Category: Marxism-Leninism
How Marx’s Crisis Theory Explains Growing Anti-Immigrant Hate

4 March 2017 – 06:00 PM

How Marx’s Crisis Theory Explains Growing Anti-Immigrant Hate


Karl Marx.
Donald Trump. Nigel Farage. Marine Le Pen. Geert Wilders.

The rise of these four politicians is emblematic of growing anti-immigrant hate sweeping the imperialist countries. Basing their campaigns on xenophobia, they’ve been able to convince millions of people in their respective countries that immigrants are the source of their problems.

Peck’s ‘The Young Karl Marx’ Set to Hit Theaters in 2017

And at a time when there are more international migrants than ever before in human history, anti-immigrant hate can’t get any more dangerous.

In public discourse, the dominant narrative explaining this phenomenon is largely based on race and religion. Many have correctly pointed out that Latino, Black and Muslim immigrants are being targeted because of white supremacy.

While this argument is certainly true, it doesn’t fully explain why there are more immigrants — and anti-immigrant hate — than ever before. This analysis recognizes an important symptom of the problem, but not its root cause.

People are looking for explanations that mainstream media and academia won’t give them. That’s probably why a growing number of people are turning to revolutionary philosophers like Karl Marx for answers. Sales of Marx’s “Capital,” which he wrote 150 years ago, have been on the rise since 2008, the Guardian reports.

Marx, who is primarily studied under the lens of critical theory and philosophy, dedicated most of his time writing about economics. He believed that by understanding the underlying economic system of a given society, all other phenomena, like immigration, could be better understood. Metaphorically speaking, economics determines society in the same way soil determines the outcome of vegetation. This is called economic determinism.

In accordance with economic determinism, Marx believed that capitalism, an economic system based on profit and private ownership, is responsible for most of society’s problems. While mass migration and anti-immigrant hate weren’t Marx’s main areas of investigation, his economic theories can still be used to examine them. After all, the global capitalist system that he wrote about in 1867 was the embryonic version of the advanced one we live under today.

Marx’s crisis theory is perhaps his most important in the realm of economics. It posits that capitalism creates constant crises within society because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Profit is defined as financial gain accumulated from the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating or producing something.

Here’s an illustration of how the falling rate of profit and crisis theory works.

Suppose a shoe company in the United States spends US$50 on wages and raw materials every hour to produce one pair of shoes. If the company is able to sell the pair of shoes for US$80, they make a profit of US$30 an hour.

Given the rising cost of wages and raw materials in the U.S., the shoe company, like most capitalists, turns to developing nations for profit. Let’s say the company decides to move to Haiti and spends US$30 on wages and raw materials every hour. If they are able to sell the same pair of shoes for US$80, they make a profit of US$50 an hour.

Beyond the T-Shirt: What Che Actually Stood For

The owners of the shoe company walk away with more money, the U.S. worker is sent to the unemployment line and the Haitian worker is severely underpaid and super-exploited.

As workers around the world make less money because they are forced to compete with each other, they are unable to purchase the same products they produce as consumers. This creates a situation where the shoe company, for example, is unable to sell their products because no one has enough money to buy them. Thus, their profits steadily decline.

Because capitalism is based on this process, crisis becomes commonplace. Unemployment in the imperialist countries and mass migration from the developing world embark on a collision course. Politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Pen and Wilders convince millions that immigrants are the problem, while the capitalist system itself is responsible. This directly contributes to the growth of anti-immigrant hate in the most developed countries.

Understanding Marx’s crisis theory and the falling rate of profit is crucial to understanding this phenomenon. It explains why jobs are leaving the dominant capitalist countries, why people are leaving third world countries and why all workers have a shared interest in abolishing capitalism. It also debunks the myths that “immigrants are stealing jobs” and that workers in countries like Mexico are “getting a better deal.”

As capitalism reaches a crisis and decline that it can not overcome, as it reaches a dead end, it is more important than ever to unite the world’s working class.

As Marx said, “There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.”

Karl Marx: The Man Who Changed The World Forever

Friday, March 17, 2017

Karl Marx: The Man Who Changed The World Forever

Karl Marx: The Man Who Changed The World Forever

By Nikos Mottas*.
“On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep-but forever”. With these words, Friedrich Engels had opened his speech during Karl Marx’s funeral at London’s Highgate cemetery. This year marks the 134th anniversary since the death of the greatest thinker in the history of mankind; the man who tried not only to interpret the world but to change it. And, indeed, Marx’s theoretical work became the basis for social change, highlighting the scientific perception of the class struggle as the driving force of History.
“The genius of Marx”, Lenin wrote,lies in his having been the first to deduce from the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle” (V.I.Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism). Marx’s thought and work consists of a milestone in the history of philosophy, political economy and social sciences. As Lenin wrote, the Marxist theory “is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism”.
The thought of Marx brought a cosmogony in the field of social sciences thus changing the way we interpret the world. “At best”, Lenin pointed out, “pre-Marxist “sociology” and historiography brought forth an accumulation of raw facts, collected at random, and a description of individual aspects of the historical process […] Marxism indicated the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the process of the rise, development, and decline of socio-economic systems. People make their own history but what determines the motives of people, of the mass of people—i.e., what is the sum total of all these clashes in the mass of human societies? What are the objective conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all man’s historical activity? What is the law of development of these conditions? To all these Marx drew attention and indicated the way to a scientific study of history as a single process which, with all its immense variety and contradictoriness, is governed by definite laws”.
Through his extensive work, Karl Marx elaborated and expounded Hegel’s dialectics and created an integrated philosophical materialism which gave to humanity- and especially to the working class- a powerful weapon of knowledge. Marx- with the significant contribution of Engels- highlighted aspects of political economy that prominent bourgeois economists and scientists of the nineteenth century had failed to feature. As Lenin explained, “where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people […] The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx’s economic theory”.
Karl Marx in 1861.

Although Marx’s economic theory have been vindicated by History herself (e.g. the over-accumulation crises in capitalism etc.), the bourgeois propaganda still disputes the correctness of Marxist economics. However, even some of the most prominent representatives of bourgeois politics have admitted the truth about Marx. Here is what Paul Craig Roberts, an acclaimed bourgeois economist and former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan, wrote in 2009: “If Karl Marx and V.I.Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics. Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial apital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis” (, 7 October 2009).

The man who could perfectly and precisely summarize the importance of the Marxist thought is, of course, the long-time companion of Marx, Friedrich Engels, with whom he co-authored some of the most significant theoretical works of the proletariat’s revolutionary theory such as “The German Ideology” (1845), “The Holy Family”(1845) and the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848). Among other things, Engels noted in his farewell speech at Marx’s grave in 1883: Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history […] But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark”.
Refering to his own work, Marx was pointing out:What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society” (Marx to J.Weydemeyer in New York, March 5, 1852).
The heritage of Marx’s thought is certainly inversely proportional of the material goods he left to his descendants. He died as he lived: poor, without the scientific recognition that other thinkers and scientists of his era had enjoyed. With the extraordinary assistance by Engels he left behind the most valuable, powerful and important work that the working class could inherit. From the “Capital” (one of the most brilliant works in the history of human intellect) to the “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” and from the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” to the “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Marx gives answers to the most fundamental questions that had been highlighted by humanity’s pioneer philosophical thinking.
Marx’s tombstone in Highgate, London.

The work of Karl Marx consisted of the basis for the emergence of another great man- the leader of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, who further developed the theoretical work of Marx and Engels in the era of Imperialism thus composing the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism. Marx’s heritage became the foundation for the first socialist state in the world, the Soviet Union, while Marxism became the “moving wheel” for numerous popular movements across the world which aimed at social emancipation and the abolition of exploitation of man by man. Likewise, Karl Marx and his work inspired and influenced revolutionaries and extraordinary personalities-symbols of the 20th century’s socialism- from Rosa Luxemburg to Ernst Thalmann and from Ernesto Che Guevara to Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh.

Today, more than 25 years since the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR and the socialist countries of eastern Europe, those who had predicted the “end of History” and the failure of socialism have been refuted. The prolonged, deep systemic crisis of capitalism and the immense contemporary problems rooted in the anarchy of capitalist production prove the correctness of Marxist thought. Being rotten and outdated, capitalism becomes more and more aggressive, creates and perpetuates economic crises, extended poverty, unemployment and war. Karl Marx- the man who changed the world forever- has been totally vindicated by History and his revolutionary thinking is more timely than ever. 
*Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of In Defense of Communism.
New Developments in Political Economy: The Demise of “Globalization”

New Developments in Political Economy: The Demise of “Globalization”

– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:

“Globalization” is a slippery term: 1. Sometimes it is used as a description of the quantitative changes in the global economy that emerged in the 1980s. 2. Sometimes it is used to express a set of policy prescriptions that gained traction in that same period. 3. Sometimes it is used to name a theory positing a new era, epoch, or stage of capitalism, a qualitative change in the way that contemporary capitalism functions.

And sometimes the word is used in all three senses:
  • In the 1980s and early 1990s, global trade began to expand at a rate greater than its historic average. Revolutionary changes in logistics– containerization, transportation, inventory control, and information transfer– dropped the cost of transportation and shipping dramatically. Political changes unified the global market with the integration of the PRC economy and the breakup of the socialist economic community. Many emerging nations joined the global market when the socialist development model lost its sponsors. Similarly, capital flows expanded with the removal of political and Cold War obstacles. The workers formerly buffered by an alternative economic system– over a third of the global workforce– were cast into capitalist labor markets, an unparalleled infusion of cheaper labor. Capital mobility, political hegemony, and the logistical revolution brought additional low-cost labor from emerging economies into the global nexus. All of these factors and others achieved an increase in the rates of production, economic growth, and trade that persisted for over two decades.
  • The recognition of the failure of the Keynesian consensus among policy makers led to a return to classical market fundamentalism. The long stagnation and rampant inflation of the 1970s defied and discredited the various iterations of pump priming and fiscal mending that had served as tools since the Great Depression. The political reaction– the ascendency of Thatcher, Reagan, and their political offspring– brought a new set of prescriptions founded on free, unfettered markets. International capitalist structures — IMF, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, OECD, GATT etc. — and new ones– WTO– unhesitatingly embraced the return to market fundamentalism. In the wake of the new consensus, a slew of free-trade agreements was constructed to formalize the born-again faith in free markets, the most celebrated of which was the North American Free Trade Agreement. In the mid-1990s, the OECD attempted to secretly establish the most ambitious international compact, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, an accord that would have given virtually unimpeded freedom of action to multinational corporations. The efforts to canonize market fundamentalism and formalize the tenets in institutions and trade agreements continue to this day– for example, in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • For some, including a significant part of the academic left, the quantitative and policy changes unfolding in the 1980s signaled a new era of capitalism. As two influential theorists ominously put the matter: “Today we are in the early phases of the fourth epoch of capitalism.” In a hurry to replace Lenin’s theory of imperialism, they, and others, posited a stage where corporations eschewed a home base and adopted the entire global economy as their domain. At the same time, they saw a decline in the authority and significance of the nation state. International organizations like the IMF and the WTO were seen as nascent replacements for the nation state. Clearly, the concept of imperialism plays a diminished role in this picture.
The notion of a “centerless” capitalism reached its extreme with the publication in 2000 of Hardt and Negri’s Empire. This impenetrable, rambling exercise in pretension and intellectual indiscipline became an academic best seller and a fixture on the coffee table of every petty bourgeois rebel. The book wiped away in one fell swoop the identities relevant to left politics and replaced them with the amorphous concept of “the multitude.”
                                                     The Demise
The economic collapse of 2007-2008 put to rest the quantitative basis for “globalization.” From 1983 to 2008, global trade growth averaged over 6% with many double-digit spikes. Since then, global trade growth has dropped to 3% or lower (growth in 2016 was below 2%, the lowest since 2009).
The World Trade Organization calculates that, historically, typical trade growth runs at about 1.5 times GDP growth. During exceptional periods like the so-called globalization era, trade often grows at twice the rate of GDP. But WTO notes that today (and since the crisis began) the rate of growth is approximately the same for both trade and GDP (trade growth was actually below GDP growth in 2016).
After years of brisk growth, global container traffic slowed to 1.1% in 2015 and was virtually flat in 2016. Thus, the primary impetus for the globalization thesis– global trade growth– has evaporated.
Other indicators hailed as signposts for globalization have also collapsed: foreign direct investment, the harbinger of future trade growth, was 40% less in 2015 than its pre-crisis peak. International lending, as measured by the Bank for International Settlements, dropped 9% over the two-year period, 2014-2015.
Clearly, the 2007-2008 collapse choked off the growth celebrated as “globalization” as emphatically and dramatically as it was heralded in the 1980s. Those who saw a new stage or epoch of capitalism emerging are surely chastened by its demise. Rather than signaling a new, triumphant age of capitalism, the global burst of growth beginning in the 1980s came from a unique, unrepeatable conjuncture of factors fortuitous to global capitalism. An unparalleled expansion of skilled, low-cost labor, a revolution in technology and logistics, and US political hegemony created momentum unusually favorable to capitalist growth. That momentum is now spent.
The theorists who foresaw a post-imperialism accompanying globalization were quickly dispelled of this illusion with a succession of imperialist wars masking as humanitarian intervention. In 1998, France, the poster child for national pride, squelched the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) that threatened to erode national sovereignties and hand them to the corporations.
The nation state was far from dead as the aggressor or the victim. In the twenty-first century, the aggressors were, time after time, the wealthy, powerful nations (in alliances of convenience) and the victims were the poorer, weaker states.
The copies of Empire have long vanished from the coffee tables. On the left, the heavy lifting against the “left” post-imperialism, globalization thesis was done by the editors and many of the writers at the estimable US magazine, Monthly Review. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, MR carried on an intense campaign against the notion that capitalism had morphed into an economic system unrecognizable by classical Marxism. That battle has been won.
                                   The Remains of Globalization
Globalization lives today only as an ideology, a set of policy prescriptions intimately linked to market fundamentalism. It sets the goal of removing any and all international barriers to markets. It draws its support from those who benefitted the most from the nearly three decades preceding the 2007-8 crash. In the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and North America, the capitalists, their courtiers, and a substantial petty bourgeoisie enjoyed large gains in income and wealth. The shift of manufacturing to low-wage countries and the growth of demand for raw materials trickled some benefits to workers in emerging economies.
But few benefits accrued to the traditional workforce of Europe and North America. Deindustrialization, redundancy, deunionization, income stagnation, reduced and underfunded social services, and crumbling physical infrastructures have created working-class communities of hopelessness and despair. The ubiquitous signs of social deterioration– alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, violence, unhealthy lifestyles– have accompanied globalization in these countries.
The crash of 2007-2008 brought the misery of working-class communities to a head, with harsh political consequences. The bourgeois and social democratic political parties of Europe and North America were unable to contain the anger and frustration of most workers. Further, the post-Soviet-era retreat from Marxism left most political parties heartily embracing the harsh tenets of market fundamentalism and its accompanying global trade policies. The so-called era of globalization coincided neatly and significantly with the rise of “New” Democrats, “New” Labour, and “New” Socialists, the “left” purveyors of market fundamentalism. Their dominance of their respective parties drove the last remnants of welfare statism to the exits.
Excepting a few remaining mass Communist Parties committed to sweeping capitalism into history’s dustbin, workers were left with no real choices, no alternative to parties wedded to free markets, corporate success, and the decidedly failed slogan that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”
To step into this void, to present an alternative for workers, to establish a working-class beachhead, new political figures and formations sprung up throughout Europe and North America. Presenting a nationalist alternative to the internationalism of globalization, promising jobs on the basis of protected borders from foreign workers and global trade, and conjuring imagery of a lost golden age, politicians and parties challenged the monolithic ideology of unrestricted market relations and global exchange that brought such pain to the working classes.
This awkward amalgam of right-wing nationalism and populist rhetoric gained traction in recent years only because of the failure of traditional parties to break away from the dogmas of market fundamentalism and the failure of the left to establish an alternative to it. The feeble attempts by social democrats to conjure their own distant memories of the welfare state have fallen on deaf ears. Likewise, the anarchist-inspired turn to vague, utopian radical democracy offers no counter vision to capitalist economic relations.
Against the backdrop of two bourgeois political parties with an overlapping core commitment to the same failed economic philosophy, the fact that the first successful election of a right-wing “populist” occurred in the US should come as no surprise. Trump represents an alternative in desperate times, a false alternative, but an alternative nonetheless.
For Europeans, Trump provides a foretaste of the contradictory character of the nationalist-populist brew. As Trump’s first month demonstrates, there is no content to “populism” beyond the fawning service to monopoly capital, cheerleading for small businesses, and an occasional soundbite for the working class. All the benefits to the working class are supposed to come from closing the borders to commodities, both human (labor power) and material (imports).
Assuredly, the nationalist alternative to marketization, commodification, and globalization will fail. At best, it will intensify competitive rivalries in the short run, creating bigger winners and bigger losers. But ultimately, economic nationalism will cost the global economy in terms of growth and inequality.
It must be noted, however, that the fierce fight against Trump and the forthcoming political struggles to stop the nationalist parties from power in Europe are tragically misguided if they simply succeed in reproducing the disastrous market fundamentalism and globalization policies that produced Trump and his counterparts in the first place.
Only something different from the false choice of market internationalism or narrow, fear-driven nationalism will spare the working class even greater pain. The two ideologies that are contesting for global hegemony are merely two versions, two faces of imperialism.
Nostalgia for a long-lost, never-to-be-recovered, welfare-state capitalism will not serve the left in this time of crisis. Instead, we need to craft a bold socialist alternative.
Zoltan Zigedy


The voice of American Communists: PCUSA on Trump, Cuba-US relations and opportunism

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The voice of American Communists: PCUSA on Trump, Cuba-US relations and opportunism
The Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) was founded on May Day 2014. Formed out of the ashes of the Communist Party USA, the PCUSA aspires to become the base for a new beginning for the communist movement in the United States. On the occasion of Donald Trump’s rise to power, we asked from the PCUSA to share with us the party’s views on some topics. 
Below we publish the response we exclusively received by the PCUSA’s Council of Secretaries.


* * * 

On the question “How do you think Trump’s presidency will affect the US working class”, the PCUSA says: 

“There can only be one answer to this question. “In a very negative way.” In his first days in office we have already seen Trump coalesce around extreme right wing forces, scapegoating immigrants for America’s problems that have been created by the global crisis of capitalism. We have seen a rise in everyday prices. Gasoline prices have gone up .40 cents per gallon in the last month in California. Food prices are rising substantially. Trump’s accomplices in the Congress have introduced anti-labor legislation to cripple union organizing. Trump is now threatening to make war against Iran and to nullify the U.S. Iran Nuclear deal that was negotiated last year. He is attempting to place someone on the Supreme Court of the United States that is young and will serve right wing attacks on our Constitution for years to come. None of this bodes well for the working class”. 

The US-Cuban relations will deteriorate under Trump’s presidency says the PCUSA. Here’s the full answer:

“We believe that U.S. – Cuba relations are going to deteriorate under a Trump administration. The economic embargo against Cuba will continue indefinitely. Diplomatic relations will be strained. The new diplomatic relationship established between our two countries is sure to be broken off. We see only that Trump will try to co-opt the leadership of the Cuban Communist Party with increased sabotage, spying, and wrecking. Trump’s people will use diplomacy as a cover for their covert activities. We expect that the Cubans will respond in kind. In interstate relations there must be a degree of trust. The Cubans do not trust Trump, and with good reason.”

The PCUSA rejects the type of political forces such as the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and PLS (Party of Liberation and Socialism) which it regards as opportunist/reformist parties. More specifically, the PCUSA Council of Secretaries points out:

“We are proletarian internationalists. We reject social-democracy, as Lenin did when he formed the Communist Party in Russia. He called for the formation of “a party of a new type.” We are the only truly Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. We are not Trotskyites and we reject Trotskyism as being anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist. Because our party was formed out of the ashes of the old, corrupt CPUSA, we are familiar with their betrayal of communist principles and discipline. In 2014 it was necessary to declare our independence and ally ourselves with other forces that were not part of the CPUSA, but knew of its recent history of right wing opportunism. The main core of our members are former members of the CPUSA, but not all of us. We are united together by our “unity principles” which state unequivocally that we reject all forms of opportunism and distortions of Marxism-Leninism. 

“CPUSA, PLS and groups like them are greater threat than the bourgeoisie”.

“We see the CPUSA and the PSL and groups like them as a greater threat than the bourgeoisie because these groups serve the interests of capitalism while at the same time deceiving the working class; by sounding more militant, by pretending to be “national liberation” forces; by misdirecting the working class into unproductive forms of struggle. To us these groups are very dangerous. We don’t consider them to be part of a united front against fascism and war. We see them as indirectly serving the interests of the Trump forces. On the international scene, there are too many groups who are infected with opportunism and thus ill equipped to effectively participate in united front activity against the whiff of fascism that is represented by the Wall Street clique around Trump. We believe that the mission of these formations, and their main role as opportunist / reformist formations,is to create confusion and misinformation among the working class and its allies. The opportunists of the Social Democratic CPUSA seek to cover up their misdeeds by maintaining the title “Communist” in their name. We believe that the truth will eventually expose the CPUSA and its revisionism”.

* You can visit the official homepage of the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) as well as its official theoretical journal “Ideological Fighback”.


“Trump will be a disaster for the US working class” – Interview with Zoltan Zigedy

Friday, February 3, 2017

“Trump will be a disaster for the US working class” – Interview with Zoltan Zigedy

On the occasion of the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency and the recent anti-Trump demonstrations throughout the United States, we asked from the US-based blogger and activist Zoltan Zigedy* to share his views. 

* * * 
Q: Generally speaking, how do you think Trump’s Presidency will affect the U.S. working class?
ZZ: Thank you for inviting me to discuss these questions with you. While the views are mine, they benefit from extensive discussions with my comrades at  Marxism-Leninism Today. We believe that the election of Donald Trump reflects a multi-faceted crisis of growing inequality and insecurity, of systemic economic instability, and of the two-party electoral charade. Unfortunately, the broad US left– a potential counterforce to the crisis– is ideologically immature and organizationally splintered. Because of its failure, other forces have leaped in to address the crisis. We see Trump’s right-wing populism as such an attempt to offer an alternative.
In our view, the Trump phenomenon is very much akin to the radical right-wing populist parties that have emerged in Europe, where a similar bankruptcy of existing “left” parties has driven many desperate workers towards demagogues and false friends.

Trump will be a disaster for the US working class. He has surrounded himself with a cabal of counselors, advisors, and cabinet members who count as the most rapacious and anti-worker elements in the upper echelons of capitalism. The idea of a worker-friendly bourgeois billionaire and his billionaire colleagues as a savior to working people is an absurdity. The corporate leaders recently called to the White House to meet Trump have all left with a confident smile. In the short run, Trump, a master at public relations, will secure some moral points with gestures in the direction of workers, but that will fade quickly.

We are confident that Trump will fail to pull the US out of its deepening crisis.
Q: On Trump’s inauguration day, as well as in the following days, we saw numerous mass demonstrations throughout the States against him. How do you evaluate this “anti-Trump movement”? Is it a temporary reaction without any class characteristics or it could possibly have further development in the future?
ZZ: The anti-Trump movement is complex and contradictory. On the one hand, it has produced demonstrations and marches unprecedented in size. It has brought many people with no previous engagement with activism into the streets. The movement has shown some resilience and sustained passion.
On the other hand, it has yet to surface any advanced positions. It has drawn mainly from the white, urban middle strata. It’s leadership has been moderate and centrist. And it has lacked working class leadership and the embrace of working class issues.
Some see the not-so-hidden hand of the Democratic Party and its enormous resources actively hijacking the anti-Trump movement.
Still others sense a whiff of Maidan and the Color Revolutions in the anti-Trump mainstream media hysteria, the activities of George Soros, and the intervention of US security services in recent politics.
Nonetheless, the mass actions offer an occasion to engage those new to or returning to activist politics. Like the earlier “anti-globalization” movement, the Occupy Movement, and other movements hostile to organization and ideology, it is up to Marxist-Leninists, our friends, and allies to liberate as much of this political development as we can from opportunism or hijacking.
Q: Do you think that the US labor movement needs a strong Communist Party and how the existence of such a vanguard party can be achieved?
ZZ: We believe that a strong, revolutionary Communist Party is vital, essential to restoring class struggle unionism to the US labor movement. The purging of Communists from the labor movement during the McCarthy period left the working class movement in the US harnessed to class collaboration, a yoke that the movement has not cast off to this day.
The absence of an authentic, revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party is felt in every arena of struggle, on every political moment. We believe that only a militant Communist Party can deliver working people from the labor misleaders and from the “Scylla and Charybdis” of two party tyranny, as our Greek comrades so aptly say.  
The legacy of McCarthyism and the lure of “American Exceptionalism” have infected the left with opportunism, making the task of building a new, militant Communist Party a formidable task.
We look to create a pole of resistance to the reformist, opportunist left that vacillates on US imperialism and its wars, on class struggle unionism, on not-for-profit health care, on the two-party system, and, of course, on socialism.
At the same time, we are seeking unity-of-action with individuals and some organizations of a Marxist-Leninist orientation. While differences exist and surely will further surface in the future, we feel that practice and dialogue will determine the next steps in founding a revolutionary vanguard party in the US.
While we see this as a pre-party period, we recognize the urgency of providing our working class with a beacon for its liberation. We are optimistic that we are on that path.
* “Zoltan Zigedy” is the nom de plume of Pittsburgh-based writer Greg Godels who serves on the editorial board of Marxism-Leninism Today where many of his articles appear. You can read his personal blog here.
Trotsky’s Lies – What They Are, and What They Mean

Friday, January 27, 2017

Trotsky’s Lies – What They Are, and What They Mean
Trotsky’s Lies – What They Are, and What They Mean
The personality and the writings of Leon Trotsky have long been a rallying point for anticommunists throughout the world. But during the 1930s Trotsky deliberately lied in his writings about Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. My new book, Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’, discusses some of Trotsky’s lies that have fooled people, and demoralized honest communists, for decades.
In January 1980 the Trotsky Archive at Harvard University was opened to researchers. Within a few days Pierre Broué, the foremost Trotskyist historian of his time, discovered that Trotsky had lied. Trotsky had always denied that any clandestine “bloc of oppositionists” including Trotskyists, existed in the Soviet Union. Trotsky called this an “amalgam,” meaning a fabrication by Stalin. This “bloc” was the main focus of the second and third Moscow Trials of January 1937 and March 1938. Broué showed, from letters in the Trotsky Archive by Trotsky and by his son Leon Sedov, that the bloc did exist.
In 1985 American historian Arch Getty discovered that the Harvard Trotsky Archive had been purged of incriminating materials, but purged imperfectly. Getty also found evidence that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with some of his former supporters inside the Soviet Union. Trotsky always strenuously denied this, claiming that he cut off all ties to those who “capitulated” to Stalin and publicly renounced their Trotskyist views. Again, Trotsky was lying. In 2010 Swedish researcher Sven-Eric Holmström published an article on the “Hotel Bristol” question in the First Moscow Trial of August 1936. In it Holmström proves that Trotsky was lying here too.
In 2005 I began to systematically study all the accusations against Stalin and Beria that Nikita Khrushchev made in his infamous “Secret Speech.” I discovered that not a single one of Khrushchev’s so-called “revelations” can be supported from the evidence. But during the 1930s Trotsky had made the same kind of accusations against Stalin that Khrushchev later did. The fact that Khrushchev did nothing but lie suggested that Trotsky might have lied as well. Thanks to Broué and Getty I already knew that Trotsky had lied about some very important matters. Any detective, in any mystery story, knows that if a suspect has lied about some important matters, he should ask himself: What else is this person lying about?
I set about studying his writings in order to determine which of Trotsky’s statements could be tested. Wherever I had independent evidence to check the veracity of any accusation that Trotsky levelled against Stalin, I found that Trotsky was lying — again. Today I have so much evidence that even a whole book does not come close to holding it all. So there will be two more volumes concerning Trotsky’s lies. The second volume will be published in early 2017.
Between September 2010 and January 2013 I researched and wrote a book on the assassination on December 1, 1934 of Sergei Mironovich Kirov, First Secretary of the Leningrad Party. That book, The Murder of Sergei Kirov, was published in June 2013. The Kirov murder is the key to the Soviet high politics of the rest of the 1930s: the three public Moscow Trials of August 1936, January 1937, and March 1938, often called “Show Trials;” the Military Purge or “Tukhachevsky Affair” of May and June 1937; and the Ezhovshchina of July 1937 to October 1938, which anticommunist scholars call the “Great Terror,” after a dishonest book by Robert Conquest.
Trotsky too wrote about the Kirov murder investigation. He identified the articles in the French communist and Soviet press that he read. I discovered that Trotsky lied about what these articles on the Kirov murder investigation said. Trotsky fabricated a story that Stalin and his men were responsible for Kirov’s death. Once again, Trotsky lied about what the articles he read in the French communist newspaper Humanité and in Russian-language Soviet papers, to which Trotsky had access within only a couple of days of their publication in Moscow.
Trotsky’s lies would have been immediately apparent to anybody who set Trotsky’s articles side by side with the French and Russian newspaper articles that he had read and which he claimed he was closely studying and analyzing. It appears that no one ever did that – until now. The result was that Trotsky’s falsified version of the Kirov assassination – that Stalin and the NKVD had killed Kirov – was taken up not only by Trotsky’s followers, but by Nikita Khrushchev.
In his completely fraudulent “Secret Speech” Khrushchev gave additional credibility to the “Stalin killed Kirov” story. Khrushchev and his speechwriters probably took this directly from Trotsky. Trotsky’s tale that “Stalin had Kirov killed” passed from Khrushchev to the professional anticommunist scholar-propagandists like Robert Conquest and many others. In the late 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev’s men tried and failed to find evidence in the Soviet archives to support this story.
Aleksandr Iakovlev, Gorbachev’s chief man for ideology, sent them back to the archives to try again. Once again, the Politburo research team failed to find any evidence to even suggest that Stalin had had Kirov killed. The history of the “Stalin had Kirov killed” fabrication is a good example of how a number of Trotsky’s deliberate lies were taken up by Soviet anticommunists like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, and by pro-capitalist anticommunists in the West. In my new book Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I uncover and discuss a number of other deliberate lies by Trotsky about Stalin and the USSR. All of them have been adopted by anticommunists and by Trotskyists. In the second and third volumes of this work I will discuss Trotsky’s conspiracies with saboteurs and fascists inside the USSR, and with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists.
In early 1937 Trotsky succeeded in persuading John Dewey, the famous educator, and a number of others, to hold hearings, supposedly to determine whether the charges leveled against Trotsky in the August 1936 and January 1937 Moscow Show Trials were true. The Commission duly concluded that Trotsky was innocent and the Moscow Trials were all a frame-up. I carefully studied the 1,000 pages of the Dewey Commission materials. I discovered that the Commission was dishonest and shockingly incompetent. It made error after error in logical reasoning. Of most interest is the fact that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission many times. The Dewey Commission could not possibly have declared Trotsky “Not Guilty” if the Commission members had known that Trotsky was lying to them. I wish to briefly mention two more sections of my book. They are: my project to verify – that is, to check — the Moscow Trials testimony; and my examination of the errors that most readers of Soviet history make, errors which make them unable to understand the significance of the evidence we now have.
The testimony of the defendants in the three public Moscow Trials is universally declared to be false, forced from innocent men by the prosecution, the NKVD, “Stalin.” There has never been a shred of evidence to support this notion. Nevertheless, it is staunchly affirmed by ALL specialists in Soviet history, as well as by all Trotskyists. Thanks to years of identifying, searching for, locating, obtaining, and studying primary sources, I realized that there now exists enough evidence to test many of the statements made by the Moscow Trials defendants. I devote the first twelve chapters of Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ to a careful verification of many of the statements by the Moscow Trials defendants. I found that, whenever we can double-check a fact-claim made by a Moscow Trials defendant against independent evidence now available, it turns out that the Moscow Trials defendant was telling the truth. Trotsky, Khrushchev and his men, Cold-War Soviet “experts,”
Gorbachev and his men, and today’s academic scholars in Soviet studies, all claimed or claim that the Trials are frame-ups. I prove from the evidence that they are wrong. The Moscow Trials testimony is what it claims to be: statements that the defendants chose to make. I verify this with a great deal of evidence from outside the Trials themselves and even outside the Soviet Union. This is an important conclusion. This result in itself disproves the “anti-Stalin paradigm” of Soviet history. It also contributes to disproving Trotsky’s version of Soviet history, a version that the Trotskyist movement worldwide continues to believe and to propagate today. Those of us — researchers, activists, and others — who wish to find the truth about Soviet history of the Stalin period, and not merely attempt to confirm our preconceived ideas about it – we are in possession of a number of results that completely overturn the convention anti-Stalin paradigm of Soviet history. These include the following:
* the fact that Nikita Khrushchev lied about every accusation he made against Stalin (and Lavrentii Beria) in his world-shaking “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress of the CPSU in February 1956. This clearly means that Khrushchev’s researchers could not find any true “crimes” that Stalin – or Beria – had committed, and so were reduced to fabrication.
* the fact that, despite a very thorough and time-consuming search of the archives in 1962-1964, Khrushchev’s “Shvernik Commission” could find no evidence at all to suggest that either the Moscow Trials defendants or the “Tukhachevsky Affair” defendants were victims of a “frame-up” or had lied in their confessions in any way.
* the fact that neither Gorbachev’s and Eltsin’s researchers, nor the anticommunist researchers since that time, who have had wide access to the former Soviet archives, have been able to find any evidence at all to challenge the conclusions in the Kirov Assassination, the Moscow Trials, or the Military Purges.
* the fact that the testimony at the Moscow Trials was, in the main, truthful.
* the fact that Ezhov and Ezhov alone, not Stalin and his supporters in the Soviet leadership, were responsible for the mass murders of July 1938 to November 1939 known to scholars as the “Ezhovshchina” and to anticommunist propagandists as “the Great Terror.”
* the fact that, in his writings about the USSR during the period after the Kirov murder, Trotsky lied repeatedly in order to cover up his conspiracies.
* the fact that most of today’s scholars of the Stalin period in the USSR lie in order to deceive their readers. But they do so in a way that can only be discovered by a very close, detailed study of their sources.
Trotskyist scholarship is consistently parasitical on mainstream anticommunist scholarship. Here is one example. In a recent review on the Trotskyist, and ferociously anti-Stalin World Socialist Web Site ( of Princeton University historian Stephen Kotkin’s book Stalin, a Trotskyist reviewer refers approvingly to the anti-Stalin statements of Oleg Khlevniuk, who is called the respected Russian historian Oleg Khlevniuk. –
Khlevniuk is a fanatical anticommunist and also a very blatant liar, in all his writings. Khlevniuk is anti-Stalin; WSWS.ORG, the Trotskyist publication, is anti-Stalin; therefore the Trotskyists “trust” the foremost anticommunist liar in the world today! Meanwhile, mainstream anticommunist scholarship has been drawing upon the writings of Trotsky himself for decades. Trotsky, of course, knew that he was lying:
* about the “bloc of Rights, Trotskyists, Zinovievites, and other Oppositionists;”
* about his own involvement in the assassination of Sergei Kirov in December 1934;
* about his conspiring with the “Tukhachevsky Affair” military conspirators for a coup d’état against the Stalin government and to stab the Red Army in the back during an invasion by Germany or Japan;
* about his conspiring with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists;
* about conspiring with fascists and his own followers within the USSR to sabotage industry, transportation, and mines.
* about the charges against, and the confessions by, the defendants in the Moscow trials, which Trotsky knew were true.
Trotsky knew that he lied, repeatedly, over and over again, in his Bulletin of the Opposition. Trotsky knew that he repeated these lies to the Dewey Commission.
The Spanish Civil War
And Trotsky knew that he lied to his own followers, including his closest followers like Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau. Nin had been one of Trotsky’s closest political assistants. Nin is supposed to have broken with Trotsky in 1931. But in 1930 Nin wrote, in a Trotskyist journal, that Trotsky’s Soviet-based followers who had retracted their Trotskyist views and pledged loyalty to the Communist Party’s line, had done so dishonestly. They had done so in order to remain within the Party so they could continue to recruit others to their secret conspiracies. Therefore, though Nin openly broke with the Trotskyist movement in an organizational sense, his actions in Spain suggest that this was a cover for maintaining a secret connection with Trotsky.
The Spanish communists and the Soviet NKVD in Spain suspected this too. Nin became one of the leaders of the POUM, an anti-Soviet and antiStalin party that was very friendly to Trotsky. Erwin Wolf went to Spain as Trotsky’s political representative. He did so in order to lead a “revolution” against the Spanish Republic – right in the middle of a war with the Spanish fascists, who were aided by Hitler and Mussolini. Nin and Wolf ran these risks because they believed that Trotsky was innocent of the charges that were made against him in the Moscow Trials. They thought that Trotsky, not Stalin, was the true communist and true revolutionary. Consequently, they thought that they were going to Spain to do what Lenin would have wanted done.
In May 1937 a revolt against the Spanish Republican government broke out in Barcelona. POUM and the Spanish Trotskyists enthusiastically participated in this revolt. It appears that Nin, Wolf, and Landau thought this might be the beginning of a Bolshevik-style revolution, with themselves as Lenin, the POUM as the Bolsheviks, the Republican government as the capitalists, and the Spanish and Soviet communists as the phony socialists like Alexander Kerensky! The “Barcelona May Days Revolt,” was a vicious stab in the back against the Republic during wartime. It was suppressed in less than a week. After that, the Spanish police and Soviet NKVD hunted down the Trotskyists and the POUM leadership. Andres Nin was certainly kidnapped, interrogated, and then murdered by the Soviets and Spanish police. The same thing probably happened to Landau and Wolf.
The Soviets knew then what we know today: that Trotsky was conspiring with the Germans, the Japanese, and the “Tukhachevsky Affair’ military men. But Nin and Wolf certainly did not know this. They believed Trotsky’s professions of innocence. If Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau had known what Trotsky knew, and what we now know, would they have gone to Spain to try to carry out Trotsky’s instructions? Impossible! Therefore, Trotsky sent these men into an extremely dangerous situation by means of lying to them about his own activities and aims, and about what Stalin was doing. And it cost them their lives. The same is true for all the Trotskyists who were executed in the Soviet Union itself. Evidently, there were hundreds of them. They all supported Trotsky because they believed his version of Soviet history, and had been convinced by Trotsky’s writings that Stalin was lying, that the Moscow Trials were a frame-up, and that the Stalin regime had abandoned the goal of worldwide socialist revolution. These men and women would not have followed Trotsky if he had not lied to them.
In the first chapter of Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I examine the errors that most students of Soviet history, including academic professionals, make when faced with primary source evidence. The truth is that very few people, including professional historians, know how to examine historical evidence. Very few Marxists know what a materialist examination of evidence looks like, or are capable of recognizing or critiquing an idealist argument when they are confronted with one. These errors are not only errors of “denial” by persons who do not wish to have their proTrotsky or anti-Stalin preconceptions disproven. Most or all of these same errors are made by pro-Stalin, anti-revisionist people. Anticommunist arguments have been so overwhelming, not only in Cold War pro-capitalist form but especially in supposedly procommunist but in reality anticommunist Khrushchev- and Gorbachev-era writings, that it has degraded the thinking of all of us.
The lies of Trotsky’s that Pierre Broué and Arch Getty discovered 30 years ago have been ignored. This fact itself deserves explanation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Broué continued to find, and write about, more lies by Trotsky. But all the while he continued to deny that these lies were of any importance. Broué also ignored Getty’s two discoveries. First, that the Trotsky Archive had been “purged” of incriminating materials. Second, that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with oppositionists like Radek with whom he swore he had broken all ties. Vadim Rogovin, the leading Trotskyist historian of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, went along with Broué’s cover-up and also introduced some lies of his own. Trotskyists and Cold Warriors continue either to ignore Broué’s discoveries altogether or to echo Broué’s claim that these lies were of little significance. We can understand why they do this.
The fact that Trotsky lied dismantles what I call the “anti-Stalin paradigm”: the Trotskyist and the Cold War anticommunist versions of Soviet history. Trotsky, of course, had to lie. He was running a serious conspiracy to get rid of Stalin, in conjunction with many supporters inside the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik Party and in collusion with Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, England and France. A conspiracy requires secrecy and lying. But who, above all, was Trotsky fooling? Not Stalin and the Soviet government. They knew he was lying. The conclusion is inescapable: Trotsky was lying in order to fool his own supporters! They were the only people who believed whatever Trotsky wrote.
They believed Trotsky was the true, principled Leninist that he claimed to be, and that Stalin was the liar. This cost the lives of most of his supporters inside the Soviet Union, when Trotskyism was outlawed as treason to the Soviet state because of Trotsky’s conspiracy with Germany and Japan. It has led Trotsky’s followers outside the Soviet Union to spend their lives in cult-like devotion to a man who was, in fact, doing just what the Soviet prosecutor and the Moscow Trials defendants claimed he was doing.
The figure of Leon Trotsky casts a giant shadow over the history of the Soviet Union, and therefore over the history of the world in the 20th century. Trotsky was the most significant – in fact, the only outstanding – Opposition figure in the factional disputes that shook the Bolshevik Party during the 1920s. It was during the 20s that Trotsky attracted to himself the group of persons who formed the United Opposition and whose conspiracies did so much irreparable harm to the Party, the Comintern, and the world communist movement.
What does the fact that Trotsky lied, that Khrushchev lied, and that these facts were ignored for so long, mean?
What does it mean for the main question that faces us, and billions of working people in the world, today? I mean the question of why the wonderful international communist movement of the 20th century collapsed, the movement that 70 years ago, triumphant in World War 2, in the Chinese communist revolution, in the anti-colonial movements around the world, seemed to be poised to bring about an end to capitalism and the victory of world socialism?
How do we convince workers, students, and others that we know why the old communist movement failed and that we have learned what we have to do differently to avoid repeating those failures in the future? We must study this question. We also need to discuss it – to entertain and debate different, informed viewpoints.
Therefore we have to defend the legacy of the international communist movement during Lenin’s and, especially, during Stalin’s time. At the same time we must be fearlessly critical of it, so we discover what errors they made and so not make the same errors again. In my judgment – and I hope that it is yours as well – discovering the reasons for the collapse of the magnificent international communist movement of the 20th century is the most important historical and theoretical question for all exploited people today, the vast majority of humankind. To have any hope of solving it, we must think boldly, “go where no one has gone before.” If we pretend that “Marx and Engels had all the answers,” or “Lenin had all the answers” (many Trotskyists, of course, believe that “Trotsky had all the answers”) — if we believe that, then we are guaranteed, AT BEST, to fall far short of what they achieved. Marx said that great historical events occur twice “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
The tragedy of the international communist movement of the 20th century was that, ultimately, it failed. Unless we figure out where they went wrong then we are doomed to be the “farce.” And that would be a political crime — OUR crime. So we have to look with a critical eye at ALL of our legacy. Marx’s favorite saying was: “De omnibus dubitandum” — “Question everything.” Marx would be the last person in the world to exclude himself from this questioning.
History can’t teach lessons directly. And history isn’t political theory. But if we ask the right questions, history can help us answer them. Meanwhile, we should all publicize everywhere and in every way we can that, like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, Trotsky lied – provably, demonstrably lied – and, what’s more, that all the anti-Stalin, anticommunist “experts” anointed by capitalist universities and research institutes are lying too.
We need to point out that the only way forward is to build a new communist movement to get rid of capitalism. And that to do that, we need to learn from the heroic successes, as well as from the tragic errors, of the Bolsheviks during the period when the Soviet Union was led by Joseph Stalin. My hope and my goal is to contribute, through my research, to this project which is so vital for the future of working people everywhere. Thank you.
* Professor, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043 USA. The above is a Presentation at the 7th World Socialism Forum, World Socialism Research Center, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), October 22, 2016.

Monday, January 23, 2017


23 January 2017.
(Source: ICP) 
ROME – Italian communists gathered in the capital city of Rome for the Second National Congress of the Communist Party, Italy (PC). Communist Party, Italy (PC)  was founded in 2009 with the aim to be a leading Marxist-Leninist organisation of the peninsula and since then has defined itself with the ideas of Italian partisan and communist leader Pietro Secchia. On Sunday 22nd January, Italian communists gathered in the capital city of Rome for the Second National Congress of the Communist Party, Italy (PC).
The congress was attended by hundreds of Italian communists, along with the representatives of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), the Workers’ Communist Party of Russia-Communist Party of the Soviet Union (RKRP-KPSS) and the Communist Party of Albania (PKS) as well as official delegations from the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba, the Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Communist Youth Front (Fronte della Gioventù Comunista). The congress thus opened with the commemoration of Fidel Castro, the founder and leader of the Cuban Revolution who passed away a couple of months ago, and the victims of the recent series of earthquakes in Central Italy. 
In his speech, the First Secretary (Segretario Nazionale) of the PC, Marco Rizzo pointed out the failures of the opportunist “left” across Europe, of which SYRIZA had already become an epitome. He also criticised the alliances forged by “eurocommunists” in Italy, as well as the “so-called anti-system forces” such as comedian Beppe Grillo’s “Five Star Movement” and reactionary rightists such as Matteo Salvini and Giorgia Meloni whose stance is “merely fluff, just to get a few more votes”. His criticism was picked up by the delegation of the KKE, who emphasised that the shortcomings of the “left-wing forces” that rose to power in Greece, Cyprus and Portugal showed that “the bourgeois state can’t be dismantled by electing a supposedly left-wing government in a capitalist framework” and that “such forces have thus executed policies which only served to save the capitalist system”.
Notably, both the present and former leaders of the Communist Youth Front spoke at the Congress. The former leader of the Communist Youth Front and member of the Central Committee of the PC, Alessandro Mustillo, underlined the “practical” needs of the party, whereas the current leader, Lorenzo Lang, emphasised on the cooperation between the PC and the Communist Youth Front.
The Communist Party (Turkey), along with the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE), the New Communist Party of Yugoslavia (NKPJ), the Union of Revolutionary Communists of France (URCF), the Pole of the Communist Rebirth in France (PRCF), the Socialist Labour Party of Croatia (SRP), the Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism (PADS) and the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP), has hailed the Congress of the PC. 
* * * 
ISTANBUL- After a three-year break, today, the Communist Party of Turkey, or TKP is back to the political scene through a historical assembly in İstanbul with the participation of thousands of communists from all over Turkey and central committee members of several communist and worker’s parties of the World.
The political crisis in 2014 that led to division and suspension of the TKP came to the conclusion today through the will of thousands of communists. Following the appeal of the seven members of the TKP on December 27, 2016, and the declaration of the committee responsible for the continuity of the TKP, which was formed in 2014, thousands of communists from all over the country gathered in İstanbul. The historical assembly started with the speech of Yaşar Çelik, one of the seven members of the TKP who made the appeal for today’s assembly. 
Giorgos Marinos, the member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), read the congratulatory statement of the KKE.
“In April 2016, while saluting you, we had stated that your party should take over the name that it deserves and it was the time to struggle as the Communist Party of Turkey, as the TKP, among its own people, and within the International Communist Movement. We salute this decision of the communists of Turkey and congratulate them,” said the statement. Marinos, underlining the strong relation between the TKP and the KKE that has been lasting for several years, also stated that ‘The relation between the TKP and the KKE is an example of an internationalist relation that is built up under very complicated conditions.  This relation is experienced by the guidance of the class interests, the union of the working classes of the two countries, the struggle for overthrowing the capitalism and building socialism-communism. The same thing is valid for our youth organizations the KG [Communist Youth] and KNE [Communist Youth of Greece].’
After the speech of Marinos, Alberto Gonzalez Casals took the floor on behalf of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC). Casals mentioned the importance of the return of the TKP to the political scene. Following the speech of Casals, İbrahim Bulut, the member of the committee responsible for the continuity of the TKP made a speech on behalf of the committee. He stated that, despite several problems, the committee has carried on the mission that it had undertaken with patience and honor.
“The committee, with the sense of responsibility, made an appeal in July 2016, considering the need for the Communist Party of Turkey of our country and the struggle for socialism, for the return of the TKP to the political scene. This appeal is welcome enthusiastically and supported by numerous comrades,” Bulut said.  Bulut explained and summarized the process since then and stated that the people who gather today show the will for the return of the TKP to the political scene. He said that the committee would be happy to delegate its responsibilities and powers that it has been shouldering for more than two and a half years to the council formed in the assembly.
Kaya Güvenç, another member of the council, following the speech of Bulut, stated that, along with the testimony of the committee, it is possible and legitimate for the assembly to take decisions.
Güvenç submitted the proposal to the TKP members in the assembly that the central committee members of the Communist Party (KP), Turkey form the central will of the TKP and these comrades take on the task of the Central Committee of the TKP until a congress to be organized in 2017. Following the approval of the proposal by the members of the TKP, Kemal Okuyan, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the KP,  was invited to take the floor on behalf of the Central Committee of the TKP.
Okuyan started his speech by the question of ‘What is the use of a communist party?’ and underlined the irreconcilability of the interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie, stating that the TKP has always abstained from that. Kemal Okuyan mentioned that a communist party ‘is the party that focuses on overthrowing the capitalist rule; the wise woman, the vanguard, the facilitator of this process’.
Drawing from the Soviet  and Cuban revolutions, which started with the leadership of parties and movements with limited number of people and overthrew the capitalist rule,  and contrasting them with the German Social Democratic Party at the beginning of the 20th century, which then attained high election scores but was no more a threat for the capitalist system,  Kemal Okuyan underlined the importance of sticking with the ultimate target of overthrowing capitalism.
34 communist and worker’s parties of the World sent support messages to the TKP.
* * * 
WARSAW- One of the founders and activist of the Communist Party of Poland, Marian Indelak passed away at the age of 90.
On 16th of January, Marian Indelak – one of the founders and activist of the Communist Party of Poland, persecuted for his political beliefs, passed away.
Marian Indelak was born on 25th of January 1927 in Dąbrowa Górnicza. Indelak started his political activism as a teenager, during the Second World War. He was working in F. Dzierzynski Foundry (now Bank Foundry) in Dąbrowa Górnicza. Marian Indelak was a member of the Combat Youth Movement, Polish Workers’ Party and Polish United Workers’ Party.
In 1990 he was among the founders of the Union of Polish Communists “Proletariat” and in 2002 of the Communist Party of Poland. For many years he was the secretary and treasurer of the CC and member of the editorial board of “Brzask” periodical.
Persecuted for communist activity. He was among four activists sentenced on 31st of March 2016 for his work in the periodical. He died several days before his 90th birthday and next court hearing on further proceedings during his trial.
The funeral for Marian Indelak took place on 20th of January in Dąbrowa Górnicza.
* * * 


COLOMBO- On 19th January, 2017 , the Inter Company Employees Union held a giant Protest in Colombo, the Capital city of Sri Lanka, against the Ranil- Mithree bourgeois government for putting the Employees Provident Fund, the largest Social Security Fund in Sri Lanka, to danger and allowing the culprits to loot the money from the Fund. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka is the Trustee of this Fund but it has neglected its duty to protect the Money belong to People.
During last several months, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has directed to buy treasury bonds from third party and the lost made by this irrational investment was nearly Rs. 15 000 millions. The EPF money had used to buy Treasury Bonds from the secondary market even there are provisions to buy bonds directly from the Central Bank.
The Union urged the government to take immediate steps to recover the lost from the culprits.
The World Federation of Trade Unions, representing 92 million workers, supports the struggles for the protection of the right of Social Security and the safeguarding of the Employees Provident Fund in order to be utilized in favor of the workers.