what would lenin do?
march our mind will and honor
into our party

what would stalin do?
this depends upon your needs
for saint or demon

what would mao do?
that seventy percent question
reformulated

what would trotsky do?
this depends upon your need
to blame or to praise

what would rosa do?
of which one are you thinking
parks or luxemburg?

and what shall we do
to keep our minds occupied
our hands on the plow?

february 3 2012
berkeley ca

gary hicks

http://www.houstonpeacecouncil.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=157&action=edit&message=1

those are our demands
since hot august summer day
nineteen sixty three

it’s long obvious
that without jobs and freedom
all else is on hold

unlike domino’s
no short-term delivery
this will take a fight

make these permanent?
not with capitalism
takes socialism

anarchy aside!
don’t need a deadly circus
we want a movement

away with piss-ant deeds!
huge masses into the street
for jobs and freedom

berkeley ca february 3, 2012

gary hicks

Freud’s views of communism

In several books written shortly before his death, Sigmund Freud wrote about his views on communism. Although it must be borne in mind that Dr. Freud was very ill at that time with cancer of the jaw and struggled during much of his life with cocaine abuse, they are important statements and are lock step with bourgeois arguments against Marxism. For this reason, it is important to carefully read and critically view his statements. Although he never mentions Marx, they are clearly aimed at Marxist philosophy.

Freud writes in : Civilization and its discontents (Vol. XXI, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Hogarth Press, pps. 112-115):

“The Communists believe they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and is well disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and with it the temptation to ill treat his neighbor; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone’s needs would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as his enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous.1 But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. It reigned almost without limit in primitive times, when property was still very scanty, and it already shows itself in the nursery almost before property has given up its primal, anal form; it forms the basis of every relation of affection and love among people (with the single exception, perhaps, of the mother’s relation to her male child). If we do away with personal rights over material wealth, there still remains prerogative in the field of sexual relationships, which is bound to become the source of the strongest dislike and the most violent hostility among men who in other respects are on an equal footing. If we were to remove this factor, too, by allowing complete freedom of sexual life and thus abolishing the family, the germ-cell of civilization, we cannot, it is true, easily foresee what new paths the development of civilization could take; but one thing we can expect, and that is that this indestructible feature of human nature will follow it there.

It is clearly not easy for men to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression. They do not feel comfortable without it. The advantage which a comparatively small cultural group offers of allowing this instinct an outlet in the form of hostility against intruders is not to be despised. It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness. I once discussed the phenomenon that is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other-like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance, the North Germans and South Germans, the English and Scotch, and so on. I gave this phenomenon the name of ‘the narcissism of minor differences’, a name which does not do much to explain it. We can now see that it is a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier. In this respect the Jewish people, scattered everywhere, have rendered most useful services to the civilizations of the countries that have been their hosts; but unfortunately all the massacres of the Jews in the Middle Ages did not suffice to make that period more peaceful and secure for their Christian fellows. When once the apostle Paul had posited universal love between men as the foundation of his Christian community, extreme intolerance on the part of Christendom towards those who remained outside it became the inevitable consequence. To the Romans, who had not founded their communal life as a State upon love, religious intolerance was something foreign, although with them religion was a concern of the State and the State was permeated by religion. Neither was it an unaccountable chance that the dream of a Germanic world-dominion called for anti-Semitism as its complement; and it is intelligible that the attempt to establish a new, communist civilization in Russia should find its psychological support in the persecution of the bourgeois. One only wonders, with concern, what the Soviets will do after they have wiped out their bourgeois.”

“1 Anyone who has tasted the miseries of poverty in his own youth and has experienced the indifference and arrogance of the well-to-do, should be safe from the suspicion of having no understanding or goodwill towards endeavors to fight against the inequality of wealth among men and all that it leads to. To be sure, if an attempt is made to base this fight upon an abstract demand, in the name of justice, for equality for all men, there is a very obvious objection to be made-that nature, by endowing individuals with extremely unequal physical attributes and mental capacities, has introduced injustices against which there is no remedy.”

Dr. Freud attacks communism, i.e. Marxist ideology, on the basis that it is an “illusion”, given the propensity of humans to be aggressive. He maintains that humans are by nature aggressive and that there is no solution to this problem.

Let’s examine this premise.

Dr. Freud, father of psychoanalysis, it must be remembered, was influenced highly by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche was the so-called “philosopher of the Nazis.” The rise of the Nazis in Germany and Austria resulted in Dr. Freud fleeing to London to save his own skin due to their fascist anti-semitism. It is well-documented that the Nazis rise to power resulted in exorbitant carnage throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. Jews, and other “undesirable” sectors of the German population were relieved not only of their lives, but of their property. During the economic catastrophe which was Germany, the capitalists bolstered their power and position by preying on the Middle Class Jews and others and seized their property as they sent them off to the concentration camps.

Hitler’s Germany decimated the young Soviet Union and devastated the gains achieved by the world’s first experiment with socialism. Dr. Freud’s attack on communism represents a profound identification with the aggressor, on which he wrote extensively. Identification with the aggressor refers to a person’s adaptation to abuse by an external source by taking on their characteristics. In other words, when a person is abused, they are likely to mimic the behavior of the aggressor in an effort to save themselves from abuse.

The footnote cited above is inherently contradictory. Freud acknowledges that poverty serves to motivate many people to do whatever is necessary to save themselves from impoverishment. However, he seems to accede that poverty follows from the individual differences in human beings. In other words, some people are biologically superior and others are biologically inferior. This line of thinking led to Nazism and buttresses capitalism and seeks to justify the inequality in the distribution of commodities inherent in the capitalist system. Following from this, we might surmise that some people are endowed with exceptional characteristics which entitle them to exceptional rewards without regard to their contributions to humanity. In other words, the supermen and gods should receive the bulk of the rewards, while people of lesser capabilities should receive only subsistence remuneration or less.

Data to support Freud’s chauvinism

On what data does Dr. Freud base his hypotheses?

Dr. Freud was a well-paid servant of the wealthy. He was a much ballyhooed psychotherapist in Austria and later in London. He treated members of the bourgeoisie who suffered from mental illness. Who else, but the bourgeoisie, could have afforded to engage in daily therapy sessions and at an exorbitant rate? Dr. Freud did not live in squalor in either Austria or England.

So, the subjects of his experiments were exclusively members of the bourgeoisie. In other words, Dr. Freud treated the 1% and this is similar to his main proponents in the U.S. today, the Menninger Clinic. The Menninger Clinic, now located in Houston, commands a daily fee of at least $1500 and demands a commitment of at least a month’s stay for inpatient treatment.

How many working people could afford such a tariff?

Where do working people stand in light of Freud’s conclusions?

Is it possible to generalize Freud’s findings from the 1% to the 99%? Are the aggressive impulses which Freud unearthed among the bourgeoisie inherent among the 99%? Are the tendencies of working people the same as those of the wealthy classes?

Can anyone argue the fact that the wealthy have dominated the state since the inception of the U.S.A.? It has been noted that many of the signers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc. were slave owners. It is clear that the purpose of the state is to protect the interests of the ruling classes as recognized by Lenin (State and Revolution, V. I. Lenin).

Lenin also argued that Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism (Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism). This means that at its apex, capitalism must resort to aggressive wars of domination and subjugation of the international working class to maintain its superiority. In other words, capitalism must resort to any means necessary to insure increasing profits for the owners of the means of production, i.e. the owners of major industries, in order to survive.

So, in order to insure increasing profits, which are based on lowering the wages of working people, capitalists are bound to engage in barbaric tactics to rob the workers of the wealth they produce.

How does this play out in the human psyche and behavior?

In which classes is violence expressed most clearly?

In order for the wealthy to maintain their position of domination in the highest economic strata of society, they must resort to extraordinary violence and aggression against the people to which they seek to subjugate to their will. In other words, they must beat the workers into submission. This requires a great deal of violence in order to achieve their ends. A passive observer of this process might misinterpret their deeds as representative of the behavior of the population in general. However, it is the owner class which is delivering violence on the working class to intimidate them into submission and compliance to attain the lowering of wages which only benefits the wealthy class.

Some years ago I became aware of a family in the Southern United States who had been slave owning prior to the Civil War. After the Civil War, they acquired a cotton gin to maintain their profits. At one period, cotton was extremely difficult to obtain. The head of the family learned of a number of beds in a state facility that were available for purchase. The beds included mattresses stuffed with cotton. The family bought as many of these beds as they could get to keep the cotton gin running. They produced a great deal of linen, but at a great price. The beds came from a TB hospital. The workers and many family members contracted TB as a result of their contact with the infected product. These unfortunate people died, but the profits of the family enterprise were increased.

So, we see that in this example the aggressive tendencies to which Freud alluded are mainly emanating from the wealthy classes.

The working class and the expression of aggression

One only needs to examine the history of the working class movement, which has been for the most part peaceful and opposed to violence, to see the differences in the classes on the issue of aggression.

Anyone who has participated in anti-war marches and/or demonstrations can tell you that the participants are working class. No one in such marches ride in Rolls Royces or Mercedes or sport top hats, spats and/or tuxes. You won’t find Donald Trump or Mitch Romney in an anti-war march even though their participation might boost the number of voters who support them in the electoral cycle. Their assigned duties are to bolster the ruling class by any means necessary.

Many revolutionaries have remarked on the non-aggression of the working classes when confronted with violence by the owner classes. Why is it that the working classes do not react with violence when subjugated by the ruling class? After all, the working class constitutes the majority of the population and could easily overcome their oppressors if they proceeded in a principled, unified way.

Identification with the aggressor

Perhaps Dr. Freud’s theory of the identification with the aggressor is one answer.

Sometimes people feel that if they submit to their aggressors in the face of aggression, they can save themselves and their family.

However, they soon learn, as many have learned throughout history, that when they show weakness by buckling under, they will become subject to more violence. The violence perpetrated by the aggressor, i.e. the bourgeoisie, results in the workers’ loss of privileges and an increase in the profits reaped by the oppressors. Wars, advocated by the wealthy, always result in slaughtering the working people in order to maximize the profits of the wealthy. This line of attack leads straight to war even though the vast majority of the population opposes war. This has been seen in the recent years of the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations.

I was once told a story by a Latino colleague who grew up in Texas. The story was known by Latinos in South Texas. There was an Anglo farmer on the border with Mexico who hired teams of Latino workers to farm his property. The farmer would contract with the workers to pay them when the job was complete. However, when the job was complete, the farmer would shoot all the Latino workers and bury them in a mass grave.

Were the workers violent? No! Were the landowners violent? Yes!

Although Dr. Freud’s formulation of psychoanalytic theory has been revolutionary in the treatment of mental illness, it’s generalization to human behavior has been limited by the sample of the population on which the great psychotherapist based his conclusions.

A class analysis of aggressive tendencies

A class analysis of Freud’s conclusions indicates that the wealthy classes are inherently aggressive, particularly towards those they seek to oppress, while the working people are generally peaceful. Wouldn’t you rather live in a world dominated by peace rather than aggression in the interests of a certain sector of the population? It is unfortunate that Dr. Freud failed to grasp the basic concepts of Marxism and merely responded to his own aspirations to the bourgeois point of view. Although Dr. Freud extolled the virtues of science, he failed to adhere to reality and created notions of human aggression based on an analysis of an extremely limited segment of the population.

Dr. Freud accused the working classes of laboring under an “illusion” that if they seized power, they would be able to end all human aggression.

Marxism does not labor under any illusions. Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, a scientific method which predicted quantum Physics. Dialectical materialism is based on science, while idealism is based on mythology or ideas.

Dr. Freud was very creative in conjuring up some captivating ideas about the nature of the human psyche. He was very weak in his methodology and based his conclusions on examinations of a small number of bourgeois patients.

Making broad based conclusions on the basis of small, homogeneous samples does not generalize well to the entire population of human beings. Such an approach does not conform to standard scientific methodology. His generalizations about aggressive behavior apply very well to the population of which he studied, i.e. the bourgeoisie, or wealthy classes. On the other hand, these conclusions cannot be reasonably applied to the working class.

So, one can surmise from Dr. Freud’s research that the wealthy classes are subject to forces which propel them to engage in aggression on a mass scale against the working people when such tactics are likely to benefit them. In other words, when the wealthy must increase their profits to keep capitalism alive, they are likely to resort to violence against workers to reduce wages, which is the only way for the owners of various enterprises to collectively increase their profits, according to Marx.

Freudian analysis of the Soviet experiment

Freud speculates on what the Soviets might do when they “do away with their bourgeoisie”. He predicts violence by the Soviets.

However, if we look at the concrete history, it was the Soviets who defeated the Nazis on the ground after the Nazis had slaughtered untold numbers of Soviet citizens. The Nazis, who were the party of the ruling class in Germany, i.e. the capitalists, sought to destroy the young Soviet Republic and visited unbelievable violence not only on the Soviets, but anyone who disagreed with them in Europe.

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out. (Martin Niemӧller, 1892-1984)

How did the capitalists express their aggressive tendencies?

Freud’s phobias about Communists would not have predicted the incineration of two major cities in Japan, i.e. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nor the fire-bombing and resultant incineration of Dresden in Germany. These crimes against humanity were perpetrated solely by capitalists.

Freud’s fears of the Communists would not have accounted for the endless wars against nations who have opposed the oppression perpetrated by capitalists. These wars include: VietNam, Cambodia, North Korea, Panama, Cuba, USSR, Chile, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Grenada, Haiti, Yugoslavia, and many others too numerous to list.

Freud’s revulsion against the Communists  would not have explained why African-Americans were enslaved and lynched by capitalists. His views on communism would not have explained why Asian Americans were sent off to concentration camps during World War II. He would have had a hard time explaining why Native Americans were relegated to reservations in the U.S.A. and their property was appropriated by the capitalists based on his thinking about Communists. He would have had a hard time explaining why vast numbers of the working class, primarily African Americans, are locked away in prisons for petty crimes and are subject to slave labor in the prison system according to his understanding of communism. He would have had a hard time explaining why immigrant labor is exploited so efficiently and then undocumented workers are deported so efficiently acc0rding to his view of communism. In sum, Freud’s views of communism could not have accounted for the economic violence committed against humanity by capitalists.

However, the data he collected among the bourgeoisie on his couches would have accounted for this violence against working people by the wealthy, but could not have been generalized to predict that working people are by nature, violent.

Conclusion

Sigmund Freud maintained that human beings are inherently aggressive. He based his conclusions on human nature on a limited sample of bourgeois patients lying supine on his couch in his office.

History shows that the working class is generally peaceful, while the wealthy classes are more likely to be violent, aggressive, oppressive and seek to exploit and subjugate their opponents. The wealthy classes also manipulate the workers psychologically by promoting the idea that if a person works hard, they can attain eternal comfort. This is a similar line of thinking to various religions, i.e. that if a person lives a good life, they will be transported to Nirvana upon their demise. “You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.” However, workers soon learn that in capitalist economies the answer to the question “What do you get when you work really hard and do a good job?” is “More hard work.”

Materialist, or scientific analysis, shows that working people are, by nature, peaceful. It is the capitalists who have perpetrated the crimes against humanity and have sought to make working people pay for the capitalists’ crimes.

It is necessary for the struggle for working class power to continue with a scientific analysis of the current situation and for working people to employ tactics based on this analysis which will propel the working class forward. Idealistic conceptions, such as those promoted by Freud and his proponents, should be refuted on a truly scientific basis. Such misconceptions should not be used to justify the crimes of the 1%. A new way of thinking is needed.

PHill1917@comcast.net

For immediate release, January 31, 2012

Contacts:

Anya Achtenberg, aachtenberg@gmail.com, 651-214-9248
Carla Riehle, MNCuba@gmail.com, 651-983-3981
www.minnesotacubacommittee.org

MINNEAPOLIS – The Minnesota Cuba Committee has released the line-up of films for the third annual Minnesota Cuban Film Festival. Each Thursday evening, from February 23 to March 29, the committee, in partnership with the Film Society of Minneapolis/St. Paul, will present an outstanding collection of Cuban cinema. Most of the films are contemporary, with some vintage offerings. Each film will be accompanied by a bonus short feature.

This year, the festival is co-curated with Cuba’s world renowned film institute, ICAIC (Instituto Cubano del Arte y la Industria Cinematográficos). Coordinators have also been working closely with Cuba’s international film school, EICTV (Escuela Internacional de Cine y Televisión), co-founded by Colombian writer and journalist Gabriel García Márquez.

Festival coordinator Anya Achtenberg says,

“Here’s the remarkable thing — in the absence of films like these, the space is filled by the story U.S. policymakers give us. Film in Cuba has, since the beginning of the Cuban film industry in 1959, been a medium of profound reflection on Cuban society, dirty laundry and all. Come see these films. Hear a range of Cubans on the island speak for themselves in film arts, and together give us a glimpse of Cuba that begins to reveal the great complexity of Cuban history, culture, society, struggles, vision and goals.”

Screenings will take place at St. Anthony Main Theatre, 115 SE Main Street, Minneapolis. All films are in Spanish with English subtitles. Each film will be followed by a discussion at Pracna on Main led by a member of the Minnesota Cuba Committee or the Cuban-American community, or others with a particular interest in the subject matter of the film.

On March 29, the festival will conclude at Pracna on Main with dancing and live music provided by the all-Cuban band Cubaníá, with Viviana Pintado, piano and vocals; Frank Rivery Garcia, percussion & vocals; and Gloria “La Niña” Rivera, vocals.

The festival line-up is as follows:

February 23, Habanastation
by Ian Padrón (2011; 94 minutes). Cuba’s Academy Award submission (2012). During the course of a May Day celebration, two young boys pushed by their social and economic differences come into conflict.The cast features members of the internationally known children’s theatre company La Colmenita, UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors. Accompanied by For the First Time, a documentary from 1967 about campesinos’ first ever glimpse of a movie.

March 1, Boleto al Paraíso
Ticket to Paradise, by Gerardo Chijona (2011; 90 minutes). Goya Award nominee (2012; Spain). Set during the “special period” after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The story follows disaffected youth fleeing abusive families as the AIDS crisis begins to loom, and provides a look at how Cuba controlled the spread of the disease.

March 8, Nosotros, la Música
We are the Music, by Rogelio Paris (1964, 66 minutes). Mesmerizing black and white footage of 1960s Cuba, the iconic performers indivisible from the audience. Paired with Alabbá (2010), an exploration of the Santería religion, past and present.

March 15, En el Cuerpo Equivocado
In the Wrong Body, by Marilyn Solaya (2010, 52 minutes). Documentary about Mavi Susel, the first sex reassignee in Cuba, in 1988. A close examination of what it’s like to be transsexual in a country that’s grappling with gender issues in a way quite different from the U.S. Accompanied by a short feature, Cuba’s Campaign Against Homophobia, a CENESEX production.

March 22, Casa Vieja
Old House, by Léster Hamlet (2010, 94 minutes). ALBA opener (2012; Belgium). Stunning and timely version of a classic Cuban play. An expatriate returns to his family home and his dying father; old conflicts emerge against the backdrop of his long absence. Accompanied by a short from the international film school, Black Neck Swan, White Neck Swan.

March 29, Yo Soy, del Son a la Salsa
From Son to Salsa, by Rigoberto López (1996, 100 minutes), Grand Coral award (1996; Cuba). A joyous exploration of 100 years of Cuban and Caribbean music starting in the mountains of Oriente province. Interviews with the great salseros!

For more information about the festival and the Minnesota Cuba Committee, visit www.minnesotacubacommittee.org.

http://politicalaffairs.net/discussion-u-s-history-with-an-african-american-focus/

I am offering it for sale by auction which will close on 30 April 2012. Bids in excess of £125 may be made to gerrard.sables@phonecoop.coop or phone 0845 3138397. One half of the accepted bid will go to help the Morning Star.

Gerrard

Some people may argue that Leninism is an anachronism that is not applicable to the current situation. However, Lenin’s article “To the Party” (Lenin, V. I., Collected works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, volume 7, pages 452 through 459) provides a thoughtful analysis of a crisis in the party in August, 1904. The parallels between the situation then and now will be readily apparent to people concerned about the welfare of the party today.

“Comrades, the grave crisis in our Party life is dragging on and on, and no end is in sight. The strife keeps growing, breeding dispute after dispute, and the Party’s positive work all along the line is hampered by it to the utmost. The energies of the Party, still young and not yet consolidated, are being grievously dissipated.

Yet the present historical juncture makes vast demands on the Party, vaster than ever before. The revolutionary unrest among the working class is growing, and so is the ferment among other sections of society; the war and crisis, starvation and unemployment are with elemental and inevitable force undermining the foundations of the autocracy. A shameful end to the shameful war is not far off; and it is bound to heightened the revolutionary unrest still more, it is bound to bring the working-class face-to-face with its enemies, and it will require of the Social-Democrats tremendous effort, a colossal exertion of energy to organize the last decisive fight against the autocracy.

Is our party equal to these demands in its present condition? Every honest man will unhesitatingly answer: No!

The unity of the party has been deeply undermined, its internal struggle has gone beyond all party bounds. Organized discipline has been shaken to its very foundations, and the Party’s capacity for harmonious and united action is fading into a mere dream.

Nonetheless, we regard the Party’s sickness as a matter of growing pains. We consider that the underlying cause of the crisis is the transition from the circle form to party forms of the life of Social- Democracy; the essence of its internal struggle is a conflict between the circle spirit and the party spirit. And, consequently, only by shaking off this sickness can our Party become a real party.

Under the name of the Party “minority” there have united a variety of elements who are linked by a conscious or unconscious desire to preserve circle relationships, pre-party forms of organization.

Certain prominent figures in the more influential of the inner circles, unaccustomed to the organizational self-limitations which Party discipline demands, are inclined from force of habit to confuse their own circle interests with the general Party interests, with which in the. Of the circles they may in many cases indeed have coincided. A number of these people (part of the former Iskra editorial board, part of the former Organizing Committee, the members of the former Yuzhny Rabochy group, and others) have been the leaders in a struggle on behalf of the circle spirit as against the party spirit.

Their allies prove to be all those elements to in theory or practice had deviated from the principles of strict Social Democracy (the Economists, Rabocheye Dyelo-ists, etc.), for only the circle atmosphere could preserve the ideological individuality and the influence of these elements, whereas the Party atmosphere threatened to absorb them or deprive them of all influence. Lastly, the opposition Congress have in general been drawn chiefly from those elements in our Party which consist primarily of intellectuals. The intelligentsia is always more individualistic than the proletariat, owing to its very conditions of life and work, which do not directly involve a large-scale combination of efforts, do not directly educated through organized collective labor. The intellectual elements therefore find it harder to adapt themselves to the discipline of Party life, and those of them who are not equal to it naturally raise the standard of revolt against the necessary organizational limitations, and elevate their instinctive anarchism to a principle of struggle, misnaming it a desire for “autonomy”, a demand for “tolerance”, etc.

The section of the Party abroad, where the circles are comparatively long-lived, where theoreticians of various shades are gathered, and where the intelligentsia decidedly predominates, was found to be most inclined to the views of the “minority”, which there as a result soon proved to be the actual majority. Russia, on the other hand, where the voice of the organized proletarians is louder, where the Party intelligentsia too, being in closer and more direct contact with them, is trained in a more proletarian spirit, and where the exigencies of the immediate struggle make the need for organized unity more strongly felt, came out in vigorous opposition to the circle spirit and the disruptive anarchistic tendencies. He gave quite clear expression to this attitude in numerous statements by committees and other Party organizations.

The struggle developed and grew increasingly acute. And to what lengths has it not gone!

The Party organ, of which the “minority” managed to seize control against the will of the Congress and thanks to personal concessions by the editors elected at the Congress, has become an organ of struggle against the party!

It is now least of all the ideological leader of the Party and its struggle against the autocracy and the bourgeoisie, and most of all the leader of circle opposition to the party spirit. On the other hand, conscious that it’s fundamental position is indefensible from the standpoint of the Party’s interests, it is busy searching out real and imaginary differences to provide an ideological screen for that position; and in the search, seizing on one slogan one day and on another the next, it is turning more and more for its material to the Right wing of the Party-the former opponents of Iskra is even busier searching out and denouncing mistakes on the part of their adherents, magnifying every real slip to monstrous proportions and trying to lay the blame for it on the Party majority as a whole, and seizing on every insinuation and peace of circle gossip that could prove damaging to its opponents, often enough not even troubling about their verisimilitude, let alone verifying their truth. In this course the men of the new Iskra have gone so far as to impute to members of the majority absolutely nonexistent and in fact impossible crimes-and not only of a political nature (as when they accuse the Central Committee of forcibly ejecting individuals and breaking up organizations), but even crimes against, and ethics (as one prominent figures in the Party are accused of forgery or moral complicity and forgery). Never before has the party been immersed in such a sea of mud as the émigré minority have stirred up in the present controversy.

How could all of this happened?

The mode of action of each of the sides corresponded to its fundamental trend. The Party majority, anxious at all costs to preserve the Party’s unity and organizational cohesion, thought only by loyal Party means, and more than once made concessions for the sake of reaching a reconciliation. The minority, following an anarchistic trend, showed no concern for peace and unity in the Party. They turned every concession into a weapon with which to continue the fight. Of all the minority’s demands, only one has not now been met-that discord should be brought into the Party’s Central Committee by the co-optation of minority men forcibly foisted upon it; yet the attacks of the minority are more vicious than ever. Having gained control of the Central Organ and the Party Council, the minority do not scruple to exploit in their circle interests the very discipline that they are in fact fighting.

The position has become intolerable, impossible; to allow it to drag on any longer would be a positive crime.

The first means of ending it, in our opinion, his complete clarity and frankness in Party relations. Amidst all this mud and fog there is no finding the true path. Every party trend, every group must openly and definitely state what it thinks of the present position in the Party and what solution it desires. And that is what we are proposing to all comrades, to the representatives of all shades in the party. The practical way out of the crisis, we consider, is the immediate summoning of the Third Party Congress. It alone can clarify the situation, settle the disputes, and confine the struggle within proper bounds. Without a Congress all we can expect it’s the progressive disintegration of the Party.

All the arguments brought against a Congress are, we maintain, totally invalid.

We are told that a Congress would lead to a split. But why? If the minority are irreconcilable in their anarchistic leanings, if they are prepared to have a split rather than submit to the Party, and they have already virtually seceded from it, and to defer the inevitable formal split would be more than irrational: chained together, both sides would more and more senselessly dissipate their strength in wrangling and squabbling, exhausting themselves morally and growing ever pettier and shallower. But we do not grant the possibility of a split. In face of the real strength of the organized Party, the anarchistically minded elements are bound to, and we think well, bow in submission, for by their very nature they are incapable of constituting an independent force. It is argued that a reconciliation is possible without a Congress. But what sort of reconciliation? Total surrender to the circle spirit, co-optation of the minority to the Central Committee, which would complete the disorganization of the central institutions. That would make the Party nothing but a name, and the Party majority would be compelled to start the struggle anew. And the minority? They have used every concession hitherto won only as a buttress for their disruptive activities; even from their point of view, the struggle has far outgrown the bounds of a squabble over co-optation; how then can they discontinue it? And still less will they do so if they have not gained all their demands. We are told that a Congress will not achieve its purpose because the differences have not yet been clarified. But are they being clarified now, is not the confusion growing worse confounded? Differences are not being clarified, but deliberately searched out and manufactured, and only a Congress can put an end to this. It alone, by bringing the contending parties face-to-face and making them frankly and definitely state their objects, can thoroughly clarified the mutual relations between the different trends and forces in the Party. But, the minority declare, the Congress may be manipulated by the breaking up of organizations. That is a lying insinuation, we reply, an insinuation unsupported by a single fact. If there were any such facts, we may be sure that the minority, being in possession of the Party organ, would have given them wide publicity, and, controlling the Party Council as they do, would have had ample opportunity to correct them. Lastly, the recent Council resolution, which points to no such facts in the past, completely rules out their possibility in the future. Who is now going to believe this far-fetched insinuation? Fears are expressed that a Congress would divert too much of our forces and funds from positive work. What a bitter mockery! Can any greater die version of forces and funds be imagined than that which the strife is producing? A Congress is imperative! It would be imperative even if Party life had proceeded normally, in view of the exceptional historical juncture and the new tasks with which the world events may confront the Party. It is doubly imperative in the present Party crisis, in order to find an honest and reasonable way out of it, to preserve the forces of the Party and uphold its honor and dignity.

What must the Third Congress do to put an end to the strife and restore Party life to normal? Most essential for this, in our view, are the following reforms, which we shall advocate and work for by every available loyal means:
I. The editorship of the Central Organ to be handed over to the adherents of the Party majority. The need for this, in view of the manifest inability of the present editorial board to conduct the Central Organ as required by the general party interests, has been sufficiently demonstrated. The organ of a circle cannot and must not be the organ of the Party.
II. The relationship of the local organization abroad (the League) to the all-Russia central body, the Central Committee, to be clearly defined. The present position of the League, which has converted itself into a second Party leadership and manages its associated groups without any control, completely ignoring the Central Committee, is obviously abnormal and must be ended.
III. The Rules to provide guarantees that party struggles are conducted by Party methods. That this reform is essential as shown by the entire experience of the post-Congress struggle. It is necessary to include in the Party Rules guarantees of the rights of any minority, so that the disagreements, dissatisfactions, and irritations that will constantly and unavoidably arise may be diverted from the old, philistine, circle channels of rows and squabbling into the still unaccustomed channels of a constitutional and dignified struggle for one’s convictions. Among the conditions needed for such a change would class the following. The minority should be allowed one or more writers’ groups, with the right to be represented at congresses; the widest formal guarantees should be given as regards publication of Party literature criticizing the activities of the central Party institutions. The right of the committees to receive (through the general Party transport system) the particular Party publications they desire should be formally recognized. The limits of the Central Committee’s right to influence the personal composition of the committees should be precisely defined. We consider it highly important that the arrangements for publication of minority literature which the Central Committee proposed to the minority of the Second Congress should be incorporated in the Rules, in order that the fantasy of a “state of siege” invented by the minority themselves may be dispelled, and that the inevitable internal struggles and the Party may be conducted in seemly forms and not allowed to interfere with positive work.
We do not here elaborate our proposals in detail, for we are not putting forward draft Rules, but only a general program of struggle for Party unity. We shall therefore only briefly indicate certain specific amendments to the Rules which are in our opinion desirable, without in any way binding ourselves as regards subsequent elaboration of the Rules, in the light of further experience. For example, it is necessary to reform the Party Council, as an institution which, in its present form, has proved in practice to be unfit for its function of coordinating and exercising supreme supervision over the activities of the central bodies. It should be made a body entirely elected by the Congress, instead of being a court where the Congress-elected fifth member sits as arbiter over the central bodies, which defend themselves to their delegates. Further, Paragraph 1 of the Rules should be revised, in line with the criticisms voiced in the Party, to define the Party’s boundaries more precisely, etc.

In putting forward this program of struggle for Party unity, we invite the representatives of all other shades and all Party organizations to make a clear statement of their own programs, so as to permit of serious and systematic, conscious and methodical preparation for a Congress. An issue involving the very life, the honor and dignity of the Party is at stake: is it an ideological and material force capable of sufficient rational self-organization to act as the real leader of our country’s revolutionary working-class movement? By all their actions, the émigré minority answer: No! And they continue to act in this way with confident assurance, banking on the remoteness of Russia, the frequent changes of workers there, and the indispensability of their own leaders and literary forces. Our Party is coming into being!-we answer, seeing the growing political understanding of the advanced workers, the vigorous activity of the committees in general Party life. Our Party is coming into being, we have ever more numerous young forces capable of replacing or reinvigorating old literary bodies which forfeit the Party’s confidence; we have ever more revolutionaries who prize the consistent Party trend above any circle of former leaders.
Our party is coming into being, and no subterfuges or delays can hold back its decided and final verdict.

From these forces in our Party we derive our certainty of victory.

Comrades, reprint and distribute this appeal!”

And so we shall!

http://www.houstonpeacecouncil.com/houston-activists-support-steelworkers-in-greece/

The Republican party campaign in this country has brought lunacy to a new level. First, let’s look at one definition of “lunatic” provided by Wikipedia: “Lunatic” is an informal term referring to people who are considered mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable; conditions once called lunacy. The term may be considered insulting in serious contexts, though is sometimes used in friendly jest. The word derives from lunaticus meaning “of the moon” or “moonstruck”.

Newt Gingrich, like a roach exposed to sunlight, has been running around expelling a lot of hot air and has been commanding a lot of the nation’s attention since his victory over Willard Romney in South Carolina in the Republican Presidential primary. Some have noted that South Carolina was the state in which the Civil War started. As a result of Newt’s antics, some pundits have recently examined Newt’s writings and have found much fertile ground for endless jest. It turns out that Gingrich has written various articles and presented papers to Science Fiction conferences advocating a variety of preposterous schemes to establish U.S. domination of the Moon. Some have even proposed that Gingrich could be the first President of the Moon. Better that he be President of the Moon than the United States.

Gingrich’s right wing ideology and racist tactics are just starting to be exhumed from his past campaigns in which he was buried and disgraced by his ridiculous world (and perhaps universal) view. He has slandered a wide variety of racial groups on this planet, most notably Palestinians, African Americans and Latinos. Although some have noted that people in the U.S. have the short term memory of a flea, who can forget that he was forced to resign as Speaker of the House in total disgrace just a few years ago. Nevertheless, Newt’s longings for the Moon qualify him as a lunatic without qualifications to be President of the U.S. He can have the Moon, but please leave us earthlings alone. Who would want to answer “Newt” to any alien asking to be taken to our leader?

So, as Newt is poised to fall into disgrace yet another time as he reaps universal level profits from his book sales and lobbying activities, who might take his place in the Republican lineup?

Willard Romney aka Mitt Romney postures as every man’s working man (we must wonder what women think) and presents himself as being out of work. In the meantime, he fights to hide his tax returns which reveal the unlimited treasures he has gleaned from capitalism in the U.S.A. Headlines scream that Romney paid only 15% annual taxes which is much more than many corporations. He also has a history of slashing jobs and simultaneously collecting huge bonuses and other remuneration from large corporations. Hooray for the job cutter! How many would vote for him. Probably 1% of the population.

Ron Paul has distinguished himself among the Republicans as standing for bringing the troops home from the Middle East right away. However, he also has a long history of unmitigated racism and advocates shutting down our social safety net. He advocates stopping Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He wants to privatize our toenails. Here’s another 1 %er.

All the rest are just a blur of clowns with weird positions that ultimately favor the wealthy. Only the KKK and Aryan Nation could really get behind any of the Republican nominees in good faith.

So, let’s keep laughing at these clowns, but let’s not forget to vote against them in 2012. If one of them actually won, the 99% might find itself exiled to the Moon. Who would be our President then?

PHill1917@comcast.net