dimanche 27 janvier 2019

On U.S., interference in Venezuela (open letter)

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.
Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.
Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.
Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.
The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.
Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.
In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.
Signed:
Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona 
Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy 
Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University 
Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College 
Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney 
Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives 
Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years 
Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician 
John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker
Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research 
Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University 
Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies
Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College 
Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University 
Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University 
Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK 
Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies 
Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University 
Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University 
James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle 
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University 
Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom 
Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK 
Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University 
Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK 
Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington 
Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University 
Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College 
Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University
Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis 
Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University 
John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY 
Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut 
Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany 
Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín 
Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History 
Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice 
Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University 
Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico 
Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University 
Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA) 
Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego 
Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College 
Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University
Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University 
Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University 
Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida 
Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY 
Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law 
Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego 
Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology 
Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental 
Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University 
Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist 
William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara 
Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center 
Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland 
Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro 
Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego 
T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa 
Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College 
Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut 
Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia 
Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University 
Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University
Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine 
Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College 
Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University 
Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst 
Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas
__________________________________________________

  

samedi 26 janvier 2019

Selected Writings: THESES ON BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY AND THE DICTATORSHIP...

Selected Writings: THESES ON BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY AND THE DICTATORSHIP...: Third (Communist) International 1st Congress Lenin 4 March 1919 1. Faced with the growth of the revolutionary workers’ movement in eve...

Stock Exchange and Workers’ Participation


By Daniel Paquet                                                 dpaquet1871@gmail.com                                         

MONTRÉAL - « Stock market analysts (in People’s Republic of China, -Ed.) are no less upbeat.  They have assigned virtually unanimous ‘buy’ recommendations to investors on all companies in the Shanghai Composite Index.  A Bloomberg scale shows an average rating of 4.4. where 5 represents unanimous buy calls from analysts.

The wall-to-wall optimism robs Chine lenders of their antenna. (…)
Nevertheless, Beijing does not appear ready to let ‘a hundred schools of thought contend’. (…)
The state-run media has been instructed [sic] to sow harmony wherever it can, prompting the People’s Daily, mouthpiece of the Communist Party, to crow in its 2015 ‘public opinion’ in support about a ‘major increase in consensus online’ in support of the party.” (Kynge, James, The chronic spin that blights China’s economy, Financial Times, New York, Friday 15th, 2016, page 7).

“The projected stability of the non-energy commodity price Index masks divergent pressures on component prices (in Canada, Ed.).  Lumber prices are expected to be a source of strength, benefiting from stronger housing markets in the United States and China.  In contrast, there is the potential for downward pressure on base metals prices as several new mining projects come on line globally.”  (Bank of Canada, Global Economy, Monetary Policy Report, Ottawa, July 2016, page 5).

As for the leading role of the working class in the process of production of the wealth and its distribution, the British TUC (Trade Unions) General Secretary, France O’Grady, says on the participation of working people: ‘Countries that allow workers to play a stronger role in companies have benefitted from greater investment in research and development, and lower rates of poverty and inequality.’  The union leader adds: ‘allowing workers to sit on company boards is a commonsense move that would do much to improve the reputation and performance of corporate Britain.’”  (O’Grady, Frances, Stronger role for workers is a sensible move, Financial Times, Letters, Friday 15, July 2016, page 6).

‘Comrade O’Grady’, gives us – brilliantly! - the proof that participation of workers in capitalist structures, like mass media here, (ex. Financial Times that allows him to publish ‘his’ opinion) do not change the structure and objectives of imperialism (now decaying capitalism).  It will at the end of the day supplies capitalism with a new show-case, proper to feed working-people with new illusions.  This is the crux of the matter with social-democracy.


Communist News
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle  
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas
Le sourire de l’Orient

ARCHIVES

La Vie Réelle  
Pour la KOMINTERN now!


L’Humanité in English



vendredi 25 janvier 2019


CAPITALIST ECONOMY vs SOCIALISM

Tax Haven

By Daniel Paquet                                                   dpaquet1871@gmail.com

What is capitalism?  Is it stagnant?  Why is it criticized, by so many people, including bourgeois media, especially working voices for torments brought upon them?

Nowadays, multinationals, giant firms reckon on tax havens not to pay their fair share of their profits and revenues in general, but they don’t.

But how is capitalism developing?  We can have a look to Russia that was for some decades capitalist, then socialist and return to the capitalist craddle.  Lenin said:
“We still have, in conclusion, to sum up on the question which in literature has come to be known as that of the “mission” of capitalism, i.e. of its historical role in the economic development of Russia.  Recognition of the progressiveness of this role is quite compatible… with the full recognition of the negative and dark sides of capitalism, with the full recognition of the profound and all-round social contradictions which are inevitably inherent in capitalism, and which reveal the historically transient character of this economic regime.

It is the Narodniks – who exert every effort to show that an admission of the historically progressive nature of capitalism means an apology for capitalism – who are at  fault in underrating (and sometimes in even ignoring)  the most profound contradictions of Russian capitalism, by  glossing over the differentiation of the peasantry, the capitalist character of the evolution of our agriculture, and the rise of a class of rural and industrial allotment-holding wage-labourers, by glossing over the complete predominance of the lowest  and worst forms of capitalism in the celebrated ‘handicraft’ industries.
The progressive historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two brief propositions:  increase in the productive forces of social labour, and the socialization of that labour.(…)

The socialization of labour by capitalism is manifested in the following processes.  The very growth of commodity –production destroys the scattered condition of small economic units that is characteristic of natural economy and draws together the small local markets into an enormous national (and then world) market […]  The changes effected in the old economic system by capitalism inevitably lead also to change in the mentality of the population.  The spasmodic character of economic development, the rapid transformation of the methods of production and the enormous concentration of production, the disappearance of all forms of personal dependence and patriarchalism in relationships, the mobility of the population, the influence of the big industrial centres, etc. – all  this cannot but lead to a profound change in the very character of the producers, and we have  had occasion to note the corresponding observations of Russian investigators.”   (Lenin, the Development of capitalism in Russia/Collected Works, tome 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1897, pages 596-600).

Basically, about people’s mentality, under capitalism or any other kind of society, Karl Marx wrote:
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed?  The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one has been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in the last throes, the ancient religions where overcome by Christianity.  When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.  The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the say of free competition within the domain of knowledge.”  (Marx, Karl/Engels, Frederick, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970/Reprinted in the U.S.A., 2012, pages 48-49).

In this era, capitalism was in full swing in Western Europe and America; two world-wide wars supplanted rather quiet years of development (excluding constant regional and colonial wars). 

“ [Recently], the world’s finance chiefs ended talks in Washington soothed by calmer markets yet sobered by the prospect that the relief may only be temporary.
“There was not exactly the same level of anxiety,” IMF managing director Christine Lagarde said… when asked about the mood of officials, from the institutions’ 189 countries meeting in the U.S. capital. (…)
The respite won’t be celebrated for long, as a host of risks to the global expansion loom including Britain’s possible exit from the European Union, a leadership crisis in Brazil and an economic slowdown in China.  On top of that, there’s the ongoing drag of the commodities slump on resource exporters; fresh worry about Greece’s debt sustainability; a war in Syria and a refugee crisis in Europe; and a U.S. presidential candidate who’s threatening to erect  immigration and trade barriers.”  (Mayeda, Andrew/Buergin, Rainer, Finance chiefs on “alert”, not “alarm”, Report on Business/The Globe and Mail, Monday, April 18, 2016, pages B 1, B 10).

“But German Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble said there was no cause for excessive gloom.   ‘We won’ stoke the alarmist talk, for which there is no reason in substance,’ Mr.  Schaeuble told reporters.  ‘We have moderate growth in the various parts of the world economy,  but this moderate growth has nothing to do with any crisis scenarios.’  (Finance chiefs, page B 10).

In Canada, “GDP growth slowed to a very modest pace in the fourth quarter of 2015.  Investment in oil-and-gas- related industries contracted further, while the rest of the economy continued to expand, supported by the past depreciation of the Canadian dollar, and accommodative monetary and financial conditions.  As a result of the ongoing weakness in commodity prices, business investment continued to decline.  Growth was also restrained by further significant adjustments in investment as firms drew down stocks from elevated levels and by a partial reversal of the surge in exports in the previous quarter.” (…)

Real GDP is estimated to have grown by 2.8 per cent in the first quarter, reflecting strength in monthly data on GDP, merchandise trade, housing and retail s ales at the start of the year.  (…)

Overall, the Bank (of Canada) now estimates that real GDP growth will pick up in the first            half of 2016 to average roughly 2 per cent, somewhat stronger than anticipated in January. “ (Bank of Canada, Canadian Economy, Monetary Policy Report, Ottawa, April 2016, pages 10-11).

But the economic situation is rather more dramatic in Russia.   At the time when the Communists were in power, it was without “rosy glasses” rather less complicated for the people living in the former Soviet Union.

“… quantitative improvements were not enough.  I was necessary greatly to enlarge                       the ouput of machinery, and therefore of the iron, steel and coal industries.  Still more was it necessary to improve the management of industry, by introducing more national industrial methods, which old managers had never learned.
It was there problems which led to two important speeches by Stalin, in the courses of 1931, devoted to questions of industrial management, and forcibly presenting a series of suggestions entirely novel and startling for many managers of public enterprises.
In the first, at a conference of industrial managers (February, 1931), Stalin insisted that, unless Russia increased the tempo of her development, she would fall behind the rest of the world as she had done so often in her history – with the result that she would be beaten, as she had been            by the Mongols in the 13th  century and by the Turks and Swedes, Poles and Lithuanians, British, French and Japanese in later ages.  ‘We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries.   We must make good distance in ten years.  Either we do it or they crush us,’ said Stalin.  For this it was necessary for factory managers, and particularly Communists, to master the technique of every part of their factory.” (Rothstein, Andrew, A History of the U.S.S.R., First published in Britain in 1950/ Reprinted in the U.S.A. in 2013, page 1960).

However,

“the more Socialist industry and agriculture develop, the more desperate … becomes the resistance of the remnants of former exploiting classes.  When the Workers’ State was tolerating their existence as rich peasants and traders, they hoped for the gradual undermining of the Socialist elements in economy by means of the development of private trade and agriculture.  As these were eliminated, their hatred intensified to an extreme degree.  The development of Socialism means that those elements now find employment in some of the branches of Soviet industry and trade.  They find employment at a time when whole branches of industry that never previously existed are being established in the country, when millions of backward and individualistic peasants are being absorbed into industry and are bringing many of their old peasant habits with them.  Even without the activity of class enemies in Soviet industry, this would be a period of considerable strain and difficulty. (…)
One can understand that a certain amount of honest mistakes and middle muddle could occur in Soviet industry in the course of the great change through which it is passing.  There is the opportunity of the class enemies. “(Campbell, J. R., Soviet Policy and Its Critics, Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1939, London/Reprinted by Red Star Publishers, 2015, page 123).

Let’s proceed.

Today, the bourgeoisie is using any means to preserve and alleviate its wealth, thus, it has access to tax haven like in the Bahamas and other southern islands to avoid paying taxes in Canada and patriate the whole at their convenience.
Nevertheless, the workers, artists and progressive intellectuals are making their way through to denounce the situation and stop these injustices.
For example, the “husband-and-wife team of author Naomi Klein and documentary filmmaker Avi Lewis” took the initiative to draft The Leap Manifesto.  Hereto are some proposals of this one as reported by journalist Barrie McKenna:
“The goals of making Canada’s electricity industry 100-per-cent renewable within 20 years and the entire country fossil-fuel-free by 2050 have captured a lot of the attention.  But the plan goes much further, advocating a ban on oil and gas pipelines, hydraulic fracturing, new oil-tanker traffic and Canadian ownership of foreign mining projects. (…)

The manifesto also calls for some very expensive [sic!] projects, including national child care, high-speed rail and public transit linking every community in country, as well as rebuilding ‘decaying’ public infrastructure. (…)

The manifesto proposes to pay for Canada’s economic transformation with steep tax hikes, including new taxes financial transaction, a carbon tax, higher resources royalties, higher corporate incomes taxes and levies on the wealthy.
Taxing financial transactions might seem like another promising revenue generator in a $2-trillion dollars economy.”  (McKenna, Barrie, The Leap Manifesto, Report on Business/The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Saturday, April 16th, 2016, page B 16).


Communist News
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas
Le sourire de l’Orient

ARCHIVES

La Vie Réelle
Pour la KOMINTERN now!

L’Humanité in English


-30 -


jeudi 24 janvier 2019



Luxemburg: Propaganda und Wirklichkeit 





Wir dokumentieren an dieser Stelle den Leitartikel aus der heutigen Ausgabe der “Zeitung vum Lëtzebuerger Vollek”, Tageszeitung der Kommunistischen Partei Luxemburgs (KPL).

Die Ankündigung der Regierung, ab dem 1. März 2020 werde der öffentliche Personennahverkehr kostenlos, hat im Ausland für Schlagzeilen gesorgt, einmal, weil der kostenlose öffentliche Transport generell die Ausnahme ist, und ein weiteres Mal, weil eine Regierung, die ein so großes soziales Herz hat, dass sie die Fahrkarten aus sozialen Gründen abschaffen will, im real existierenden Kapitalismus eigentlich nicht so richtig ins Bild passt.

Andererseits sind hierzulande viele, die sich eher oberflächlich mit dem politischen und sozialen Geschehen befassen, erstaunt darüber, dass ausgerechnet die Eisenbahner- und Transportarbeitergewerkschaften Landesverband und Syprolux die Initiative der Regierung heftig ablehnen, wo doch die Gewerkschaften in der Regel für sozialen Fortschritt stehen.

Dieser Widerspruch ist in Wirklichkeit kein solcher. Die »soziale Kirsche auf dem Kuchen«, wie Minister Bausch den kostenlosen öffentlichen Transport nannte, hat mehr mit Propaganda denn mit Sozialpolitik zu tun und soll wohl auch davon abzulenken, dass die Regierung alles andere denn sozial ist, wenn sie sich weigert, den Nachholbedarf beim gesetzlichen Mindestlohn zu tilgen und die Familienzulagen, die Teuerungszulage und Steuertabellen an die Inflation anzupassen.

Nun ist kostenloser öffentlicher Personennahverkehr eigentlich eine gute Sache und wird also solche zum Beispiel auch von den Kommunisten vertreten, vorausgesetzt die Rahmenbedingungen stimmen. Denn was nutzt es der Verkäuferin mit dem viel zu niedrigen Mindestlohn aus Differdingen, wenn sie gratis mit dem Zug fahren darf, dieser aber bei jeder unpassenden Gelegenheit ausfällt oder große Verspätung hat, so dass ihr Chef in einem Escher Kaufhaus ihr damit droht, die Verspätung vom Lohn abzuziehen und ihr nahelegt, sich nach einem anderen Arbeitsplatz umzusehen, wenn sie es in Zukunft nicht schaffen sollte, rechtzeitig am Arbeitsplatz zu erscheinen?

So gesehen, haben die Gewerkschaften natürlich Recht, wenn sie vordringlich auf den qualitativen Ausbau des öffentlichen Transport pochen, fordern, dass rechtzeitig modernes Material in genügendem Umfang angeschafft, genügend qualifiziertes Personal eingestellt und die Zugstrecken zügiger ausgebaut werden, neue Bahnhöfe eröffnet und bessere Dienstleistungen angeboten werden. Denn verspätete, überfüllte Züge, fehlendes Personal, Sicherheitsmängel, der Ausbau von Zugstrecken im Schneckentempo und zeitweise stillgelegte Zugstrecken aufgrund von fehlendem Rollmaterial tragen alles andere denn zur Attraktivität des öffentlichen Transports bei.
Gerade da müssten die Regierung und die staatliche Bahngesellschaft einen gewaltigen Zahn zulegen, ansonsten die bestehenden Probleme wohl erst am Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag gelöst werden.

Richtig ist auch, wenn die Gewerkschaften sich gegen die Abschaffung der Fahrkarten wehren und im Falle des kostenlosen öffentlichen Transports die Einführung von Freifahrkarten für alle Benutzer fordern, die eingelöst und von Begleitpersonal kontrolliert werden. Denn an die Fahrkarte ist, selbst wenn die kostenlos ist, der Anspruch der Kunden an eine optimale Dienstleistung seitens der Betreibergesellschaft gekoppelt.

Fazit: Die Regierung sollte dort, wo sie im Sozialbereich erfordert sind, dringend notwendige Verbesserungen vornehmen und im öffentlichen Transport die Unzulänglichkeiten schnell beheben und dafür sorgen, dass schneller und umfangreicher als bisher vorgesehen in die Qualität investiert wird.

Aus Erfahrung weiß man, dass beides nur möglich wird, wenn die Lohnabhängigen und ihre Organisationen den entsprechenden Druck ausüben.

Quelle: Zeitung vum Lëtzebuerger Vollek

Continue Reading
PreviousDer Putschpräsident der USA
Suche nach:

lundi 21 janvier 2019




 

A lesson in dialecticaly analyzing breaking news

The Worker Editorial Board Response
Recent viral videos sprung up showing a group of white high-school students wearing MAGA hats and clothing . The recordings from Washington DC revealed what appeared to be students surrounding and harassing a Native American US military veteran.
During Friday’s (Jan. 18, 2019) Indigenous Peoples March in Washington DC, a group of white private high-school students from Kentucky wearing MAGA-branded clothing and hats appeared to surround and harass 64-year-old Native American Nathan Phillips, a veteran of the Vietnam War, as he played a drum and chanted in his native language.
Though subsequent videos shows before the drummiing started, the young teenage boys were being verbally harrassed themselves. Black Hebrew Israelites, BHI, were taunting and insulting their (students) faith, their priests and their culture. What appeared to be smugness towards the Omaha Indigenous elder was being directed towards the BHI. How would any young teenage boy respond to this verbal abuse?
The social media culture is used to manipulate and incite persons while maybe not tellilng the whole story. Knee jerk reactions further the racism divide that is enveloping all nations. We can’t just take a live streamed video or Instagram picture to tell the whole story. We have to go old school and use dialetical reasoning skills before making snap judgement.
Here is what we know to be reliable truth.
MAGA-branded clothing and hats are typically worn by supporters of President Donald Trump, and the ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) slogan is considered to be the most important catchphrase of the 45th US president’s administration.
Seeding Sovereignity, (seedingsovereignty.org), wrote of working through their own complicated and emotional reactions to the video, and attested to the generosity Phillips displayed: “The way we see it, uncle blessed them in spite of their behavior because he knows our ancestral teachings. Many of us love to say we are rising in beauty, but how many of us put that sentiment into action?
Many have observed that Trump’s polarizing rhetoric on immigrants to the US has contributed to the current climate of racial abuse.
US House Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), a Native American and a professed Catholic, was at the DC rally.Haaland, pointed out that Trump has made it a habit to use Indian names, including Pocahontas, as insults toward political opponents.
“It is sad that we have a president who uses Native American women’s names as racial slurs, and that’s an example that these kids are clearly following, considering the fact that they had their ‘Make America Great Again’ [MAGA] hats on,” Haaland noted. “[Trump has] really brought out the worst in people,” the lawmaker added.
Rebecca Bengal, Vogue, reported eloquently, “On the video footage, it is difficult to hear exactly what is said. The students encircle Phillips, camera phones held out, a few jeering as he sings. One of them, smiling, maintains direct eye contact. Phillips kept on drumming. “We’re indigenous,” he said the next day in an interview with Indian Country Today. “We’re different than that. When we see our youth going the wrong way, we will go up and say, “You are doing the wrong thing there, Nephew or Grandson. This is just the wrong way.”
While this story is still unfolding, the fact remains that ill-equipped Trump for the presidency enflames white nationalism. The root issue here is racism. It also further documents how the imperialistic fascists incite class divisions amoung all working class groups. At first news reports incited anger towards the white youth. The new videos incite hatered towards BHI, This must be addressed. There is no room in scientific socialism for class division.

COMING SOON
The Worker brand new layout and print edition. Be looking for it soon!


 




Race, Religion and Radicalism: King and Du Bois



By Edward Carson August 30, 2018 Comments Off




*Editor’s Note: This week we are publishing our recent online forum on W.E.B. Du Bois in recognition of the anniversary of his passing on August 27, 1963.



On the occasion of a dual anniversary—the year we ponder the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination and recognize the 150th anniversary W.E.B. Du Bois’s birth—the intersection of their legacy offers fertile ground for reflection.

King is largely remembered for having a dream. And while his “I Have a Dream” speech and other rhetorical flourishes stand at the pinnacle of what Americans know about him, his objectives remain unrealized. King articulated a radical socialist message, still unheard and often disputed, due to his anti-poverty, anti-materialism, and anti-war convictions, perspectives shaped within the framework of challenging American capitalism. Like Socrates, King’s teachings threatened the ruling class and the pervasive comfort of liberals. Today’s proclamation of King, witnessed recently in the appropriation of his words for a Super Bowl LII commercial, presents a revisionary tale. Months before King’s assassination, his assault on capitalism earned him a rebuke by many Black folks, who did not care for his evolving vision in challenging the economic inequalities promulgated by capitalism, and still more white folks, who expressed a disdain toward him.

Du Bois, on the other hand, was a global intellectual within a radical leftist framework; he fought for the liberation of peoples in the darker lands, as well as those occupied by the oppressive forces of capitalism. Du Bois persistently juxtaposed the American race problem with the endemic forces of global imperialism and capitalism. “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line”: a recasting of that sentence’s inaugural iteration—most famously published in The Souls of Black Folk, but also the concluding sentence of the “To the Nations of the World,” collectively constructed by those attending the Pan-African Congress of 1900. We must also recognize that Du Bois’s radical evolution started with the Russian Revolution (1917). In seeking a solution to Black oppression, he became aware of his inner Bolshevism when and proclaimed, “I am a Bolshevik” after a 1926 visit to the Soviet Union. One must not attempt to recount Du Bois’s life and legacy just as a Pan-Africanist or civil rights activist, which society has done to King, but measure Du Bois and his internal struggles and maturation as an evolving radical and eventual member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). While King and Du Bois shared much in working for a reconfiguration of society, only Du Bois proclaimed in a pronounced fashion his full radicalness, leaving questions about King up for interpretation. Yet, both men had a dream and that dream was a society removed from capitalism’s despair.W. E. B. Du Bois and Shirley Graham Du Bois viewing the May Day parade in Moscow’s Red Square, May 1, 1959. (Photo: W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries)

Du Bois’s thought evolved as he wrestled with understanding the domestic and international question of communism and the color line. Du Bois was a contradiction at times. For instance, he shared Vladimir Lenin’s interpretation of modern imperialism; however, he was aware of their differences when it involved the colonizer and the colonized, as he wondered about the full status and welfare of the Russian people post-Revolution. Hence, prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, William Walling’s interpretation of the 1905 Russian Revolution influenced Du Bois’s membership in the Socialist Party (1911). He eventually left the party to endorse presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson over Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs during the 1912 campaign. Such a portrait of Du Bois, as a pronounced intellectual framing a synthesis of analysis for the American Negro, and the darker people of the world, later found expression in his political thought as a “Bolshevik.” During the Josef Stalin years, however, his disappointment in the post-Lenin state offered concerns, even as he celebrated his Bolshevik identity.

Du Bois, who studied Karl Marx and engaged Marxism in writings such as Black Reconstruction, joined the CPUSA in 1961. In his application letter, the Massachusetts-born American sociologist and civil rights activist wrote: “Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” King also studied Marx, and largely agreed with Du Bois, though he equivocated in his language. He wrote:


I read all of the influential historical thinkers—from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no. Insofar as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but insofar as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite “yes.”

King’s radical capacity did not land him in the CPUSA—nor did it pronounce a tune of “radical revolution” or “workers of the world, unite,” but its pathway from Du Bois, who passed away in 1963, continued to uncover the evils of capitalism. After all, it was at Carnegie Hall on February 23, 1968, in the final year of his life, where King delivered a commemorative speech on the 100th anniversary of Du Bois’s birth. In his speech titled “Honoring Dr. Du Bois”, King offered one of his most damning messages about American capitalism and the inequality it presented, while offering great praise to Du Bois, as he told Americans “it is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist.” Clearly agitated at America’s deaf ears regarding racism, poverty, and militarism, King observed:


[W]e cannot talk of Dr. Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a Communist in his later years. It is worth noting that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely. In contemporary life the English-speaking world has no difficulty with the fact that Sean O’Casey was a literary giant of the twentieth century and a Communist or that Pablo Neruda is generally considered the greatest living poet though he also served in the Chilean Senate as a Communist….Our irrational, obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking.

King was keenly aware that American society failed to grasp Du Bois’s greatness, a pioneer who explored truth telling in his short stories, and in his countless editorials published in The Crisis magazine.

If King and Du Bois’s socialist alignment presented a congruent perspective regarding capitalism’s ills, they also creatively invoked religious symbols, sermons, and narratives to convey societal inequality. In 1931, Du Bois expressed some doubt that the Christian church was capable of addressing the color line problem. In his Christian Century essay, “The Church and the Color Line” he discussed the puzzling hypocrisy of the white Christian church. This essay denounced inequality, while telling the white church that it was wrong to assume Black folk were grateful for the marginal advances made. To Du Bois there should not be Black or white, rich or poor, as all stand equal before God. Deception due to race did not align with Christian scripture. Similarly, in Du Bois’s short story “The Gospel According to Mary Brown,” Mary’s child Joshua represented a Black biblical character who found comfort among those who were societal outcasts. The Black Jesus Christ marched with the poor, with sinners, and communists; however, whites did not embrace this Christ. The white South lynched this Christ because they could not accept a Christ who sought the equality of all people, especially the American Negro. Because of this, the very people who awaited him—the Christian South, killed Joshua. Du Bois, who published this narrative in 1919, two years after the Russian Revolution, illustrated his socialist leanings through creative religious parables.

It was during the 1930s, however, that he gained a greater sense of his ideological beliefs. During this time he exited from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and he began an affair with Shirley Graham, who further helped materialize his maturation as an eventual communist.

King expressed in his 1958 book Radical Love that Christians should be challenged to grow in a way that seeks social justice. King’s radicalism took back Christ from white supremacy; he reminded folks that Jesus was the same symbol used by white supremacy in lynching Black folk. His faith made him radical—armed with the gospels during the civil rights movement, as he rescued Christ—a symbol to some that denounced greed, material culture, and white supremacy. Du Bois damned the white South throughout his life. His faith in God and belief in socialism proved powerful.

King and Du Bois fought the evils of capitalism, racism, and inequality for a combined 134 years—well over a century of life. They looked to the Gospels of Christ and Marx’s Communist Manifesto to explain the darkness of humanity and an elevated need for a radically reconfigured state.
Share with a friend:







Copyright © AAIHS. May not be reprinted without permission.
← Previous : Bringing W. E. B. Du Bois Home Again
‘In a Classroom of Their Own’: A New Book on All-Black Male Schools : Next →


Edward Carson

Edward Carson is a residential faculty member in the History Department of Brooks School in North Andover, Massachusetts. His current research examines race, religion, and society, particularly that of W.E.B. Du Bois. He is the co-author with John P. Irish of Historical Thinking Skills: A Workbook for European History. He is currently working on a book titled W.E.B. Du Bois’s Editorial Influence on Western Negro Migration. Follow him on Twitter @ProfCarson44.


Subscribe

Sign up to get the latest posts and updates.First Name E-Mail Address
Categories
Archives
Tags
#AAIHSRoundtable#BlackLivesMatter #comicsandraceActivism African Diasporaarchives black feminism black intellectual history black internationalism black lives matterblack nationalism Black Panther Partyblack politics Black Powerblack protest Black radicalismblack radical tradition Black women Brazil capitalismCaribbean civil rights Civil Rights Movement Cuba Donald TrumpGender Haiti Jim Crow Malcolm X musicPan-Africanism police brutalitypolice violence Politics race Racial Violence racism religionResistance slavery slave tradeSouth teaching W.E.B. Du Bois white supremacy
Trending Now


Race and Service in the Pacific During World War II
By Karen Cook Bell | 3 Comments

The Radical Tradition of Student Protest
By Mike Jirik | 1 Comment

‘The Struggle is Eternal’: An Interview with Joseph R. Fitzgerald
By Ashley Farmer | 2 Comments

Black Thought and Sexual Politics: An Interview with Guy Emerson Mount
By Chris Shell

Them Goon Rules: A New Book On Radical Black Feminism
By J. T. Roane
Comments


Each author’s posts reflect their own views and not necessarily those of the African American Intellectual History Society Inc. AAIHS welcomes comments on and vigorous discussion about our posts. We recognize that there will be disagreement but ask that you be civil about such disagreements. Personal insults and mean spirited comments will not be tolerated and AAIHS reserves the right to delete such comments from the blog.
CONTRIBUTORS
DONATE

The Komintern – a Vanguard Workers’Union

See the website Pour la KOMINTERN now! www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com


By Daniel Paquet                                                    dpaquet1871@gmail.com

TORONTO – A representative group of Communists from various countries met in 2011 at the International solidarity meeting with the Soviet peoples.  They started to establish a new World Association of Communists, which could be the nucleus of a new Komintern.  This association will be based on the heritage of Lenin.

Already in the past existed other workers’ international associations.  In Canada, the conservative elements (especially the Catholic Church in the Province of Québec), opposed themselves to such movements arguing that they were ‘atheist’ by nature.

Confronted to such an attitude, Marxists answered that “Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.  Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.  It is the opium of the people. (…)
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness.  The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions.  The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”  (Marx, Karl, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:  Introduction.  Tucker, Robert C., The Marx-Engels Reader, W.W. Norton & Company, New-York-London, 1978, page 54).

“Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are utilized in order to produce new raw materials, new instruments of labour and new means of subsistence.  All these component parts of capital are creations of labour, products of labour, accumulated labour.  Accumulated labour which serves as a means of new production is capital.”  (Ibidem, Wage Labour and Capital, page 207).

“The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is the extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, and consequently to exploit labour-power to the greatest possible extent.  (…)
The control exercised by the capitalist is not only a special function, due to the nature of the social labour-process, and peculiar to that process, but is, at the same time, a function of the exploitation of a social labour-process, and is consequently rooted in the unavoidable antagonism between the exploiter and the living and labouring raw material he exploits.”  (Ibidem, Captital, Volume I, page 385).


“The market is a category of commodity economy, which in the course of its development is transformed into capitalist economy and only under the latter gains complete sway and universal prevalence.  (…)
The basis of commodity economy is the social division of labour.  Manufacturing industry separates from extracting industry, and each of these subdivides into small varieties and sub varieties which produce specific products, as commodities, and exchange them for the products of all the others.  Thus, the development of commodity economy leads to an increase in the number of separate and independent branches of industry; the tendency of this development is to transform into a special branch of industry the making not only of each separate product, but even of each separate part of a product – and not only the making of a product, but even the separate operations of preparing the product for consumption.” (Lenin, V.I., Development of capitalism in Russia, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1956, pages 11-12).

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms.  It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. (…)
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature; it has simplified the class antagonisms:  Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other:  Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”  (The Marx-Engels Reader, Manifesto of the Communist Party, page 474).

Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto in 1848.  Before them, in the XVIIIe century, industrial revolution was neither on the order of the day, nor the proletariat.  Thus, the famous philosopher, David Hume, could just say: “It is evident that there is a principle of connexion between the different thoughts or ideas of the mind, and that, in their appearance to the memory or imagination, they introduce each other with a certain degree of method and regularity. (…)
And even in our wildest and most wandering reveries, nay in our very dreams, we shall find, if we reflect, that the imagination ran not altogether at adventures, but that there was still a connexion upheld among the different ideas, which succeeded each other.”  (Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding/Philosophic Classics, Kaufman, Walter, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., MCMLXI, page 329).

“With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as it at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk factors of a real revolution.  Such a revolution is only possible in the periods when both these, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois productive forms come in collision with each other.  (…) 
A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis.  It is, however, just as certain as this crisis.”  (Ibidem, The Class Struggles in France, page 593).

“What is now happening to Marx’s teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation.  During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. (…)
At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this ‘doctoring’ of Marxism.  They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul.”  (Lenin, V.I., The State and Revolution, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970, page 3).

“… if indeed we succeeded in reaching a point when all, or at least a considerable majority, of the local committees, local groups and circles actively took up work for the common cause, we could, in the not distant future, establish a weekly newspaper that would be regularly distributed in tens of thousands of copies…. This newspaper would become a part of an enormous pair of smith’s bellows that would fan every spark of class struggle and popular indignation into a general conflagration. (…)
That is what we should dream of.” (Lenin, V.I., What is to be done, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1973, page 21 /Reprinted by Red Star Publishers, U.S.A., 2014, page 56).

“When communist workmen associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end.   But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need – the need for society – and what appears as a means becomes an end.  (…)
Company, association, and conversation, which again has society as its end, are enough for them; the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them (i.e. communists), but a fact of life and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies.”  (Ibidem, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, pages 99-100).

“… we are fighting not only to win socialism for us, not only to ensure that our children shall recollect capitalists and landlords as prehistoric monsters; we are fighting to ensure that the workers of the whole world shall triumph together with us. (…)
And this First Congress of the Communist International, which has established the point that throughout the world the Soviets are winning the sympathy of the workers, show us that the victory of the international communist revolution is assured. (…)
The comrades present in this hall saw how the first Soviet republic was founded; they now see how the Third, Communist International (i.e. Komintern) has been founded, and they will all see how the World Federative Republic of Soviets is founded.”  (Lenin, V.I., On the International Working-Class and Communist Movement, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, pages 277-278).

“It scarcely needs proof that there is not the slightest possibility of carrying out these tasks in a short period, of accomplishing all this in a few years.  Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from capitalism to communism, must not be regarded as a fleeting period of ‘super-revolutionary’ acts and decrees, but as an entire historical era, replete with civil wars and external conflicts, with persistent organizational work and economic construction, with advances and retreats, victories and defeats.  The historical era is needed not only to create the economic and cultural prerequisites for the complete victory of socialism, but also to enable the proletariat, firstly, to educate itself and become steeled as a force capable of governing the country, and, secondly, to re-educate and re-mould the petty-bourgeois strata along such lines as will assure the organization of socialist production.”  (Stalin, J.V., The Foundations of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1975/Reprinted in the United States, 2010, pages 40-41).

Further, “it has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production is restricted and placed within definite bounds by our system.  The same must be said of the sphere of operations of the law of value.  Undoubtedly, the fact that private ownership of the means of production does not exist, and that the means of production both in town and country are socialized, cannot but restrict the sphere of operation of the law of value and the extent of its influence on production.
In this same direction operates the law of balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy, which has superseded the law of competition and anarchy of production.   In this same direction, too, operate our yearly and five-yearly plans and our economic policy, generally, which are based on the requirements of the law of balanced development of the national economy.” (Stalin, J.V., Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1972/Reprinted in the U.S.A., 2012, pages 18-19).

Nowadays, world-wide, the working-class (in Britain with ‘Brexit’ and elsewhere) is reorganizing its ‘armies’.  For instance, the World Federation of Trade-Unions (WFTU), on the occasion of the International Workers’ Day – 1st of May 2016 –conveyed a militant salute to all men and women of the working class, and to its 92 million members (in 120 countries around the world):

‘Men and women, young and old, employed and unemployed, migrants and refugees, the WFTU wishes you strength, determination, and courage in your struggles, however big they are. (…)
Multinationals, reactionary governments, neo-fascist and racist elements, Imperialism, all of them dread May Day, being the symbol of internationalism, struggle, and class unity.  These are our most powerful weapons in our struggles for a better life, against poverty, and against wars generated by capitalist Barbarism.’  (WFTU, Statement on May Day 2016, published in Northstar Compass, Toronto, page 8; WFTU can be reached at:  40, Zan Moreas Street, Athens 11745, Greece).

And finally, what about the workers in Québec?  The vast majority amongst them ignores the existence of WFTU and are members – through lack of knowledge – of the social-democratic international organization, for that matter. 


Communist News
La Nouvelle Vie Réelle
marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas
Le sourire de l’Orient

ARCHIVES

La Vie Réelle
Pour la KOMINTERN now!

L’Humanité in English