Socialist Law, sharply condemned [Johann] Most’s “revolutionary phrases”; no less sharply, if not more so, did he attack the opportunism that had for a time come over the official Social-Democratic Party, which did not at once display resoluteness, firmness, revolutionary spirit and a readiness to resort to an illegal struggle in response to the Anti-Socialist Law (Briefwechsel, Vol. 4, pp. 397, 404, 418, 422, 424; cf. also letters to [Friedrich] Sorge).

Support The Partisan Defense Committee's Holiday Appeal -Free All Class-War Prisoners!

Support The Partisan Defense Committee's Holiday Appeal -Free All Class-War Prisoners!  
 
Click below to link to the Partisan Defense Committee website

http://www.partisandefense.org/



Leonard Peltier 1972





My yearly comment on behalf of the Holiday Appeal-Frank Jackman  

I like to think of myself as a long-time fervent supporter of the Partisan Defense Committee, an organization committed to social and political defense cases and causes in the interests of the international working class. Cases from early on in the 1970s when the organization was founded and the committee defended the Black Panthers who were being targeted by every police agency that had an say in the matter, the almost abandoned by the left Weather Underground (in its various incantations) and Chilean miners in the wake of the Pinochet coup there in 1973 up to more recent times with the Mumia death penalty case, defense of the Occupy movement and the NATO three, and defense of the heroic Wiki-leaks whistle-blower Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley).

Moreover the PDC is an organization committed, at this time of the year, to raising funds to support the class-war prisoners’ stipend program through the annual Holiday Appeal drive. Unfortunately having to raise these funds in support of political prisoners for many years now, too many years, as the American and international capitalist class and their hangers-on have declared relentless war, recently a very one-sided war, against those who would cry out against the monster. Attempting to silence voices from zealous lawyers like Lynne Stewart, articulate death-row prisoners like Mumia and the late Tookie Williams, anti-fascist street fighters like the Tingsley Five to black liberation fighters like the Assata Shakur, the Omaha Three and the Angola Three and who ended up on the wrong side of a cop and state vendetta and anti-imperialist fighters like the working-class based Ohio Seven and student-based Weather Underground who took Che Guevara’s admonition to wage battle inside the “belly of the beast” seriously. Of course this year we lost Hugo Pinell, George Jackson’s comrade-in-arms from the San Quentin Six to a murderous vendetta. Others, other militant labor and social liberation fighters as well, too numerous to mention here but remembered.

Normally I do not need any prompting in the matter. One year though, and it now bears repeating each year, after I read the 25th Anniversary Appeal article in Workers Vanguard No. 969 I was startled to note how many of the names, organizations, and political philosophies mentioned there hark back to my own radical coming of age, and the need for class-struggle defense of all our political prisoners in the late 1960s (although I may not have used that exact term at the time).

That recognition included names like black liberation fighter George Jackson’s present class-war prisoner the late Hugo Pinell’s San Quentin Six comrade; the Black Panthers in their better days, the days when the American state really was out to kill or detain every last supporter, and in the days when we needed, desperately needed, to fight for their defense in places from Oakland to New Haven,  as represented by two of the Omaha Three (Poindexter and wa Langa), in their younger days; the struggle, the fierce struggle, against the death penalty as represented in Mumia’s case today (also Black Panther-connected); the Ohio 7 and the Weather Underground who, rightly or wrongly, were committed to building a second front against American imperialism, and who most of the left, the respectable left, abandoned; and, of course, Leonard Peltier and the Native American struggles from Pine Ridge to the Southwest. It has been a long time and victories few. I could go on but you get the point.

That point also includes the hard fact that we have paid a high price, a very high price, for not winning back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when we last had this capitalist imperialist society on the ropes. Maybe it was political immaturity, maybe it was cranky theory, maybe it was elitism, hell, maybe it was just old-fashioned hubris but we let them off the hook. And have had to fight forty years of rear-guard “culture wars” since just to keep from falling further behind.

And the class-war prisoners, our class-war prisoners, have had to face their “justice” and their prisons. Many, too many for most of that time. That lesson should be etched in the memory of every pro-working class militant today. And this, as well, as a quick glance at the news these days should make every liberation fighter realize; the difference between being on one side of that prison wall and the other is a very close thing when the bourgeois decides to pull the hammer down. The support of class-war prisoners is thus not charity, as International Labor Defense founder James P. Cannon noted back in the 1920s, but a duty of those fighters outside the walls. Today I do my duty, and gladly. I urge others to do the same now at the holidays and throughout the year. The class-war prisoners must not stand alone. 

                                                                                                

PDC    

Box 99 Canal Street Station                        

New York, N.Y. 10013

Support The Partisan Defense Committee's Holiday Appeal -Free All Class-War Prisoners!

Support The Partisan Defense Committee's Holiday Appeal -Free All Class-War Prisoners!  
 
Click below to link to the Partisan Defense Committee website

http://www.partisandefense.org/



Leonard Peltier 1972





My yearly comment on behalf of the Holiday Appeal-Frank Jackman  

I like to think of myself as a long-time fervent supporter of the Partisan Defense Committee, an organization committed to social and political defense cases and causes in the interests of the international working class. Cases from early on in the 1970s when the organization was founded and the committee defended the Black Panthers who were being targeted by every police agency that had an say in the matter, the almost abandoned by the left Weather Underground (in its various incantations) and Chilean miners in the wake of the Pinochet coup there in 1973 up to more recent times with the Mumia death penalty case, defense of the Occupy movement and the NATO three, and defense of the heroic Wiki-leaks whistle-blower Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley).

Moreover the PDC is an organization committed, at this time of the year, to raising funds to support the class-war prisoners’ stipend program through the annual Holiday Appeal drive. Unfortunately having to raise these funds in support of political prisoners for many years now, too many years, as the American and international capitalist class and their hangers-on have declared relentless war, recently a very one-sided war, against those who would cry out against the monster. Attempting to silence voices from zealous lawyers like Lynne Stewart, articulate death-row prisoners like Mumia and the late Tookie Williams, anti-fascist street fighters like the Tingsley Five to black liberation fighters like the Assata Shakur, the Omaha Three and the Angola Three and who ended up on the wrong side of a cop and state vendetta and anti-imperialist fighters like the working-class based Ohio Seven and student-based Weather Underground who took Che Guevara’s admonition to wage battle inside the “belly of the beast” seriously. Of course this year we lost Hugo Pinell, George Jackson’s comrade-in-arms from the San Quentin Six to a murderous vendetta. Others, other militant labor and social liberation fighters as well, too numerous to mention here but remembered.

Normally I do not need any prompting in the matter. One year though, and it now bears repeating each year, after I read the 25th Anniversary Appeal article in Workers Vanguard No. 969 I was startled to note how many of the names, organizations, and political philosophies mentioned there hark back to my own radical coming of age, and the need for class-struggle defense of all our political prisoners in the late 1960s (although I may not have used that exact term at the time).

That recognition included names like black liberation fighter George Jackson’s present class-war prisoner the late Hugo Pinell’s San Quentin Six comrade; the Black Panthers in their better days, the days when the American state really was out to kill or detain every last supporter, and in the days when we needed, desperately needed, to fight for their defense in places from Oakland to New Haven,  as represented by two of the Omaha Three (Poindexter and wa Langa), in their younger days; the struggle, the fierce struggle, against the death penalty as represented in Mumia’s case today (also Black Panther-connected); the Ohio 7 and the Weather Underground who, rightly or wrongly, were committed to building a second front against American imperialism, and who most of the left, the respectable left, abandoned; and, of course, Leonard Peltier and the Native American struggles from Pine Ridge to the Southwest. It has been a long time and victories few. I could go on but you get the point.

That point also includes the hard fact that we have paid a high price, a very high price, for not winning back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when we last had this capitalist imperialist society on the ropes. Maybe it was political immaturity, maybe it was cranky theory, maybe it was elitism, hell, maybe it was just old-fashioned hubris but we let them off the hook. And have had to fight forty years of rear-guard “culture wars” since just to keep from falling further behind.

And the class-war prisoners, our class-war prisoners, have had to face their “justice” and their prisons. Many, too many for most of that time. That lesson should be etched in the memory of every pro-working class militant today. And this, as well, as a quick glance at the news these days should make every liberation fighter realize; the difference between being on one side of that prison wall and the other is a very close thing when the bourgeois decides to pull the hammer down. The support of class-war prisoners is thus not charity, as International Labor Defense founder James P. Cannon noted back in the 1920s, but a duty of those fighters outside the walls. Today I do my duty, and gladly. I urge others to do the same now at the holidays and throughout the year. The class-war prisoners must not stand alone. 

                                                                                                

PDC    

Box 99 Canal Street Station                        

New York, N.Y. 10013