AMERICAN LEFT HISTORY

This space is dedicated to the proposition that we need to know the history of the struggles on the left and of earlier progressive movements here and world-wide. If we can learn from the mistakes made in the past (as well as what went right) we can move forward in the future to create a more just and equitable society. We will be reviewing books, CDs, and movies we believe everyone needs to read, hear and look at as well as making commentary from time to time. Greg Green, site manager

Thursday, July 05, 2012

From The Pens Of Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels-The Struggle For The Communist League-Letter by Wilhelm Weitling to Moses Hess (1846)

Click on the headline to link to the Marx-Engels Internet Archives for an online copy of the article mentioned in the headline.

Markin comment:

This foundation article by Marx or Engels goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts in this space.

Marx/Engels Internet Archive-The Communist League

A congress of the League of the Just opened in London on June 2, 1847. Engels was in attendance as delegate for the League's Paris communities. (Marx couldn't attend for financial reasons.)

Engels had a significant impact throughout the congress -- which, as it turned out, was really the "inaugural Congress" of what became known as the Communist League. This organization stands as the first international proletarian organization. With the influence of Marx and Engels anti-utopian socialism, the League's motto changed from "All Men are Brothers" to "Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

Engels: "In the summer of 1847, the first league congress took place in London, at which W. Wolff represented the Brussels and I the Paris communities. At this congress the reorganization of the League was carried through first of all. ...the League now consisted of communities, circles, leading circles, a central committee and a congress, and henceforth called itself the 'Communist League'."

The Rules were drawn up with the participation of Marx and Engels, examined at the First Congress of the Communist League, and approved at the League's Second Congress in December 1847.

Article 1 of the Rules of the Communist League: "The aim of the league is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois society which rests on the antagonism of classes, and the foundation of a new society without classes and without private property."

The first draft of the Communist League Programme was styled as a catechism -- in the form of questions and answers. Essentially, the draft was authored by Engels. The original manuscript is in Engels's hand.

The League's official paper was to be the Kommunistische Zeitschrift, but the only issue produced was in September 1847 by a resolution of the League's First Congress. It was First Congress prepared by the Central Authority of the Communist League based in London. Karl Schapper was its editor.

The Second Congress of the Communist League was held at the end of November 1847 at London's Red Lion Hotel. Marx attended as delegate of the Brussels Circle. He went to London in the company of Victor Tedesco, member of the Communist League and also a delegate to the Second Congress. Engels again represented the Paris communities. Schapper was elected chairman of the congress, and Engels its secretary.

Friedrich Lessner: "I was working in London then and was a member of the communist Workers' Educational Society at 191 Drury Lane. There, at the end of November and the beginning of December 1847, members of the Central Committee of the Communist League held a congress. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels came there from Brussels to present their views on modern communism and to speak about the Communists' attitude to the political and workers' movement. The meetings, which, naturally, were held in the evenings, were attended by delegates only... Soon we learned that after long debates, the congress had unanimously backed the principles of Marx and Engels..."

The Rules were officially adopted December 8, 1847.

Engels: "All contradiction and doubt were finally set at rest, the new basic principles were unanimously adopted, and Marx and I were commissioned to draw up the Manifesto." This would, of course, become the Communist Manifesto.
*************
Letter by Wilhelm Weitling to Moses Hess

This personal letter was written by Wilhelm Weitling, to Moses Hess, the day after the meeting of the Communist Correspondence Committee. Present at this meeting were: Weitling, Marx, Engels, Philippe Gigot, Louis Heilberg, Sebastien Seiler, Edgar von Westphalen (Marx’s brother-in-law), Joseph Weydemeyer, and Pavel Annenkov.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brussels, March 31, 1846
Dear Hess!

Last evening we met again inpleno. Marx brought with him a man whom he presented to us as a Russian [Annenkov], and who never said a word throughout the whole evening. The question was: What is the best way to carry on propaganda in Germany? Seiler posed the question, but he said he could not go into further detail now, since some delicate matters would have to be touched upon, etc. Marx kept on pressing him, but in vain. Both became excited, Marx violently so. In the end, the latter took up the question. His resume was:

An examination must be made of the Communist party.
This can be achieved by criticizing the incompetent and separating them from the sources of money.
This examination is now the most important thing that can be done in the interest of communism.
He who has the power to carry authority with the moneyed men also has the means to displace the others and would probably apply it.
“Handicraft communism” and “philosophical communism” must be opposed, human feeling must be derided, these are merely obfuscations. No oral propaganda, no provision for secret propaganda, in general the word propaganda not to be used in the future.
The realization of communism in the near future is out of the question; the bourgeoisie must first be at the helm.
Marx and Engels argued vehemently against me. Weydemeyer spoke quietly. Gigot and Edgar did not say a word. Heilberg opposed Marx from an impartial viewpoint, at the very end Seiler did the same, bitterly but with admirable calm. I became vehement, Marx surpassed me, particularly at the end when everything was in an uproar, he jumping up and down in his office. Marx was especially furious at my resume. I had said: The only thing that came out of our discussion was he who finds the money may write what he pleases....
That Marx and Engels will vehemently criticize my principles is now certain. Whether or not I will be able to defend myself as I would like to do, I don’t know. Without money Marx cannot criticize and I cannot defend myself; nevertheless, in an emergency it may not matter that I have no money. I believe Marx and Engels will end by criticizing themselves through their own criticism. In Marx’s brain, I see nothing more than a good encyclopaedia, but no genius. His influence is felt through other personalities. Rich men made him editor, voila tout. Indeed, rich men who make sacrifices have a right to see or have investigations made into what they want to support. They have the power to assert this right, but the writer also has the power, no matter how poor he is, not to sacrifice his convictions for money. I am capable of sacrificing my conviction for the sake of unity. I put aside my work on my system when I received protests against it from all directions. But when I heard in Brussels that the opponents of my system intended to publish splendid systems in well-financed translations, I completed mine and made an effort to bring it to the man [Marx]. If this is not supported, then it is entirely in order to make an examination. Jackass that I was, I had hitherto believed that it would be better if we used all our own qualities against our _enemies_ and encouraged especially those that bring forth persecutions in the struggle. I had thought it would be better to influence the people and, above all, to organize a portion of them for the propagation of our popular writings. But Marx and Engels do not share this view, and in this they are strengthened by their rich supporters. All right! Very good! Splendid! I see it coming. I have often found myself in similar circumstances, and always things turned out for the best....

Yours,
Weitling

From The Pens Of Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels-Marx/Engels Internet Archive-The Communist League- An Introduction

The Latest From “The International Marxist Tendency” Website-The Fundamentals of Marxism: A Short Reading List

Click on to the headline to link to the latest from the International Marxist Tendency website.

Markin comment:

More often than not I disagree with the line of the IMT or its analysis(mainly I do not believe their political analysis leads to adequate programmatically-based conclusions, revolutionary conclusions in any case), nevertheless, they provide interesting material, especially from areas, “third world” areas, where it is hard to get any kind of information (for our purposes). Read the material from this site.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
************
The Fundamentals of Marxism: A Short Reading List

Written by Socialist Appeal - USA Monday, 02 July 2012

Marxist theory is the basis upon which our analysis, perspectives, program, and participation in the movement are based. It is our "guide to action." This why the WIL and IMT place so much emphasis on political education. To this end, we have created an extensive Education Plan to assist comrades in their political development. This is an important resource.

However, it's length and scope may seem daunting to new comrades. With this in mind, the Editorial Board of Socialist Appeal has compiled a shorter list of classic works and other important writings we think will serve to lay a strong foundation in the ideas and methods of Marxism. We would like to encourage all our members and those interested in learning more about Marxism to read (or re-read!) through the works on this list, if possible, over the course of a 12 month period.

This selection of writings is an excellent introduction to many of the fundamentals of Marxist theory. There are many other writings that could be added, and depending on comrades' interests and the particular work they are engaged in, other readings may need to take priority over this list. But if we diligently and systematically work through this selection, and not only read, but also discuss these ideas with others, and thereby continually improve our understanding of the Marxist method, we will be in a much better position to delve into the dozens of other classic works of Marxism outlined in the full Education Plan. But not only that. We will also be far better equipped to apply these ideas and methods to our daily work of building the WIL and fighting for socialism. These works may be discussed as part of the regular WIL branch meetings, or where this isn't possible, more experienced comrades should try to meet with and discuss these works with our new members one-on-one.

Many of these are smaller books or pamphlets; some are more lengthy books; and others are just short articles. This list should therefore be more digestible than the full Education Plan, particularly those with busy work or school schedules. All of them are available to be read online for free (links are provided), and many of them have already been published by Wellred USA and are available at www.marxistbooks.com. Others can be found used or may be checked out at your local library, and Wellred USA plan's on publishing all of these works within the not-too-distant future.

Enjoy!

The ABCs of Marxism
•Why We Are Marxists by Alan Woods
A short introduction to the basic elements of Marxism and why socialism is the only way forward for humanity. ◦Read it here

•The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxismby V.I. Lenin
This short article outlines the most basic—but fundamental—elements of Marxism: its philosophy, understanding of history, and analysis of economics.
◦Read it here

•The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The founding document of the Communist movement. More relevant today than when it was first written over 160 years ago. Although it is relatively short, every line is dense with content and some find it difficult to read. But once you work through it carefully, you will find the ideas start falling into place. Like a good song, the Manifesto is worth re-reading time and time again—there is something "new" in it every time you read it! ◦Read it here | Purchase Four Marxist Classics here

Marxism and U.S. history, dispelling basic misconceptions about Marxism, etc.
•Marxism and the USA by Alan Woods
This brief history of the class struggle in the United States illustrates that the ideas of Marxism, socialism and communism aren’t at all alien to “the land of opportunity.” From the primitive communism of many Native Americans to the American Revolution, the Civil War, and beyond, there is nothing "un-American" about socialism and revolution. In fact, there is no country more ripe for building socialism than the United States. ◦Read excerpts here | Purchase the full book here

Introduction to Marxist Philosophy: Dialectical and Historical Materialism
•Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels
Socialism existed long before Marx and Engels, but it remained just “a good idea,” until their development of scientific socialism. Engels discusses the various Utopian socialist movements of the past and their limitations. ◦Read it here | Purchase Four Marxist Classics here

Marxism and the state, anarchism, and reformism
•State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
State and Revolution was written to prepare the Bolshevik party for their task in 1917 of leading the Russian working class to power. It analyzes the origins of the state, its role in maintaining the rule of capital, the need for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state, how a workers' state must be used by the working class to defend the socialist revolution, and how the state as an instrument of the rule of one class over another would "wither way" in the transition from socialism to communism, as a result of the gradual dissolution of classes. In this short book, Lenin also takes up the views of the anarchists and the reformists on this question, and exposes their limitations. ◦Read it here | Purchase Four Marxist Classics here

The Transitional Method
•The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky
How do Marxists use programmatic demands to win the working class to the cause of revolutionary socialism? Trotsky explains the need to use transitional demands to bridge the gap between “minimum demands” and “maximum demands”; between the the present consciousness of the working class and the need for the socialist transformation of society; and between the revolutionary party and the advanced workers. ◦Read it here | Purchase Four Marxist Classics here

The Mass Organizations of the Working Class
•Introduction to the Writings of Ted Grant Vol. 2 by John Peterson
In the post-World War II period, the Marxists were isolated and without mass forces. Under these difficult conditions, British Marxist Ted Grant, basing himself on the ideas and methods of Lenin and Trotsky, understood the need to do long-term, systematic work in the mass organizations of the working class in order to prepare for future revolutionary explosions. This introduction offers some background and an overview of how Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Grant approached the mass organizations, including the experience of the Militant in Britain in the 1980s and 90s, and the need for a mass party of labor in the U.S. today. ◦Read it here | Purchase Ted Grant Selected Works Vol. 2 here

•Left-wing Communism by V.I. Lenin
The Communist International which was created after the Russian Revolution was formed mostly from left-wing splits in the Socialist International. Many had ultra-left positions as a reaction to decades of the reformist leadership of the Socialist parties. Lenin used this book to educate the young cadres of the Comintern in the methods of Bolshevism and the relation between the class, the party, and the leadership. It is a masterpiece of Marxism, applying the basic tenets already outlined in the Manifesto: "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties; They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole; They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement." ◦Read it here | Purchase it here

What About the Soviet Union?
•Introduction to the Writings of Ted Grant Vol. 1 by John Peterson
What was the Soviet Union? Was it to be defended? What went right? What went wrong? Ted Grant wrote extensively on the class nature of the Soviet Union and the need to defend the nationalized planned economy. A clear understanding of the Soviet Union and Stalinism is necessary to combat the common misconceptions associated with socialism. This introduction deals with an overview of the Marxist analysis of the Soviet Union and the concept of a "deformed" or "degenerated" workers' state. ◦Read it here | Purchase Ted Grant Selected Works Vol. 1 here

•The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky
Why did the Soviet state degenerate into the monstrous bureaucratic regime of Stalin? Leon Trotsky analyzes how it came about, the Soviet state as it was in in the 1930s, the potential for genuine socialism hinted at by the advances of the USSR in spite of the bureaucracy, and what the tasks of the Marxists were in relation to it. He predicts in advance that if a political revolution did not succeed in overthrowing the bureaucratic regime and replacing it with workers' democracy, that capitalism would eventually be restored, with tragic consequences for the Soviet and world working class. ◦Read it here | Purchase it here

Introduction to Marxist Economics
•Wage Labor and Capital by Karl Marx
In this short book, Marx explains in everyday language how labor creates value, how capital exploits labor, and how wages are determined in capitalism. An excellent introduction to Marxist economics.
◦Read it here

•Value, Price, and Profit by Karl Marx
In this work, Marx explains how prices relate to a commodity's value and shows where profits actually come from. Another great introduction to Marxist economics.
◦Read it here

Imperialism and War
•Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin
Capitalism once played a progressive historic role in dragging humanity out of the impasse of feudalism. By developing the productive forces to previously unheard of levels, it has laid the material basis for socialism. But as the system began to reach its limits, this was reflected in the development of imperialism and the outbreak of world war. This classic work was written in the midst of World War I, and served to train a new layer of Marxists after the betrayal of many of the leaders of the Socialist International, who had capitulated to "their" national capitalist classes. It explains how industrial capital came to dominate merchant capital, only to be further dominated by finance capital. It also details the rise gigantic monopolies concentrating enormous wealth in a few hands. In addition, it explains how imperialist nations dominate others through the export of capital, terms of trade that favor the more powerful country, and the use of military power to impose their will. ◦Read it here | Purchase it here

The Historical Origins of Class Society
•Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels
How did the early primitive communist societies lead to the eventual rise of class society? What is the state and where did it come from? By examining the best-available anthropological and historical research of the time, Engels analyzes the rise of classes and the changing forms of the family, private property, and the state over the course of human history. Only by fully understanding the past can we correctly analyze the present and act to change the future course of human development. ◦Read it here | Purchase it here

If you have read through all of these works and feel you have a handle on the basics, it's time to explore the many classics available in our more complete Education Plan, and to keep up with current events and the application of the Marxist method by regularly visiting www.socialistappeal.org and www.marxist.com.

The Latest From The “Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox” Blog-Happy Co-Dependence Day! (Reprint from July 4, 2009)

Click on the headline to link to Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox blog for the latest from her site.

Markin comment:

I find Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox rather a mishmash of eclectic politics and basic old time left-liberal/radical thinking. Not enough, not nearly enough, in our troubled times but enough to take the time to read about and get a sense of the pulse (if any) of that segment of the left to which she is appealing. One though should always remember, despite our political differences, her heroic action in going down to hell-hole Texas to confront one President George W. Bush when many others were resigned to accepting the lies of that administration or who “folded” their tents when the expected end to the Iraq War did not materialize. Hats off on that one, Cindy Sheehan.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
*************
Happy Co-Dependence Day! (Reprint from July 4, 2009)

Happy Co-Dependence Day by Cindy Sheehan

The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being.
Emma Goldman

One of the reasons, in my opinion, that so many people are ready, willing, able and yes, eager to succumb to “hope,” is because most of us believe that true change is not possible.

In our heart of hearts, do we really think that Obama is an agent of change for the people? Have we not been fooled, yet again? So, we lay all of our hopes and dreams for a better life on one person and allow the inevitable heartache of betrayal to wash over us and once again drown us in disappointment when that person turns out to be just another politician. Politicians just act like politicians because we always let them.

I just returned home from a 28 day, 18-city (multiple event) trip from California to New Hampshire and back where I talked about the need for us to recognize the fact that we cannot, must not, place false hopes in any politician. Yet, even people who know that the Dalai Bama is not what the gurus on Madison Avenue sold to us don’t think that they have any power.

“We need a leader, we need a leader,” a Russian woman cried to me during a talk I gave in Philly last week. We “consumers” (remember when we used to be “citizens?”) here in America have been sold another bill of goods: that one person cannot make a difference so why should we even try? We want “leaders” to do all the work and take all of the heat so we don’t have to. That is an absolute myth. If you can fog a mirror, you can make a relevant and profound difference. If you sit around waiting for a politician to lead you to a better life, you will sit around forever.

I just had a heartbreaking conversation with a veteran who struggles on a daily basis with suicide issues. He wants to hang on so he can tell his story of betrayal and to try to stop what happened to him from happening to others. He has been so thoroughly traumatized by this Empire that he must make a daily choice to either work to make things better or to physically or mentally check out. Unfortunately, this story is not rare, so I ask myself, why are people so mesmerized by a system that is so harmful to 98% of the people of this country, and by extension, the world?

We are Co-Dependent with a Robber Class that expects us to keep it in the style to which it has been accustomed and unfortunately we are accustomed to doing so. When AIG needs billions of dollars in bailouts, it gets all the money that is asks for with no strings attached. Does that money ever trickle down to us in the steroidal capitalism of Obamanomics? Heck no…my state needs a bailout of 24 billion to save tens of thousands of jobs and public services. When the Governator asks DC for the money, he is told: “No, if we bailed out your state, we would have to bail out all the states!” So what? Bailout all the states; save jobs and services and fix the economy from the ground up, instead of supporting a cancerous capitalism that sucks the life out of the Robbed Class.

233 years ago, some of the colonists here rose up to say that they would no longer be bound to a system that hurt them, not helped them. It must have taken a fair amount of courage to do so. I am sure there were some colonists who were too afraid to stand up to the Empire of the day and say: “enough is enough,” and were grateful that some did have the courage to resist.

Well, after these 233 years, the USA has become the dominant military empire of today and we need the courage to stand up to it and say: “enough is enough!”

Enough bankster bailouts.

Enough of the unitary executive when even a one party dictatorship still necessitates illegal presidential signing statements. (Which Obama promised he wouldn't do, but does).

Enough “pre-emptive” indefinite detention.

Enough torture.

Enough war.

Enough environmental plunder.

Enough economic pillage.

Enough of our Co-Dependence with the Robber Class.

Declare your Independence from the Robber Class today!

The Latest From “The Rag Blog”-Eat, love, and kvetch: Nora Ephron's charmed life

The Latest From “The Rag Blog”

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/

Markin comment:

I find this The Rag Blog very useful to monitor for the latest in what is happening with past tense radical activists and activities. Anybody, with some kind of name, who is still around from the 1960s has found a home here. So the remembrances and recollections are helpful for today’s activists. Strangely the politics are almost non-existent, as least ones that would help today, except to kind of retroactively “bless” those old-time left politics that did nothing (well, almost nothing) but get us on the losing end of the class (and cultural) wars of the last forty plus years. Still this is a must read blog for today’s left militants.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.

*************
Eat, love, and kvetch: Nora Ephron's charmed life

As much as she kvetches, she never whines. Her unique ability to take any pain in her life and turn it into a satiric essay or a romantic film script and have the last laugh is rare.
By Gregg Barrios / The Rag Blog / July 5, 2012

Nora Ephron lived a charmed life. Her parents were film writers, and she attended Wellesley. But again, she carved her own career single-handedly at a time when there were few bankable women directors in Hollywood (Penny Marshall and Barbra Streisand come to mind).

Her foray into film began as a scriptwriter when she decided to take a stab at writing a script for the film version of All the President’s Men with her then-husband Carl Bernstein, the book’s co-author. Their draft never made it to the screen, but the experience left Ephron smitten with screenwriting -- something she said she’d never do because her parents had been script writers.

My first exposure to Ephron’s work came in 1983 with a book (Heartburn) and a movie (Silkwood). While Silkwood was her first collaboration with Mike Nichols (I consider Ephron to be Elaine May’s long-lost soul sister separated at birth), it was the book that had me reading non-stop. Heartburn was a poisoned dart aimed at then husband Bernstein’s cheating that led to an acrimonious divorce. Its opening lines typify her later style.

The first day I did not think it was funny. I didn’t think it was funny the third day either, but I managed to make a little joke about it. "The most unfair thing about this whole business is that I can’t even date."
She can’t date because, like the real life Ephron, she is seven months pregnant when she discovers her husband’s infidelity. As much as she kvetches, she never whines. Her unique ability to take any pain in her life and turn it into a satiric essay or a romantic film script and have the last laugh is rare.

At heart, Ephron loved the old Hollywood films with dashing leading men and ladies. She uses that interest in her early successful films that paired Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, by reimagining old Hollywood classics. That was the best thing about her film work. She took You’ve Got Mail from Ernst Lubitsch’s The Shop Around the Corner and made it work 50 years later for audiences and at the box office.

Her Sleepless in Seattle was also a Hollywood remake of An Affair to Remember. Only instead of the tragic ending, the couple reunites at the top of the Empire State Building. When asked what makes a director good, she said, “The best directors love actors.”

Interestingly, her directed films focused on courtship and divorce -- not marriage. For Ephron, the real drama wasn’t in the day-to-day boredom of marriage. Yet the 50-year marriage of Julia Child and her husband found its way to the center of her last film, Julie & Julia. Had Ephron mellowed or had her 20-year plus marriage to writer Nicholas Pileggi given her the relationship of her life? As she wrote in a six-word biography, “Secret to life, marry an Italian.”

Her one-liners on everything from death to the purpose of life appeared in her collected essays that were witty as they were acerbic. A latter-day Dorothy Parker or a female Woody Allen are some of the descriptions of her essay writing -- especially in her last pieces for The New Yorker.

Her short, satiric film critiques of recent literary/film hits are among my favorite Ephron gems. In “The Girl with the Umlaut,” she takes aim at Steig Larsson’s Lisbeth Salander and spoofs his style in a laugh out loud manner. In “No, But We Saw the Movie,” she takes on Carmac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men as her clueless narrator confuses Javier Bardem for Benicio Del Toro.

Food and cooking have always been a part of Ephron’s DNA. Heartburn is filled with recipes -- perhaps a template for Laura Esquivel’s Like Water for Chocolate. In When Harry Met Sally, the film’s iconic line (“I’ll have what she’s having”) takes place in a restaurant, and a fellow journalist contends the famous fake orgasm scene channels Jack Lemmon’s allergy scene at a diner in the Gene Saks’ movie version of Neil Simon’s The Odd Couple.

In her collection, I Remember Nothing, she takes some pointed barbs at aging, and lists all the things she will miss and others that she won’t miss after she’s passed on. She lists Nathan's hot dogs and bacon among the foods she’ll miss. And while some see Ephron as the quintessential Jewish yenta, she once said, “You can never have too much butter -- that is my belief. If I have a religion, that’s it.”

When I saw her and sister Delia’s play off-Broadway in March, Love, Loss and What I Wore, I laughed myself silly (“Any American woman under 40 who says she’s never dressed as Madonna is either lying or Amish”) and then some when she described their play as “The Vagina Monologues without the vagina.”

Best of all, her sage entreaty to a graduating class at Wellesley: “Above all, be the heroine of your life, not the victim.”

Nora, I miss you already. Reconsider.

[Gregg Barrios is a journalist, playwright, and poet living in San Antonio. Gregg, who wrote for The Rag in Sixties Austin, is on the board of directors of the National Book Critics Circle. His play I-DJ premieres in July at Overtime's Gregg Barrios Theater in San Antonio. This article was first published at the San Antonio Current. Contact Gregg at gregg.barrios@gmail.com. Read more articles by Gregg Barrios on The Rag Blog.]

The Latest From The “Veterans For Peace” Facebook Page-Gear Up For The Fall 2012 Anti-War Season-Troops Out Now!

Click on the headline to link to the Veterans For Peace website for the latest news.

Re-posted From American Left History- Thursday, November 11, 2010

*A Stroll In The Park On Veterans Day- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S. Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan!

Markin comment:

Listen, I have been to many marches and demonstrations for democratic, progressive, socialist and communist causes in my long political life. However, of all those events none, by far, has been more satisfying that to march alongside my fellow ex-soldiers who have “switched” over to the other side and are now part of the struggle against war, the hard, hard struggle against the permanent war machine that this imperial system has embarked upon. From as far back as in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) days I have always felt that ex-soldiers (hell, active soldiers too, if you can get them) have had just a little bit more “street cred” on the war issue than the professors, pacifists and little old ladies in tennis sneakers who have traditionally led the anti-war movements. Maybe those brothers (and in my generation it was mainly only brothers) and now sisters may not quite pose the questions of war and peace the way I do, or the way that I would like them to do, but they are kindred spirits.

Now normally in Boston, and in most places, a Veterans Day parade means a bunch of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) or American Legion-types taking time off from drinking at their post bars (“the battle of the barstool”) and donning the old overstuffed uniform and heading out on to Main Street to be waved at, and cheered on, by like-minded, thankful citizens. And of course that happened this time as well. What also happened in Boston this year (and other years but I have not been involved in previous marches) was that the Veterans For Peace (VFP) organized an anti-war march as part of their “Veterans Day” program. Said march to be held at the same place and time as the official one.

Previously there had been a certain amount of trouble, although I am not sure that it came to blows, between the two groups. (I have only heard third-hand reports on previous events.) You know the "super-patriots" vs. “commie symps” thing that has been going on as long as there have been ex-soldiers (and others) who have differed from the bourgeois party pro-war line. In any case the way this impasse had been resolved previously, and the way the parameters were set this year as well, was that the VFP took up the rear of the official parade, and took up the rear in an obvious way. Separated from the main body of the official parade by a medical emergency truck. Nice, right? Something of the old I’ll take my ball and bat and go home by the "officials" was in the air on that one.

But here is where there is a certain amount of rough plebeian justice, a small dose for those on the side of the angels, in the world. In order to form up, and this was done knowingly by VFP organizers, the official marchers, the bands and battalions that make up such a march, had to “run the gauntlet” of dove emblem-emblazoned VFP banners waving frantically directly in front of their faces as they passed by. Moreover, although we formed the caboose of this thing the crowds along the parade route actually waited as the official paraders marched by and waved and clapped at our procession. Be still my heart. But that response just provides another example of the ‘street cred” that ex-soldiers have on the anti-war question. Now, if there is to be any really serious justice in the world, if only these vets would go beyond the “bring the troops home” and embrace- immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S./Allied Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan then we could maybe start to get somewhere out on those streets. But today I was very glad to be fighting for our communist future among those who know first-hand about the dark side of the American experience. No question.

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-Victor Alba and Stephen Schwartz, Spanish Marxism versus Soviet Communism: A History of the POUM- A Book Review

From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-On War and Revolution-Loukas Karliaftis’ Speech in the Athens Debate

Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forebears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

*************
On War and Revolution-Loukas Karliaftis’ Speech in the Athens Debate

Due to the conditions of the war and the repression the groups did not unite as instructed by the founding conference of the Fourth International, and in addition differences had developed during the war. There were now, in effect, three tendencies: of Anastasiades, that closest to the position of Pablo, which supported the defence of the USSR, and participation in the resistance, but were unable to do so, and support for it, calling for a Communist/Socialist government and for the withdrawal of British troops; of Karliaftis and ‘Mastroyannis’, which opposed support to the resistance and for a Communist/Socialist government, but supported the defence of the USSR; and of Agis Stinas (Spyros Priphtis, 1920-87), which opposed both the defence of the USSR and support for the resistance and for a Communist/ Socialist government.

The initiative to unite these groups came from the International Secretariat, which sent Pablo and Sherry Mangan to a clandestine unification conference held in a ravine on Mount Pentelicus near Athens in July 1946 (Alan Wald, The Revolutionary Imagination, Chapel Hill, 1983, p.l96; Stinas, Mémoires, pp.275-6). The largest single group was that of Karliaftis, which secured a majority for its views in the conference and on the Central Committee, but when it came to the political bureau the Stinas group voted in favour of the tendency led by Anastasiades. Agreement was gained over the right for all tendencies to express their views in the discussion bulletin (those of Stinas appear on pp.276-83 of his Mémoires), the organisation assumed the name of the International Communist Party of Greece (KDKE), and launched a weekly newspaper, Ergatike Pali (Workers Fight).

In September 1946 an agreement was signed with the Greek Communist Party (KKE) to hold a series of three public debates in a theatre (by invitation only) in October and November in Athens. The first, for which the main speaker from the Trotskyists was Karliaftis, took place on 13 October, and a report appearing in the British Trotskyist press gave the result as being 89 votes cast for the Trotskyist case and 542 for the Stalinists (Greek Debate, in Socialist Appeal (RCP), no.4, Mid-November 1946). The second, for which the chief Trotskyist speaker was Stinas, took place on 3 November (for extracts from Stinas’ speech, cf. his Mémoires, pp.283-9) and the Trotskyists gained 239 votes for the Stalinists’ 453. It should be noted that the majority of votes cast for the Trotskyists’ case came from members of the KKE who were convinced by their arguments. The following year Stinas’ group broke with the International Communist Party, and a report about the trial and deportation of 13 Trotskyists that appeared in the British press alleged that he had disappeared (Class War in Greece, in Socialist Appeal (RCP), no.48, September 1947). As Stinas’ speech has been substantially reproduced in French, but Karliaftis’ has not been available in any Western European language, we print the full text of his contribution to this debate below.

The KKE’s extraordinary decision to debate with people and organisations that they had characterised as “provocateurs” and “in the service of fascist reaction” was primarily an attempt to head off questions that were arising inside the ranks of the KKE and the EAM (the Greek resistance movement). These were a direct result of the sell-outs in Lebanon, Caserta and Varkiza, betrayals that led to the complete ideological, political and military disarmament of the resistance, directly aiding domestic and foreign reaction.

Immediately prior to this debate and on the eve of the second guerrilla war led by Velouchiotis it should be noted that the Stalinists, through the use of their secret police, the OPLA, had already exterminated hundreds of Trotskyists. This was solely due to the fact that they were the only force to fight consistently for the transformation of the Second World War into a civil war, and hence had correctly viewed the advance of British imperialism as reactionary, and not the ‘liberation’ that the KKE claimed.

The slaughter of unarmed civilians in December 1944 by Britain’s General Scobie in Syntagmata Square in central Athens was thus a tragic confirmation of the warnings of the Trotskyists.

**************

A well-intentioned discussion about solving the problems faced by the workers’ movement, about the struggles of the proletariat for their social liberation and that of oppressed classes generally, as well as a settlement of the differences which exist amongst the various tendencies in the workers’ movement, must presume some definitions and the acceptance of certain principles.

For us, for the KDKE (Fourth International), these principles, both the starting point and the method of investigation, are to be found in the acceptance of the teachings of Marx and Engels and of the other great teachers: Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky. It consists first of all of the acceptance of their method, historical materialism, and secondly of the laws which characterise capitalist society and economy, and determine its development and decline. Thirdly, it consists in recognising the class struggle, and accepting that this struggle within class society leads unavoidably to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Here is what Marx himself says about this part of his teachings:

As to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to demonstrate: (1) that the existence of classes is merely linked to particular historical phases in the development of production; (2) that class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. [1]

Lenin, in fighting all the traitors to Marxism and in analysing the above quotation from Marx’s letter to Weydemeyer, writes:

In these words, Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity, firstly, the chief and radical difference between his theory and that of the foremost and most profound thinkers of the bourgeoisie; and, secondly, the essence of his theory of the state.

It is often said and written that the main point in Marx’s theory is the class struggle. But this is wrong. And this wrong notion very often results in an opportunist distortion of Marxism and its falsification in a spirit acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the theory of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx and, generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested. [2]

Fourthly, it consists of the recognition of the international character of the struggle of the proletariat.

Rosa Luxemburg, in her struggle against Social Democracy, showed that whoever ignores in theory or practice one of these two principles – the class struggle or the internationalism of the proletarian struggle – invariably becomes a supporter and defender of reactionary capitalist regimes, and turns into an agent of the bourgeoisie inside the proletariat, to use Lenin’s phrase. All the modern history of the proletarian struggle from the epoch of Social Democracy until today is nothing more than a positive or a negative confirmation of this view, which was supported by the consistent pupils of Marx and Engels against every type of revisionist in every epoch.

If anyone asks the leaders of the KKE, they will declare the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin to be correct. They will say that they ‘accept’ as correct the teachings of Marx on the capitalist regime and the class struggle under which it, unavoidably according to Marx, leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. They even ‘accept’ the teachings of Lenin on capitalism and its last imperialist stage. They ‘accept’ the teachings of Lenin (which is but an extension and concretisation of Marx) on imperialist wars and the tasks they pose for the revolutionary vanguard and the working class.

For us, consistent pupils of Marx, Engels and Lenin, there is no need for a new theoretical reaffirmation of their teachings. Our work is inseparable from and scientifically based upon our great teachers. Practically the whole of current history is a great confirmation, positive or negative, of their teachings. The Paris Commune and the victorious October Revolution are their positive confirmations. The latter is the greatest victory for the proletariat, which was made possible by the correct application of these teachings. On the other hand, the Chinese Revolution of 1925-27, the German and Spanish Revolutions and the Second World War are defeats which occurred because of leaders who in practice had negated these teachings.

If we are to be serious, for a sincere debater for the KKE, for world Stalinism, for a debater who respects science, the task is to prove theoretically and in practice why this theory, with its basic premises and its conclusions, does not correspond to our epoch, and why we are faced with the necessity of revising it. A general declaration of changed circumstances is at best a weakness and a subterfuge. At worst, it is conscious deceit and a betrayal of the titanic struggle which the proletariat is waging. The KKE does not lack material means. On the contrary, no other tendency has ever had so many resources at its disposal as does the Stalinist current. For more than 20 years we have waited for this opportunity but in vain. Scientific discussion has been replaced by perfidy, falsity, lies, deceit, sycophancy and physical violence. But these methods have not relieved the KKE of its obligations, it has increased them.

The current political situation can be analysed by a Marxist only from the point of view of its historical connections and development. Every natural or social phenomenon has its history, and only during the process of historical development is it possible for them to be understood clearly and completely. All modern science is a confirmation of this basic view of Marxist teaching. Today was born of yesterday. Tomorrow is determined by the dynamic of today. Only in the light of this investigation is it possible to reveal the correctness or incorrectness of the politics of the different tendencies inside the workers’ movement and to prove their social nature.

War is the most important feature of our epoch. The war of 1939-45 was an imperialist, reactionary conflict between the rich and the ‘hungry’ imperialist powers. The involvement of the Soviet Union in this war was unavoidable, and was determined by the international nature of the world economy. The war waged by the Soviet Union was defensive and progressive, and the international working class had the duty to defend it. But the progressive nature of the war on the part of the Soviet Union (the defence of nationalised ownership) transformed neither the general imperialist character of the war nor the content and obligations of the proletarian struggle for social revolution. The war made nonsense of all the Stalinist ‘theories’ of the peaceful coexistence of the Soviet Union with capitalism and of ‘Socialism in one country’.

All the theoretical work of Lenin and the Communist International and the policies they developed in the first four congresses maintained their importance for the second imperialist war and will continue to maintain it for all the wars which will be waged by imperialism if the proletariat allows it. The existence of the Soviet Union does not change the nature of imperialism. The Soviet Union was thought of by its founders as none other than an advanced outpost of the world workers’ front. This is the teaching of Lenin. All those who deny this revise Marxism-Leninism and break the internationalism of the proletarian struggle with disastrous consequences.

War and revolution are the most important events in human history. The Marxist left wing of Social Democracy – Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg – broke off all relations with the Second International precisely on this issue.

The question of war is very important, and it must be given its proper place in any serious discussion amongst the tendencies inside the workers’ movement. Our party proposed this topic for the first of these three discussions.

The outbreak of the second imperialist war was impossible without the defeat of the proletariat. This defeat was not possible but for the abandonment and revision of Marxist teachings by its own leadership. Just as the outbreak of the First World War confirmed the opportunist and treacherous nature of the leadership of the Second International, so the outbreak of the Second World War confirmed the petty-bourgeois degeneration of and the betrayals carried out by the leadership of the Communist International. If the outbreak of war presupposes an absolute weakening of the revolutionary strength of the working class, then the war itself, with its horrors and destruction, forces the working class into the forefront of history, and increases immeasurably its social dynamism and revolutionary strength.

This phenomenon showed itself quite markedly and clearly in Greece. Let us look at the main changes which the war brought about in the Greek economy and in the regrouping of social forces. It dislocated the capitalist economy of the country. The theft of national wealth, of the products of the country by the imperialist occupation in cooperation with the domestic plutocracy, created intolerable conditions of life for the oppressed masses. With inflation it wiped out any savings of the petty-bourgeois layers in town and country, and impelled them to take a decisive turn to the left. The bankruptcy of the bourgeois parties was complete, whilst in the working masses, a passion for a decisive social transformation was brewing. The turn of the masses to the left brought the old revolutionary party of the proletariat, the KKE, into the leadership of their struggle, due to the enormous prestige of the October Revolution which they saw this party as representing.

These developments in the consciousness of the masses led capitalist reaction in the country to make a desperate attempt to maintain its social rule and enter an alliance with both imperialisms – the Allied and the Axis. In the face of revolution, the imperialists are united. This action of theirs led the country into a situation of civil war, and in consequence all but wiped out the power of the capitalist state.

The situation in our country at the end of the civil was definitely revolutionary. But what were the politics of the KKE if not a complete negation of Marxist-Leninist teaching?

In place of the class and of class struggle – the nation and nationalist struggle.

In place of the class struggle – the collaboration of classes and class unity: in other words the subordination of the proletariat and the oppressed masses to the bourgeoisie.

In place of declarations to cultivate international proletarian solidarity – the cultivation of nationalist hatred and nationalist patriotic sentiments.

In place of the struggle against the imperialists – subjugation to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Hundreds are the victims, militants who died because they opposed the excessive Anglo-friendliness of the KKE leadership, and carried out anti-British and anti-imperialist propaganda. Look at the relevant decisions of the Eleventh Plenum of the Central Committee of the KKE.

In place of the Socialist revolution – the historically defunct ‘Popular Democracy’ with its respect for private property.

All of these things are known – as are Lebanon, Caserta and the National Unity government.

The leadership of the KKE held power in Greece and handed it over to the Greek capitalists and their partners and patrons in Britain.

There was no problem of power for the KKE and the EAM. The opportunity existed to consolidate and maintain power. We ask: why didn’t the KKE struggle to remain in power and implement its Popular Democratic Programme? Why did it bring British imperialism to Greece?

What is the nature of the ‘Popular Frontist’ policy which its ministers carried out when in Papandreou’s government? Was it bourgeois or not? Did it serve capitalist interests or not? Was the stabilisation of the currency carried out against the interests of the oppressed masses or not? Is it true that Porfirogenis [3] was the one who introduced Law 118 concerning the ‘surplus of workers’ in capitalist businesses? And we ask: if all these things are correct, how can we characterise the politics of the KKE?

And December? We must speak out clearly. December was not a revolution organised by the leaders of the EAM but a counter-revolution, an attack by Anglo-Saxon reaction against which the oppressed masses, and especially the proletariat of Athens and the Piraeus, defended themselves heroically.

December was systematically prepared using every possible method: the security forces, civil war, Lebanon and Caserta, with Ralis and Papandreou, with Scobie and Spiliotopoulus, with the court tribunals in the Middle East and Surmata and by Anglo-Greek imperialism.

Why did the EAM’s leaders refuse to form a revolutionary government when 90 percent of the population was under their influence and the whole country under their control? Why did it not declare that no unity could exist with the exploiters and murderers, in other words, with the capitalist class, but instead fought for a ‘New National Government’? With whom? Why did it not call on the natural allies of the Greek oppressed, the world proletariat, to aid it in its struggle? Why did the Stalinist government of the Soviet Union say not a single word of sympathy for the heroic struggle of the Greek masses during the December events?

The Greek proletariat and the other oppressed masses were defeated in December because their defeat was prepared before December and during December.

In December, the endless heroism and courage of the revolutionary proletariat confronted a malicious, crafty, cunning, criminal and historically bankrupt class: world capitalist reaction. This class – dark and criminal – appears strong with its international bonds and its solidarity when it confronts its enemy: the revolutionary proletarian class. The proletariat – militant and heroic and with endless resources of bravery and sacrifice appeared with its international links and its internationalist solidarity broken. Its leadership, however, did not direct it towards a realisation of its historic mission, but placed it under ... a ‘New National Government’.

For this purpose, it appealed to the great imperialist ‘Democracy of the Atlantic’. The ‘leadership’ of the Greek proletariat asked for help from Roosevelt, not from the world proletariat. Without a doubt, the Stalinist leadership had ‘ essentially from 1934 and definitively from 1943 ‘ broken the internationalist links of the proletariat with the dissolution of the Communist International.

Lebanon, Caserta and, in December, Varkiza determined the political line and the social nature of the EAM’s leadership, proving it to be petty-bourgeois, objectively placed within the framework of the capitalist regime serving the bourgeoisie.

If Anglo-Greek capitalist reaction moved towards December, this was not due to fear of or in reaction to the politics pursued by the EAM leadership, but to the direct threat posed by the armed and deeply anti-capitalist disposition of the masses. The question of disarming the masses was, for Anglo-Greek and world capitalist reaction, a question of life and death.

With its victory in December, Greek capitalist reaction, based on the tanks and guns of Scobie, re-established its political rule. Its immediate aim was the re-establishment of its oppressive state machine and the stabilisation of its rule. United and decisive in carrying this out, it was aided and directed by its patron, British imperialism.

With the disarming of the masses (and the amnesty of the EAM’s leaders at Varkiza) the main problem which emerged for the Greek capitalists was and continues to be the ‘rebuilding’ of the economy, for which the oppressed masses have to pay. For this task, the disarming of the masses was insufficient, their spirit had to be broken. Directly or indirectly, their organisations had to be dissolved. The workers had to be broken into isolated and subjugated individuals. This task was undertaken by the various neo-Fascist organisations and gangs. At the same time, an economic offensive was unleashed on behalf of the capitalist oligarchy with the weapon of inflation. Workers’ and employees’ wages were repeatedly wiped out. All the stabilisations of the drachma which took place had as their aim a continuing cut in living standards. And the attack on living standards is continuing with the high prices announced for goods, and the implementation of indirect taxes.

All of this comes at a time when the capitalist government is giving endless grants to bankers, industrialists and traders in the form of loans, which inflation wipes out at one tenth of the initial cost.

While the economic attack is continuing, alongside it is an attempt to ‘legalise’ the dictatorial government which is concealed by a parliamentary façade for external consumption and for the deception of the world proletariat.

World capitalist reaction, from Churchill’s Tories to the pseudo-Socialist lackeys of imperialism, the Labour Party, in England, from the ‘Democratic’ bankers of New York and Washington to the ‘Popular Democrats’ of France, is struggling with deceit and armed force to crush the insurrections of capital’s slaves. And while their cannons, tanks and aeroplanes bombard the slaves of Indonesia, Indochina, India, China and elsewhere, they send their ‘observers’ to Greece to bring the king back to the throne ‘with due regard for the law’.

Greek capitalist reaction, with the support of world capitalism, and completely conscious of its class interests, is advancing towards the realisation of its aims of stabilising its power and its exploitative regime.

What are the polices of today’s leadership of the working class? ‘Peaceful democratic development’, in other words the negation of the struggle to achieve the historic aims of the proletariat, the struggle for Socialism. The leadership of the KKE throughout this period has objectively aided domestic and foreign reaction to achieve its aims. It aided them with its politics, which condemned the working class to inactivity and passivity, or dissipated and squandered the willingness of the masses to struggle, with its slogans and cries of “Don’t! You will provoke a monarchist coup!”, with its denunciation of all those militants who would not disarm at Varkiza – in other words those who would not stand with their arms folded and wait to be slaughtered by the Fascists, and with non-participation in the elections, with the utopia of a ‘Pan-democratic Front’.

Instead of supporting the struggle of the working class in the organisations of the working class on a world scale (according to the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and according to the global experience of the workers’ movement), it supported attempts at making a deal with bourgeois politicians of the ‘centre’ and the ‘left’, Sofoulis, Kafandaris and Sofianapoulis, as if it was not they who, with every demagogic utterance, were not attacking the mass movement. As if it was not the government of the ‘Democratic Centre’ which had staged an electoral coup in March!

Comrades, are these coincidental mistakes, or even just a mistaken political line? No. There is a complete consistency in the political line of the KKE. The politics of the KKE are determined by a complete denial of the proletarian revolution in Greece, from the abandonment of the old revolutionary programme to the acceptance of the possibility of bourgeois democracy in the epoch of imperialism. We are dealing with politics which are determined by the acceptance of a regime of private ownership. Here, comrades, a basic opposition exists to the revolutionary politics of Marx and Lenin and to the Fourth International which continues to this day.

The plans of domestic and foreign reaction do not stop at ensuring and maintaining their political and economic domination. The anarchy of production impels capitalism to a constant quest for profit and raw materials. This leads unavoidably to imperialist war. Instead of solving the contradictions of capitalism, war intensifies them, impoverishing the masses and forcing capitalism sooner or later into new wars. The historical dilemma of the epoch, ‘Socialism or Barbarism’ is placed decisively in front of humanity.

World capitalism today is emerging from another war. Despite great destruction of the means of production in countries like Germany and Japan, it does so with its productive capacities increased. But the standard of living for the masses fell drastically during the war. Their purchasing power was lowered to half its pre-war level. Capitalism needs new markets for selling its goods. The Soviet Union controls and rules over a significant portion of our planet. And from the point of view of the social nature of the regime, it is an enemy of capitalism.

World capitalism, under the leadership of American imperialism, is preparing an anti-Soviet war. But an outbreak of war is impossible without the previous defeat of the working class. This is what world capitalism is preparing to do. From a strategic point of view, the geographical situation of Greece will give it an important role in any such anti-Soviet war – if the proletariat does not stop it with a social revolution. One of the aims of domestic and world reaction is to turn Greece into an anti-Soviet and anti-working class bridgehead.

From the analysis we have made, we have demonstrated that the interests of Greek and British capitalism, although not identical, generally coincide. Greek capitalism bases its hopes of rebuilding its economy on the support of Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Both domestic and foreign capitalist reaction feel undying hatred for the movement of the masses for their social liberation. They both nurture the same hatred for the Soviet Union.

British imperialism has to defend its interests in the Middle East. The route to India lies through the eastern Mediterranean. The struggle for oil occurs today mainly in the Middle East. These factors force British imperialism to take a particular interest in Greece and Turkey.

These are the aims of imperialism, both domestic and foreign – the stabilisation of capitalist power wherever it has been shaken, the rebuilding of the capitalist economy on the backs of the working masses, the crushing of the mass movement, and assured strategic bases for the anti-Soviet war. The Greek proletariat and the oppressed masses must react and struggle to frustrate the plans of imperialism.

The struggle against Greek capitalism is a struggle against world imperialism, and, conversely, the struggle against world capitalism is not possible without a parallel struggle against Greek capitalist reaction.

The fronts are clearly distinguishable for all those who want to see – world capitalist reaction on the one side and the world working class on the other. This is the only way to pose the problem and the only way it can be tackled correctly and successfully.

The KKE puts the question of the removal of the British foremost, and whatever the oppressed masses may do is derived from this. The removal of the British is not seen as the outcome of the activity of the masses, but as a problem of good will and Allied diplomacy in which bourgeois ‘patriots’ are to be sought. Since these tasks must precede any other forms of struggle, they serve only to postpone the mass struggle.

Our party, as an internationalist party, confronts the problem from an internationalist point of view. Our party has never stopped carrying out the most decisive and irreconcilable struggle against imperialism. In this struggle, it has suffered many losses, among them our best cadres. The expulsion of the British from Greece, and from all the countries they are occupying, is seen as the result of the activity of the masses and chiefly the British working class. Our allies in the struggle to foil the plans of British imperialism will not be found amongst bourgeois politicians, but amongst the British and the world proletariat. We must make a firm distinction between British imperialism and the working masses of Britain. The first is an ally of local domestic capitalist reaction. Every struggle against Greek capitalism is also a struggle against British imperialism. In our struggle for our economic demands, for our trade union and political rights, we must seek and obtain aid from the British proletariat. British soldiers stationed here should side with us. The same British soldiers should ask to return to their homes.

At every opportunity we should seek to fraternise with British troops – just as we should demand fraternisation with the Greek soldiers who are being sent to attack the struggles of our brothers. The arms they are carrying can and must be used against our common class enemy. The British working class must rise up and halt the plans of British imperialism.

Class against class, the old Leninist slogan which paralysed imperialist reaction in the epoch of Red October, must be heard everywhere. It can give us victory and it will – because the working class is all-powerful. It is simply unaware of its strength because every type of confidence trickster confuses its thinking. The historical rôle of the revolutionary vanguard is to dispel confusion and show the path.

The Greek working class has suffered countless significant defeats. But none of these were decisive. That is why the movement intensified on an international scale. The spirit of the masses persists, although not as intensely as before. We have both explained the causes of the defeats and named their architects. Today the economic situation of the working class is dreadful. Inflation is rising. Starvation wages are already losing their value. The working class will enter into struggle in order to defend its livelihood. The organisation of these struggles is the direct and immediate responsibility of the revolutionary vanguard.

In the countryside a number of factors have influenced and determined the development of a significant peasant movement which grew large during the war and the occupation. These are:
a.The small landholder using primitive methods of cultivation, and the small peasant as well, thus only produce small profits per annum.
b.There is a large variation in prices between agricultural and industrial goods, due to the monopolistic form of industrial capital, which acts against agricultural produce. This results in the absorbing of a section of agricultural capital by industrial capital.
c.Agricultural produce is mainly of produce (raisins, olives, figs, etc) for foreign markets. They are distributed by various capitalist concerns or by traders who also take a significant cut from the income.
d.Taxes. The capitalist class, in order to preserve its exploitative regime, is obliged to maintain a hypertrophic state mechanism. In 1939 this consumed more than half the national income. A significant part of the budget for this weighs down on the peasantry in the form of direct taxation.

These factors, combined with the destruction of war and occupation, created a revolutionary peasant movement and ensured that the position of the poor peasant masses was alongside that of the urban proletariat for the realisation of Socialism.

This is the movement which Greek reaction attempted to annihilate. Unleashing a civil war in the countryside, ELAS guerrillas and other poor peasants rushed into the mountains to defend their lives and the lives of the fellow citizens.

This movement took a most lively form in Thessaly and Macedonia, where the peasant masses were more educated and adopted a class position. But there is another important factor, that of national minorities. The attitude of Greek capitalism was always oppressive to the minorities. After the war, their attitude was criminal. Seeking to realise the imperialist plans in the Balkans, they attempted to eliminate the national minorities.

The new guerrilla movement, which is the defence of the poor peasants, both Greek and foreign-speaking, against the attacks of the capitalist reaction which is trying to put its exploitative and imperialist schemes into practice, became a significant development in Thessaly and Macedonia. All the ‘exterminating missions’ achieved only one thing – they strengthened the movement. But the activity of the guerrillas could not, on its own, crush the capitalist attack. Left on its own and based on its own resources, the new guerrilla movement will sooner or later be forced to submit. The working class of the cities and other oppressed layers must defend the struggle of the poor peasants and the national minorities. They can defend it by organising their own struggles for their economic demands, and frustrating the aims of capitalist reaction. Part of their demands should relate to the slogan for ending the terrorism in the countryside and for a general amnesty for the fighters of the poor peasantry.

Under these conditions, the tasks of the revolutionary vanguard are clearly defined – the abandonment of any utopian idea of ‘stable democratic development’, which cannot be achieved even with the help of a section of the bourgeoisie, its ‘progressive democratic wing’. Such a grouping does not exist within the bourgeois class in the epoch of its decline. The period of democracy has passed. Bourgeois society is facing a period of decline. Today the ruling class must resort to Fascist methods of rule to maintain its regime. Only the Socialist Soviet Democracy can take humanity out of the chaos and barbarism into which capitalism is leading us. Whoever denies this view today becomes, whether they want to or not, a supporter of capitalism. The Socialist Revolution! That must be the main strategic aim of the working class.

But at this juncture in Greece we are about to face the attacks of capitalist reaction. And we can be successful with the immediate organisation of the struggles of the masses. Much time has been lost, and reaction has been winning. Our party declares that its main goal is the unity of the working class and other oppressed layers in a class front to fight for work – for wage rises index-linked to inflation, and for trade union and political freedom.

On the basis of this minimum programme we call on all workers and all the oppressed to organise themselves and to defend their struggle on a national level. Workers’ democracy must be honoured by all.

But if this minimum programme is enough to unite the oppressed in a United Front of struggle, it is not enough in itself for a United Front of the working class. We call on all the workers’ parties – the KKE, the SK-ELD, the AKE – to form a United Front on the basis of the following minimum programme:
1.The organisation of struggles for the economic demands of workers, of employees and of the peasant masses;
2.For trade union and political freedom;
3.For an amnesty for popular militants;
4.For the organisation of workers’ guards;
5.For the dissolution of the pseudo-parliament and for the declaration of elections to a Constituent Assembly;
6.For the ousting of the British by the methods of internationalist struggle; expose the imperialist aims of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and exposing the reactionary anti-working class rôle of British policy in Greece; show the distinction between the British proletariat and British capitalism; distribute fraternising propaganda in the British camps [4]; appeal to the class solidarity of the British and world proletariat through workers’ organisations; oppose every armed intervention against the workers’ movement but without stopping our struggle to fraternise with the armed soldiers; for decisiveness, for commitment to and for the honouring of worker’s democracy.

On the basis of this minimum programme we call in every trade union, in every factory, in every community, in every city and village, for the democratic and proportional election of committees of the workers’ alliance, which will organise and lead the workers’ struggles.

Every party will maintain its independence, its right to propagate its full programme and its right openly to criticise.

Loukas Karliaftis

Notes

1. Karl Marx, Letter to Joseph Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852, K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow 1975, p.64.

2. V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution, Collected Works, Volume 25, Moscow 1977, p.416.

3. One of the Communist Party’s ministers in Papandreou’s government.

4. An attempt was made to establish contact between British revolutionaries in uniform and the Greek movement, in spite of language difficulties. John Giles Henderson was able to make four contacts with members of the Greek Trotskyist movement who worked in the army stores in the Piraeus. Although hampered by a lack of knowledge of the language, he was able to acquaint them with the positions of the rest of the Trotskyist movement by passing to them copies of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s journals, the Workers International News and Socialist Appeal, and those of the US Socialist Workers Party, The Militant and Fourth International. Trotskyists in the British army in Egypt took considerable risks to leaflet the troops there calling on them to refuse to fire on their Greek working class brothers (Alex Acheson, The Wartime Agitation of a Trotskyist Soldier, appendix 2 of Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson, War and the International, London, 1986, p.247).