Chicago is abuzz these days as incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in an unexpected and fiercely competitive election runoff with challenger and longtime progressive Latino leader Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. What was supposed to have been a waltz into a second term for Emanuel has turned into a fight for his political life.
Garcia got a late start, is behind in the polls, has nothing close to the deep pockets or name recognition of Emanuel, and is up against the city’s political establishment and “Gold Coast,” but – and this is what makes the Windy City’s elites lose sleep at night – he is gathering momentum and support from many unions and community leaders and organizations. And it is entirely possible that he comes out on top when the ballots are counted on April 7.
Here’s why.
Cities are increasingly turning into battlegrounds, where different models – people versus neoliberal (corporate-elite friendly) – and their associated political coalitions clash. In recent years, The neoliberal model, of which Emanuel is a zealous advocate, is more and more encountering stiff and broad-based resistance. The few dissenters of yesterday are turning into the many today.
A telling example of this trend was the election of Bill de Blasio in New York’s mayoral race in the fall of 2013. De Blasio, who unhesitatingly described himself as a progressive, decried the city’s widening income inequality, gentrification, and the rise of two New Yorks – one living in grand style, the other struggling to make ends meet. He also opposed racist “stop and frisk,” policing, the shrinkage of affordable housing, the lack of pre-kindergarten programs, and the unfair system of taxation that favors Wall Street and the 1 percent.
Supporting his candidacy was a diverse coalition that grew rapidly in the course of the campaign (something that Garcia’s supporters should take inspiration and draw lessons from). So much so that it was evident in the final days of the campaign that de Blasio would win by a landslide as part of a broader progressive electoral sweep.
The outcome was an emphatic rebuff of the previous two mayors – the billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the utterly reactionary Rudy Giuliani. But our analysis can’t be left here. It was, if we dig a little deeper – and we don’t have to dig too far – a repudiation of pro-corporate neoliberalism and the rise of the neoliberal city, which were hallmarks of both Bloomberg’s and Guiliani’s governing strategy and style.
In voting overwhelmingly for de Blasio, New Yorkers said “enough” to a form of political and economic governance that favors commercial, real estate and banking interests, facilitates gentrification and the reconfiguring of urban space to suit the interests and sensibilities of the 1 percent, scales back public sector services, jobs, and union contracts, ramps up “aggressive” policing, promotes privatization of functions that previously were in the public sphere, especially public education, and deepens inequality.
As much as de Blasio’s landslide victory was a repudiation of neoliberal urban governance, it was in equal measure an affirmation by voters, even if not fully articulated, that they have a right to a livable, vibrant, just, and sustainable city (much like people have a right to a job, livable wage, health care, housing, equality, etc.).
Moreover, “right” in this instance, much like the right of workers to the products of their social labor, doesn’t rest on some abstract notion of justice, nor some general societal obligation (although society has such obligations). Instead it is grounded in material practices and activities of millions of New Yorkers who inhabit and create and recreate the city each and every day with labor and neighborly reciprocity in a multitude of paid and unpaid forms. That includes everything from raising children to transporting people, constructing skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges and roads, providing countless services, taking care of the sick and the elderly, creating art and culture, organizing sports, maintaining parks and green spaces, cleaning up environmentally hazardous sites, helping neighbors and coworkers, addressing disabilities needs, going to church, educating the young, engaging in politics, and on and on.
Moreover, Emanuel’s refusal, despite promises, to reform the city’s notorious Tax Incremental Finance program and to stop the flow of public monies to subsidize corporations (Hyatt Hotels in Hyde Park) and big real estate interests also was leaving more and more people wondering if Emanuel was the right person to lead the city.
Most people in this situation would adjust their persona and policies to this brewing storm, but not Emanuel. As if to prove that it’s difficult to teach an arrogant, tone deaf, and well-heeled dog new tricks, he pressed fast-forward on his neoliberal plans and made no effort to tamp down his grating, me-first personality. Chicago’s elites hailed his intransigence and determination to stay the course. But many ordinary Chicagoans, when given the chance to express their displeasure in the first round of the mayoral primary in February, denied Emanuel a simple majority, thus forcing the April runoff with second-place finisher Garcia.
While it is uncertain if Emanuel will have to pay the ultimate price for being the loyal soldier for Chicago’s elites when voters go to the polls again, the contested nature of this election no matter what the outcome signifies the growing opposition to economic inequality, neoliberalism, and the neoliberal city, an emphatic assertion of the people’s right to a city, and a scaling up of the class and democratic struggle.
It has already given a shot in the arm to the broader movement and the progressive and left currents within that movement in Chicago as well as elsewhere. And it is serving notice, as did the election in New York, on the centrists in the Democratic Party as well as the right-wing-dominated Republican Party that the political dynamics that have shaped the country’s trajectory over the past 35 years are changing.
Admittedly, these changes don’t yet possess transformative power – that is, the power to deeply, boldly, and creatively consolidate a new governing model that accents people’s self-organization and needs, whether at the local, or, even more so, at the national level.
Nor are the changes in political dynamics in Chicago and New York – or Newark, N.J., Richmond, Calif., Seattle, or Los Angeles – observable in Lubbock, Texas, or Lincoln, Neb., or Cincinnati, Ohio, or, for that matter, Detroit. In other words, the process isn’t broad in scope either.
And yet, I can’t help but believe that the anger at the growing inequality and outlandish class privilege on display in a growing number of cities is also felt by tens of millions elsewhere. Maybe not to the same degree, maybe not to the same extent, but expressing nonetheless a rejection of the economic orthodoxy – neoliberalism – of the past four decades, ideologically embraced and politically facilitated by the top circles of the Democratic Party as well as every section of the Republican Party.
Of course, nothing that has happened in Chicago, New York, or anywhere else puts on the back burner in any way the overriding imperative of decisively defeating right-wing extremism. For the fact is the crisis bedeviling Chicago and other cities – not to mention the country as a whole – cannot be fully, or even significantly, resolved without politically crushing this extreme reactionary political movement that now commands the Republican Party. And it is both very mistaken and dangerous to think that islands of urban progressivism can be established in a surrounding and churning sea in which the most zealous and adventurist prosecutors of a form of neoliberalism that disdains even a passing rhetorical nod to democratic rights, social protection, or equality are increasingly riding the biggest waves.
But that discussion, as important as it is, is for another day. Right now, the challenge in Chicago, if New York’s experience is any guide, is to expand and deepen the cross-class, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic coalition that supports the insurgent campaign of Chuy Garcia.
While a strategy of reaching and mobilizing black, brown, and progressive white voters underpinned the historic 1983 election of Harold Washington, the city’s first Black and undeniably great mayor, a different strategy – and a far more likely winning strategy this time – is necessary to carry Garcia across the finish line in the first place.
A lot has happened since that historic night of Washington’s victory three decades ago. We’ve seen the election and reelection of an African American president that many thought impossible, by a multi-racial coalition of voters; the growing rejection of racism by significant sections of white people; the changing attitudes and new initiatives in the labor movement to address racism inside and outside of its ranks; the greater resonance of class in the thinking of working people, and more. And to this we should add the broad coalition of labor – the Chicago Teachers Union in the first place – communities of color and many of their leaders, reform democrats, independents, progressives, and sections of the left that are the mainstays of Garcia’s campaign.
This argues for an even more inclusive strategy than was employed to elect Harold Washington. In particular there is no good reason to write off a large section of white people without a struggle and in doing so run the risk of conceding many of them to Emanuel. That’s not a formula for success.
Yes, many white people, bombarded by the subtle and not so subtle racist message that Garcia doesn’t have the political or intellectual heft to be mayor – “not up to the challenge,” will have to be convinced that Chuy’s worst day as mayor will be better than Rahm’s best day. The way to do that isn’t by righteously exclaiming on the “backwardness” of white people, but rather by persuading them on the basis of their experience, common sense, better angels, and deeply felt and existential needs for jobs, livable wages, quality public education, and so on, that Chuy Garcia is best equipped on the basis of his vision, experience, and ordinary roots to lead the city.
And when combined with sustained efforts to acquaint voters throughout the city – North Side, West Side, South Side – with Garcia and his vision as well as mobilize those same voters to go to the polls on Election Day, Chicago will make history again in electing Jesus Garcia as it did decades ago when Harold Washington was elected. And in doing so the people of that great city will take another vital step to reclaim their city and future.
worker |
March 23, 2015 |
8:56 pm | V.I. Lenin |
Comments closed
V.I. Lenin
SPEECHES ON GRAMOPHONE RECORDS
1919-1921
Â
Â
THE THIRD, COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
In March of this year of 1919, an international congress of Communists was held in Moscow. This Congress founded the Third, Communist International, an association of the workers of the whole world who are striving to establish Soviet power in all countries.
The First International, founded by Marx, existed from 1864 to 1872. The defeat of the heroic workers of Paris-of the celebrated Paris Commune-marked the end of this International. It is unforgettable, it will remain forever in the history of the workers’ struggle for their emancipation. It laid the foundation of that edifice of the world socialist republic which it is now our good fortune to be building.
The Second International existed from 1889 to 1914, up to the war. This was the period of the most calm and peaceful development of capitalism, a period without great revolutions. During this period the working-class movement gained strength, and matured, in a number of countries. But the workers’leaders in most of the parties had become accustomed to peaceful conditions and had lost the ability to wage a revolutionary struggle. When, in 1914, there began the war, that drenched the earth with blood for four years, the war between the capitalists over the division of profits, the war for supremacy over small and weak nations, these leaders deserted to the side of their respective governments. They betrayed the workers, they helped to prolong the slaughter, they became enemies of socialism, they went over to the side of the capitalists.
The masses of workers turned their backs on these traitors to socialism. All over the world there was a turn towards the revolutionary struggle. The war proved that capitalism was doomed. A new system is coming to take its place. The old word socialism has been desecrated by the traitors to socialism.
Today, the workers who have remained loyal to the cause of throwing off the yoke of capital call themselves Communists. all over the world the association of Communists is growing. In a number of countries Soviet power has already triumphed. Soon we shall see the victory of communism throughout the world; we shall see the foundation of the World Federative Republic of Soviets.
AN APPEAL TO THE RED ARMY
Â
Comrades, red Army men! The capitalists of Britain, America and France are waging war against Russia. They are taking revenge on the Soviet workers’and peasants’Republic for having overthrown the power of the landowners and capitalists and thereby set an example to all the nations of the globe. The capitalists of Britain, France and America are helping with money and munitions the Russian landowners who are bringing troops from Siberia, the Don and North Caucasus against Soviet power, for the purpose of restoring the rule of the Tsar and the power of the landowners and capitalists. But this will not happen. The Red Army has closed its ranks, has risen up and driven the landowners’ troops and whiteguard officers from the Volga, has recaptured Riga and almost the whole of the Ukraine, and is marching towards Odessa and Rostov. A little more effort, a few more months of fighting the enemy, and victory will be ours. The Red Army is strong because it is consciously and unitedly marching into battle for the peasants’land, for the rule of the workers and peasants, for Soviet power.
The Red Army is invincible because it has united millions of working peasants with the workers who have now learned to fight, have acquired comradely discipline, who do not lose heart, who become steeled after slight reverses, and are more and more boldly marching against the enemy, convinced he will soon be defeated.
Comrades, Red Army men! The alliance of the workers and peasants of the Red Army is firm, close and insoluble. The kulaks, the very rich peasants, are trying to foment revolts against Soviet power, but they constitute an insignificant minority. They rarely succeed in fooling the peasants, and then not for long. The peasants know that only in alliance with the workers can they vanquish the landowners. Sometimes, in the rural districts people call themselves Communists who are actually the worst enemies of the working people, bullies who hang on to the authorities in pursuit of their own selfish aims, and to resort to deception, commit acts of injustice and wrong the middle peasant. The workers’ and peasants’ government has firmly decided to fight against these people and clear them out of the countryside. The middle peasants are not inmates but friends of the workers, friends of Soviet power. The class conscious workers and genuine Soviet people treat the middle peasants as comrades. The middle peasants do not exploit the labor of others, they do not grow rich at other people’s expense, as the kulaks do; the middle peasants work themselves, they live by their own labor. The Soviet government will crush the kulaks, well, out of the villages those who treat the middle peasants unjustly and, come what may, will pursue the policy of alliance between the workers and all the working peasants-both poor and middle peasants.
This alliance is growing all over the world. The revolution is drawing nigh, it is everywhere maturing. A few days ago it was victorious in Hungary. In Hungary, Soviet power, workers’ government, has been established. This is what all nations will inevitably do.
Comrades, Red Army men! Be staunch, firm and united. March boldly forward against the enemy. Victory will be ours. The power of the landowners and the capitalists, broken in Russia, will be defeated throughout the world.
IN MEMORY OF COMRADE YAKOV MIKHAILOVICH SVERDLOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE ALL RUSSIA CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Â
All those who have worked day after day with Comrade Sverdlov, now realize full well that it was his exceptional organizing talent which insured for us that of which we have been so proud, and justly proud. He made it possible for us to carry on United, efficient, organized activities worthy of all the organized proletarian masses, without which we could not have achieved success, and which answered fully the requirements of the proletarian revolution. The memory of Comrade Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov will serve not only as a symbol of the revolutionary’s devotion to his cause, not only as the model of how to combine a practical, sober mind, practical ability, the closest contact with the masses and ability to guide then, but also a pledge that ever-growing masses of proletarians will march forward to the complete victory of the communist revolution.
COMMUNICATIONS ON THE WIRELESS NEGOTIATIONS WITH BÉLA KUN
The most important question now confronting the Communist Party, the question on which most attention was concentrated at the last Party Congress, is that of the middle peasants.
Â
Naturally, the first question usually asked is, what is a middle peasant?
Naturally, Party comrades have often related how they have been asked this question in the villages. The middle peasant, we say in reply, is a peasant who does not exploit the labor of others, who does not live on the labor of others, who does not take the fruits of other people’s labor in any shape or form, but works himself, and lives by his own labor.
Under capitalism there were fewer peasants of this type then there are now, because the majority of the peasants were in the ranks of the impoverished, and only an insignificant majority, then, as now, were in the ranks of the kulaks, the exploiters, the rich peasants.
The middle peasants have been increasing in number since the private ownership of land was abolished, and the Soviet government has firmly resolved, at all costs, to establish relations of complete peace and harmony with them. It goes without saying that the middle peasant cannot immediately accept socialism, because he clings firmly to what he is accustomed to, he is cautious about all innovations, subjects what he is offered to a factual, practical test and does not decide to change his way of life until he is convinced that change is necessary.
It is precisely for this reason that we must know, remember, and put into practice the rule that when Communist workers go into rural districts they must try to establish comradely relations with the middle peasants, it is their duty to establish these comradely relations with them; they must remember that working peasants who do not exploit the labor of others are the comrades of the urban workers and that we can, and must, establish with them a voluntary alliance inspired by sincerity and confidence. Every measure proposed by the communist government must be regarded merely as advice, as a suggestion to the middle peasants, as an invitation to them to accept the new order.
Only by cooperation in the work of testing these measures in practice, finding out in what way they are mistaken, eliminating possible errors and achieving agreement with the middle peasant-only by such cooperation can the alliance between the workers and the peasants be insured. This alliance is the main strength and the bulwark of Soviet power; this alliance is a pledge that socialist transformation will be successful, victory over capital will be achieved and exploitation, and all its forms, will be abolished.
WHAT IS SOVIET POWER?
Â
What is Soviet power? What is the essence of this new power, which people in most countries still will not, or cannot, understand? The nature of this power, which is attracting larger and larger numbers of workers in every country, is the following: in the past the country was, in one way or another, governed by the rich, or by the capitalists, but now, for the first time, the country is being governed by the classes, which capitalism formerly oppressed. Even in the most democratic and freest republics, as long as capital rules and the land remains private property, the government will always be in the hands of a small minority, nine-tenths of which consist of capitalists, or rich men.
In this country, in Russia, for the first time in the world history, the government of the country is so organized that only the workers and the working peasants, to the exclusion of the exploiters, constitute these mass organizations known as Soviets, and these Soviets wield all state power. That is why, in spite of the slander that the representatives of the bourgeoisie in all countries spread about Russia, the word “Soviet†has now become not only intelligible but popular all over the world, has become the favorite word of the workers, and of all working people. And that is why, notwithstanding all the persecution to which the adherents of communism in the different countries are subjected, Soviet power must necessarily, inevitably, and in the not too distant future, triumph over the world.
We know very well that there are still many defects in the organization of Soviet power in this country. Soviet power is not a miracle working talisman. It does not, overnight, heal all the evils of the past-illiteracy, lack of culture, the consequences of a barbarous war, the aftermath of predatory capitalism. But it does pave the way to socialism. It gives those who were formerly oppressed the chance to straighten their backs and to an ever-increasing degree to take the whole government of the country, the whole administration of the economy, the whole management of production, into their own hands.
Soviet power is the road to socialism that was discovered by the masses of the working people, and that is why it is the true road, that is why it is invincible.
HOW THE WORKING PEOPLE CAN BE SAVED FROM THE OPPRESSION OF THE LANDOWNERS AND CAPITALISTS FOREVER
Â
The enemies of the working people, the landowners and capitalists say that the workers and peasants cannot live without them. “If it were not for us,†they say, there would be nobody to maintain order, to give out work, and to compel people to work. If it were not for us everything would collapse, and the state would fall to pieces. We have been driven away, but Cass will bring us back again.†But this sort of taught by the landowners and capitalists will not confuse, intimidate, or deceive the workers and peasants. An army needs the strictest discipline; nevertheless the class conscious workers succeeded in uniting the peasants, succeeded in taking the old Tsarist officers into their service, succeeded in building a victorious army.
The red Army established unprecedentedly firm discipline-not by means of the lash, but based on the intelligence, loyalty and devotion of the workers and peasants themselves.
And so, to say the working people from the yoke of the landowners and capitalists forever, to save them from the restoration of their power, it is necessary to build up a great Red Army of Labor. That army will be invincible if it is cemented by labor discipline. The workers and peasants must, and well, prove that they can properly distribute labor, establish devoted discipline and ensure loyalty in working for the common good, and can do it themselves, without the landowners and in spite of them, without the capitalists and in spite of them.
Labor discipline, enthusiasm for work, readiness for self-sacrifice, close alliance between the peasants and the workers-this is what will say the working people from the oppression of the landowners and capitalists forever.
WORK FOR THE RAILWAYS
Â
Comrades, the great victories of the Red Army have delivered us from the onslaught of Kolchak and Yudenich and have almost put an end to Denikin.
The troops of the landowners and capitalists who wanted, with the aid of the capitalists of the whole world, to reestablish their rule and Russia have been routed.
The imperialist war and then the war against counterrevolution, however, have laid waste to and ruined, the entire country.
We must bend all efforts to conquer the chaos, to restore industry and agriculture, and to give the peasants the goods they need in exchange for grain.
Now that we have defeated the landowners and liberated Siberia, the Ukraine, and the North Caucasus, we have every opportunity of restoring the country’s economy.
We have a lot of grain, and we now have coal and oil. We are being held up by transport. The railways are out of action. Transport must be rehabilitated. Then we can bring grain, coal and oil to the factories, then we can deliver salt, then we shall begin to restore industry and put an end to the hunger of the factory and railway workers.
Let all workers and peasants set about rehabilitating the railways, let them set about the work with persistence and enthusiasm.
All the work necessary for the restoration of transport must be carried out with the greatest zeal, with revolutionary fervor, with unreserved loyalty.
We have been victorious on the front of the bloody war.
We shall be victorious on the bloodless front, on the labor front.
All out for work to restore transport!
LABOR DISCIPLINE
Â
Why was it we defeated Yudenich, Kolchak and Denikin although the capitalists of all the world help them?
Â
Why are we confident that we shall now defeat the economic chaos and rehabilitate industry and agriculture?
We overthrow the landowners and capitalists because the men of the Red Army, workers and peasants, knew they were fighting for their own vital interests.
We won because the best people from the entire working class and from the entire peasantry displayed unparalleled heroism in the war against the exploiters, performed miracles of valor, withstood untold privations, made great sacrifices and got rid of scroungers and cowards.
We are now confident that we shall conquer the chaos because the best people from the entire working class and from the entire peasantry are joining the struggle with the same political consciousness, the same firmness and the same heroism.
When millions of working people unite as one and follow the best people from their class, victory is assured.
We drove the scroungers out of the Army. And now we say, “Down with the scroungers, down with those who think of their own advantage, of speculation and of shirking work, those who are afraid of the sacrifices necessary for victory!â€
Long live labor discipline, zeal and work and loyalty to the cause of the workers and peasants!
Eternal glory to those who died in the front ranks of the Red Army!
Eternal glory to those who are now leading millions of working people and who, with the greatest zeal, March in the front ranks of the army of labor!
NON-PARTY PEOPLE AND THE SOVIETS (Comrade Lenin Speaks)
Â
Workers and peasants, provide us with nonparty people of integrity, devoted to Soviet Power, for the purpose of governing the country and improving the economy. The Soviet stand in need of honest and devoted non-Party people, since there are not enough Party members. Among non-Party workers and peasants there are very, very many who are marked by integrity and the capacity to conduct matters of government and the running of the economy. For instance, they can get handicrafts enterprises and cooperatives going, help distribute foodstuffs fairly, improve matters with catering facilities, housing, the feeding of children, and so on and so forth.
In every gubernia, there are thousands upon thousands of non-Party workers and peasants who are not hit involved in matters of government and the rehabilitation of the economy. It is the bounden duty of Party and Government functionaries to find such people, give them promotion and work to do, verify their abilities, and enable them to develop and show their worth.
We have nothing to fear from the eight given by non-Party workers and peasants; on the contrary, it is necessary and desirable. We should beware only of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are nowadays fond of calling themselves non-Party people, while in fact carrying on their treacherous work for the benefit of the whiteguards and the landowners. It was with good reason that all the whiteguards and landowners Payson to give help to the Kronstadt mutiny. Such disguised non-Party people should be exposed and arrested, while honest non-Party workers and peasants should be drawn into our work in every possible way.
CONSUMERS’ AND PRODUCERS’ COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
Â
Consumers’ cooperative societies are associations of workers and peasants for the purpose of supplying and distributing the goods they need. Producers’cooperative societies are associations of small farmers or artisans for the purpose of producing and marketing products, whether agricultural (such as vegetables, dairy products and the light) or nonagricultural (all sorts of manufactured goods, woodwork, ironware, leather goods, and so forth).
The substitution of the tax in kind, for the surplus appropriation system, will give the peasants grain surpluses which they will freely exchange for all sorts of manufactured goods.
Producers’cooperatives will help to develop small industry, which will supply the peasants with greater quantities of necessary goods. Most of these do not have to be transported by rail over long distances and do not need large factories for their manufacture. Everything must be done to foster and develop producers’cooperatives, and it is the duty of Party and Soviet workers to render them every assistance, for this will give the peasants immediate relief and improve their condition. At the present time, the revival and restoration of the national economy of the workers’ and peasants’state depends most of all on the improvement of peasant life and farming.
There must also be support and development of consumers’cooperative societies, for they will ensure swift, regular and low-cost distribution of products. It remains for the Soviet authorities to supervise the activity of the cooperative societies to see that there are no fraudulent practices, no concealment from the government, no abuses. In no circumstances should they hamper the cooperative societies but should help and promote them in every way.
ON THE TAX IN KIND AND THE FREE EXCHANGE OF SURPLUS GRAIN (Comrade Lenin Speaks)
Â
Comrades, as a result of the substitution of the tax in kind for the surplus appropriation system, the peasants should, given a medium harvest, have hundreds of millions of poods of surplus grain left. The law entitles the peasants to make use of that surplus quite freely, at their own wishes, to improve their food, supply their livestock with fodder, and exchange it for industrial products. The free exchange of surplus grain for industrial products will make the peasants more interested in bettering their farming, and will make it easier to do so through the development of all kinds of industries that will turn out products necessary to the peasants. It would be best of all, if it proved possible, to rapidly and fully restore the big factories, as well as railway and water transport. That would enable the peasants to be rapidly, and cheaply, supplied with many of the necessary products of industry, such as salt, kerosene, textiles, footwear, agricultural implements, and fertilizers. But big supplies of both fuel and food are needed in the cities for the rapid rehabilitation of large-scale industry. Yet we are unable to rapidly collect and deliver such supplies. That is why, together with the work of gathering and delivering these supplies, what should at once be started on developing and encouraging small-scale industry in every possible way. It can and should insure for the peasants and immediate improvement in his life, and his farming, without big State expenditures of stocks of raw materials, fuel and foodstuffs. So let all Party  and Government functionaries thoroughly understand and conscientiously perform their duty in encouraging and developing, in every possible way, small-scale industry, which is of such benefit to peasant farming.
“In the last analysis, productivity of labour is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system. Capitalism created a productivity of labour unknown under serfdom. Capitalism can be utterly vanquished, and will be utterly vanquished by socialism creating a new and much higher productivity of labour. This is a very difficult matter and must take a long time, but it has been started, and that is the main thing,” Lenin wrote.
On June 28, 1919, Lenin wrote and published “A Great Beginning” in which he mentioned the most important thing for the victory of socialism over capitalism. See Collected Works, Volume 29, pp. 408-34
 The most important thing for the victory of socialism over capitalism is creating a new and much higher productivity of labour in favor of socialism.
Let’s look at how most “renowned” Leftist scholars deal, with what Lenin says, is the  most important thing.
Some “renowned” Leftist scholars classify labor productivity as the least important thing.
Many “renowned” Leftist scholars classify labor productivity as neither the most important thing, nor the least important.
But most of the “renowned” scholars don’t even mention labor productivity as the most important or least important thing.
During the Great Depression, surveys suggest labor productivity rose significantly in the USSR while labor productivity plunged in the USA where factories and stores closed.
“This [the victory of socialist productivity over cappie productivity] is a very difficult matter and must take a long time,” Lenin wrote. The battle over productivity is difficult chiefly because it is external and internal. Externally, the productivity of a socialist country competes against the productivity of capitalist countries. Internally, the productivity of the capitalist sector of a socialist country competes against the non-capitalist sector in the same socialist country. Thus, a socialist country may win internally while it loses externally and vice versa.
The socialist victory “must take a long time.” Lenin wrote.  Perhaps, a thousand years unless capitalism collapses.
“But it [the battle over productivity]Â has been started, and that is the main thing,” Lenin wrote.
 Aristotle says starting a task is half of the task.
Written: June 28, 1919 Source:Collected Works, Volume 29, pp. 408-34
Obama continues using Kiev junta proxies to wage war on Donbass. He’s gone all-out to sabotage multiple peace efforts spearheaded by Russia.
He didn’t wage war to quit. He’s supplying Kiev with heavy weapons, munitions and other US aid.
US combat forces are in Ukraine working directly with its military. CIA and FBI operatives infest Kiev.
On March 18, Joe Biden called Poroshenko. He congratulated him for violating Minsk.
It calls for granting Donbass special status autonomous rule. Draft Kiev legislation designates it “temporarily occupied territories.”
A White House statement said Biden “welcomed the (parliament’s) adoption of implementing measures relating to the law on special status for certain areas of eastern Ukraine…”
He lied saying legislation adopted complies with terms stipulated under “September 2014 and February 2015 Minsk agreements.”
Kiev continues violating their letter and spirit with full US support and encouragement.
“The two leaders discussed the upcoming multinational training program for UkraineÃs (Nazi infested) National Guard forces, which the United States will support,” the White House statement said.
They ‘agreed” on maintaining sanctions on Russia. They lied claiming they’re in response to “Russia(n) violence and instability in” Donbass.
They concurred on pressuring “the international community…to increase the costs to Russia for pursuing such actions.”
Kiev’s failure to grant Donbass special status violates its pledge to do so.
“If Washington welcomes the action, which undermines the Minsk agreements, then we can only conclude that Washington is inciting Kiev to resolve the issue by military means,” Lavrov explained.
“The Ukrainian leadership..basically terminated their commitments to engage in direct dialogue and negotiate with south-eastern Ukraine, including on the issue of elections, on the implementation of the law on the special status…”
Russia’s OSCE envoy Andrey Kelin accused Kiev of spurning conflict ending dialogue with Donbass.
“No lasting truce and sustainable ceasefire are possible without political settlement, and no such settlement is possible without dialogue,” he said.
“Kiev is categorically reluctant to speak with Donbas about political settlement. Last year’s developments seem to be reoccurring.”
“We saw it a year ago and it ended up, as we know, in UkraineÃs aggression against Donbas.”
“Kiev is seeking to fall into the same trap, arrogantly ignoring representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics.”
“If they do not observe what has been agreed in Minsk after months of warfare, and Minsk agreements provide for a dialogue between the parties to the conflict to establish the DPR and LPR status, local elections in Donbas and normal political settlement, the risk (of attempts to solve the conflict by military means) considerably increases.”
Kiev systematically breached previous peace initiatives straightaway. It ignores Minsk II provisions.
It wants total control over Donbass regained. It intends seizing it forcefully.
Illegitimate prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk explained it several times. Most recently on Wednesday unambiguously saying “(o)ur goal is to regain control of Donetsk and Lugansk.”
Last April, naked aggression was launched to accomplish Kiev’s objective. Low-intensity conflict continues – heading toward resuming full-scale war at Washington’s discretion.
Expect it any time. Expect likely greater mass slaughter and destruction than before.
“We will fight using all method and techniques,” said Yatsenyuk. Meaning no-holds-barred dirty war – using banned weapons, willfully targeting civilians, and committing other egregious crimes of war and against humanity.
Expect Russia and rebels blamed for US/Kiev crimes like earlier. Chances for peace are nil.
At risk is direct US/Russian confrontation. Fox News is one of many presstitute platforms promoting it.
It features anti-Russian gun-slinging retired generals. Robert Scales told Fox the only way to change things in Ukraine is “start killing Russians.”
A criminal case was opened against him in Russia under Article 354 of its Criminal Code.
He advocates cold-blooded murder. He’s not alone. Active and retired US political and military officials want war on Russia.
Giving them national television air time increases the possibility. Lunatic fringe loose cannons infest Washington.
Retired General/former US army vice chief of staff Jack Keane wants US bases closer to Russia’s borders.
Sanctions and provocative military exercises aren’t enough, he says. He urges tougher actions.
“I think weÃve got to recognize that the security issues in Europe are no longer in Central Europe where our forces were post-WW2,” he said.
“The fact is theyÃre in Eastern Europe, so we should realign our bases not on a temporary basis but on a permanent basis, put the air bases and the ground bases further into eastern Europe, move them out of Central Germany where they currently are.”
“That’ll cost some expense, but it’s absolutely worth it in terms of letting Putin know clearly that those countries, those Baltic countries…matter to us.”
“They are a part of NATO and we’re not going to accept any challenge to them.”
“This would send a really loud signal to them that clearly the security situation in Europe has changed.”
“ItÃs recognition of those changes. It’s a recognition of the intimidation and the threatening situation that is clearly developing.”
Fact: America’s only threats are ones it invents.
Fact: Eastern and Western European countries claiming Russian threats lie. None exist.
Fact: Positioning increasing numbers of US military combat troops near Russia’s borders heightens chances for direct confrontation.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at[email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
Gus Hall (October 8, 1910 – October 13, 2000) was a leader and Chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate. During the Great Repression of the 1940s and 50s, Hall was indicted under the Smith Act by the bourgeois regime in Washington D.C. and was sentenced to eight years in prison. After his release, Hall led the CPUSA for over 40 years, often taking an orthodox Marxist-Leninist stance which intensely annoyed most of his comrades.
The concept of political independence varies when applied to individuals, groups, or states. With individuals, a candidate is independent when he or she is not affiliated with any political party. Again, an independent voter is a voter who does not align him or herself with a political party. However, proletarian parties commonly called their candidates “independent” as long as their candidate isn’t affiliated with a bourgeois party or another proletarian party. In the USA, when “independent” is applied to a group, it seems to mean a group that is separate from the two old bourgeois parties [the DP and GOP], even if the group is somehow affiliated or allied with other third parties.
AIMING TO WIN
“In every case the Party should focus on offices it aims to win — if not [this year] then over the course of the next few elections,” Gus Hall wrote in “Unity! The Only Way.”
Hall applied this rule in 1988 to CPUSA, but it applies today to a number of political organizations.
Under the rule which he formulates, Hall must have concluded that his party should not have focused on any of his four campaigns for president of the USA.
What does “in every case” mean?
It means in no case should a left party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win. It also means in no case should a party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win either now or over the course of the next few elections.
“Such a proposition requires a basic change in how we conduct our campaigns,” Hall wrote.
Why is this change in the conduct of campaigns basic?
Before the aiming-to-win strategy, campaigns aimed to lose or aimed merely to run. If so, then an aiming-to-win strategy is indeed a basic change.
Does the rule about a party not focusing on campaigns where the candidate can’t win, either now or over the course of the next few elections, apply also to Communists?
Hall’s answer to the question of whether the rule applies to Communists is tough to interpret, even though the rule applies to every case and a Communist candidate is a case.
Here’s Hall’s answer:
“The fact is we have now overcome the barrier that ‘Communists cannot be elected.’ Even though our candidates’ votes and constituencies took a big leap in recent elections, most of us still do not think in terms of Communists actually getting elected. This is the necessary next stage in the development of Communist campaigns,” Hall wrote.
Hall seems to be saying that Communists have recently won a number of elections, running as candidates of the two old bourgeois parties. These wins prove that the alleged barrier “Communists cannot be elected” is false. But most Communists still don’t see these wins as Communists actually getting elected; they see these wins as candidates of bourgeois parties actually getting elected. In other words, most Communists want and expect Communists to run as Communists, not as candidates of bourgeois parties.
Under the rule, as formulated above by Hall, a Communist running openly as a Communist also has to win because winning is the key thing, not merely running or losing. Further, a winning Communist, running openly as a Communist, satisfies the rule. A winning Communist, running as a candidate of a bourgeois party, also satisfies the rule.
But a losing Communist, no matter how he/she runs, is just a loser.
Lenin dealt with phony participation in political struggle in his “Leftwing Communism” and his “What Is to Be Done.” Obviously, aiming to lose is phony participation. Lenin called it a baby disease, an infantile disorder, pseudo anarchism, quasi-anarchism, and semi-anarchism.
WHAT MOSTLY DEFEATS OPEN COMMUNISTÂ CANDIDATES TODAY?
Hall rejects the explanation that the label of Communist is the chief cause of a loss when the candidate exposes his or her Communist affiliations.
Hall points to the political incompetence and bungling of Communists as the main cause of the losses when Communists campaign openly as Reds.
“Generally, we are good on program, but come up very short on the mass organization side of running campaigns … To reach a new, higher stage we must raise the level of professionalism in the use of media, literature, posters, and in fund raising. We must master campaign organization techniques to identify, mold and hold a Communist electoral constituency.
We must establish an apparatus to get out the vote on election day. We must focus more on door-to-door canvassing and involving non-Party volunteers,” Hall wrote, explaining why Communists who run as Communists lose.
Hall wanted Communists to master all of the specialties of the art of campaigning, even though he didn’t mention all of the specialties in the preceding paragraph.
Hall understood that amateurs are unlikely to prevail over political professionals.
Hall’s proposals were unwelcomed but quietly tolerated in 1988 when he presented them. They haven’t been acted on at all since their 1988 presentation.
CONCLUSION
Today, revolutionaries must aim to win, not the foolishness of much of the US Left of aiming to lose or aiming merely to run.
Revolutionaries can win either running as revolutionaries or running as supporters of political tendencies other than revolutionary.
The label of revolutionary pinned on a candidate is usually not the principal cause of a loss at the polls
The principal cause is that the advanced elements of the electoral base in the USA are untrained and misdirected.
Most of the US Left are incapable of doing anything.
