Category: Russia
Communist Party of Italy – Contribution to the scientific conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Communist Party of Italy – Contribution to the scientific conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/communist-party-of-italy-contribution.html
Communist Party of Italy.
Contribution at the Scientific Conference in honor 
of the 100 years since the October Revolution.
Leningrad, August 10-13, 2017.
A hundred years ago scientific socialism became reality. Until then, Marxism had only been theorized within the First International and applied to the class struggle in conditions of bourgeois domination; after that, it became reality for a short while, during the Paris Commune, showing that the proletarian revolution was not only possible, but even necessary. With the October Revolution, Marxism is applied to building Socialism, as the first step in the construction of the Communist society.
This event gave world’s history an overwhelming impulse. Just to recall some of the main contributions that the USSR gave to the historical revolutionary process: the resistance to the imperialist aggression during the civil war, the push to the construction of Communist parties all over the world, the birth of the USSR and the solution of the problem of nationalities, the collapse of colonialism, the construction of socialism through the proletarian dictatorship and the centralized planning of the economy, the defeat of nazi-fascism by the Red Army and the support to the Partisan movement in Europe and Asia, the fast post-war reconstruction, the high cultural and social level achieved by the people not only in the USSR, but also in the People’s Democracies, the priceless contribution to anti-imperialist and class struggle allover the world.
These facts really changed history and the world. Today, a hundred years after that epic event, communists are called to think about the causes of real socialism’s collapse. Why? The question is simple and the answer is obvious: it would be unrealistic to propose that experience again after a century, if we did not understand the causes of its collapse or if we considered it as an “unavoidable” event, due to intrinsic flaws of the socialist construction.
On the contrary, we want to reaffirm (leaving room to further constructive contributions) the sole real alternative to capitalist barbarity and its substantial burn-out we can witness every day is scientific Socialism, based on the proletarian dictatorship and the centralized planning of the economy. According to our standpoint, this is what was built in the USSR and the People’s Democracies.
If 1917 marks the starting date of that construction, we consider 1953-56 as the starting period of its degenerative decline. Why do we adopt this three years period ? In 1953 Stalin died, and we will consider the events came up just after that and led, in 1956, to crucial congresses (the CPSU XXth in the USSR and the ICP’s VIIIth in Italy) which gave way to the degenerative turn. What did those events cause. Did they suddenly changed the nature of those Parties, which adopted the new political line? Did they suddenly changed the nature of the proletarian states, turning them into bourgeoisie-ruled states? Or did these parties and states keep the way of socialist construction until their collapse in 1989/1991? The two different answers would lead either to reject those experiences since their modification, or to reaffirm their validity up to the last moment of their existence, despite their well known limits.
Emotions do not help in giving an answer to this double-faceted set of questions. How can one sincerely reject the well-educated, united, economically and scientifically developed society, created in the Socialist countries and the people’s democracies? How can one negate their support to the liberation and anti-colonialist movements across the world? How can one overlook the contrast to warmongering imperialism? Turning to Italy, how can one negate the positive role, played by the Italian Communist Party and its sections, which nurtured the class consciousness of millions workers, rescued and strengthened their social rights?
On the other hand, we cannot forget that the Socialist society, as well as the Communist parties, a long before Gorbachev and Occhetto (the last ICP’s secretary general, who proclaimed its dissolution in 1991), were infected by a germ we are still studying. As we are Marx’s disciples, endowed with the instrument of historical materialism, we must connect all political and ideological processes to class and production relations, existing in the society. We must pay attention to both primary and secondary relations.
The ideological clash in the USSR.
Opposite to what, normally, is considered as the “historical truth”, at Stalin’s time the political debate in the USSR was far from being inhibited or paralyzed by “terror”. We can perceive this circumstance by reading one of the last works by Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., written of 1952, where he criticized some comrades that were expressing different opinions in full freedom. By reading this interesting text, we can understand the economic debate in the USSR, as it was at that time, as well as its further political evolution.
 
The two lines.
During the whole period of socialist construction, two main political lines were confronting, revealing different ideological approaches, especially regarding the economic policy. The first line is represented by the line of thought, from Bucharin to Gorbachev, passing through Khrushchev and Kosygin. Bucharin opposed the accelerated end of the NEP, the priority of heavy industry development and the kolkhoz-based collectivization in rural areas, relaunching the concept of individual farms; Khrushchev, in the aftermath of Stalin’s death, sold machines and tractors’ stations to collective farms; Kosygin (and the economists of the 60’s) confirmed Khrushchev’s reforms; this process went on until the announced disaster of Gorbachev, who legalized the parallel economy, allowing it to finally poison the Soviet society, and canceled the leading role of the Party up to Socialism’s dismantling.
The second line is the one carried out by Stalin until his death, which finds full application in the five-year plans, the countryside collectivization and the constantly growing role of the socialized economy, centrally directed and controlled by the working class at the expense of the market’s influence in the Socialist society.
Here, we want to recall another loyal exponent of this line: Andrey Zhdanov. The year before his untimely death in 1948, he chaired the first Cominform’s meeting, where the ground was laid for the response to the growing threat by imperialism, the condemnation of the Titoist betrayal, the criticism of political opportunism of some western Communist parties (the Italian and French parties among the others), and for the acceleration of Socialist construction in the People’s democracies. Stalin’s point of view stems directly from his last work, Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR (February 1st, 1952), where he draws clearly his own vision about the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR and the relations between socialized production and the market.
Among the goals outlined, there is the following: «In order to ensure an economic bond between town and country, between industry and agriculture, commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants, and Soviet trade — state, cooperative, and collective-farm — should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity».
Stalin, as a dialectical materialist, points out the route that the integral implementation of the proletarian dictatorship must follow during Socialism’s construction: commodities’ production for trade in the goods’ market cannot be immediately abolished. The aim is to decisively remove from trading the capitalist conditions and the control over it. Stalin goes on: «It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private ownership of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its “money economy,” is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production».
What Stalin is saying here is that production, not distribution, does determine the real nature of the society. The market existed well before capitalism and could last even under a socialist economy for a certain period, but only if the relations of production are held firmly by the working class and the market is not allowed to generate new forms of capitalist accumulation, that impede Socialism or conflict with it. The various “if”‘s in italic Stalin puts in his discourse to underline the necessary conditions, are real nails in the coffin of capitalism, but they have been torn away one by one after his death.
In the following passage, Stalin approaches the issue of the Law of value. This law states that the commodities’ value entirely lies in the amount of human labor therein, either as previously accumulated labor (dead work) or, as newly incorporated labor through the current productive cycle (living work). Does this law exist and how does it operate under socialism? Stalin answers: «It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system. Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist. In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the exchange of commodities through purchase and sale, the exchange, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator. But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account.
 
Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing. Under present conditions, it really is not a bad thing, since it trains our business executives to conduct production on rational lines and disciplines them…. But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the
sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds. It has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production is restricted and placed within definite bounds by our system. The same must be said of the sphere of operation of the law of value. Undoubtedly, the fact that private ownership of the means of production does not exist, and that the means of production both in town and country are socialized, cannot but restrict the sphere of operation of the law of value and the extent of its influence on production. In this same direction operates the law of balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy, which has superseded the law of competition and anarchy of production. In this same direction, too, operate our yearly and five-yearly plans and our economic policy generally, which are based on the requirements of the law of balanced development of the national economy. The effect of all this, taken together, is that the sphere of operation of the law of value in our country
is strictly limited, and that the law of value cannot under our system function as the regulator of production. … Value, like the law of value, is a historical category connected with the existence of commodity production. With the disappearance of commodity production, value and its forms and the law of value also disappear. In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately – by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods. As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society’s demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies.
Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion that under our present economic system, in the first phase of development of Communist society, the law of value regulates the “proportions” of labour distributed among the various branches of production.
If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are the most profitable, are not being developed to the utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and sometimes altogether unprofitable. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which are still unprofitable and where the labour of the worker does not yield the “proper returns,” are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable and where the labour of the workers might yield “big returns,” are not opened.
If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable — in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the “proportions” of labour distributed among the branches of production. Obviously, if we were to follow the lead of these comrades, we should have to cease giving primacy to the production of means of production in favour of the production of articles of consumption. And what would be the effect of ceasing to give primacy to the production of the means of production? The effect would be to destroy the possibility of the continuous expansion of our national economy, because the national economy cannot be continuously expanded with out giving primacy to the production of means of production.
These comrades forget that the law of value can be a regulator of production only under capitalism, with private ownership of the means of production, and competition, anarchy of production, and crises of overproduction. They forget that in our country the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law. Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of balanced development of the national economy and economic planning annul the principle of profitableness of production. That is quite untrue. It is just the other way round. If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question, then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning, which save us from periodical economic crises disruptive to the national economy and causing tremendous material damage to society, and which ensure a continuous and high rate of expansion of our national economy.
In brief, there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a “regulator of the proportions” of labour distributed among the various branches of production». Why did we report this extensive quotation? Within it, we find the core of the question of the production relations’ regulation in the USSR, lately undermined by the reforms, carried out after Stalin’s death: it was not possible to “revise” the construction of Socialism without bringing into question this point, concerning the essential material basis of Socialist construction. Stalin identifies the role of the law of value in the domain of production rationalization, but he excludes it affects distribution proportions among productive sectors, such as agriculture, heavy and light industry. This proportion can only be fixed in a political way by the Plan, as a goal to be pursued. Can this be realized without taking into consideration technical and economical restrictions and relations within society? Of course, it cannot. I can fix by my will, that I want to reach a certain place by my car: this does not depend on the laws of physics, nevertheless I must take into account the restrictions, imposed by the same laws, like distance, weight, speed, fuel consumption, traffic, etc…
Stalin goes on: «Balanced development of the national economy, and hence, economic planning, which is a more or less faithful reflection of this law, can yield nothing by themselves, if it is not known for what purpose economic development is planned, or if that purpose is not clear. The law of balanced development of the national economy can yield the desired result only if there is a purpose for the sake of which economic development is planned».
In the same text, Stalin had previously stated: «The same must be said of the laws of economic development, the laws of political economy – whether in the period of capitalism or in the period of socialism. Here, too, the laws of economic development, as in the case of natural science, are objective laws, reflecting processes of economic development which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them and, relying upon them, utilize them in the interests of society, impart a different direction to the destructive action of some of the laws, restrict their sphere of action, and allow fuller scope to other laws that are forcing their way to the forefront; but he cannot destroy them or create new economic laws. One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws. However, these laws are not abolished, but lose their validity owing to the new economic conditions and depart from the scene in order to give place to new laws, laws which are not created by the will of man, but which arise from the new economic conditions»
Stalin becomes very concrete in answering some comrades. In the first answer, addressed to Alexander Ilic Notkin, he says: «To equate a part of the means of production (raw materials) with the means of production, including the implements of production, is to sin against Marxism, because Marxism considers that the implements of production play a decisive role compared with all other means of production. Everyone knows that, by themselves, raw materials cannot produce implements of production, although certain kinds of raw material are necessary for the production of implements of production, while no raw material can be produced without implements of production. Consequently, it cannot be denied that the law of value does influence the formation of prices of agricultural raw materials, that it is one of the factors in this process. But still less can it be denied that its influence is not, and cannot be, a regulating one».
Here, the eventuality to step back in the construction of Socialism is totally excluded. Socialism here seems to be measured by, not made of, the ratio between socialized economy and the remnants of mercantile economy. The second answer, addressed to L.D. Yaroschenko, is of the greatest importance to understand Stalin’s conception of the relation between subjective factor, the political one, and technical organizational factor: «Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a “rational organization of the productive forces,” and the transition from socialism to communism will take place without any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism. He plainly declares that “under socialism, the basic struggle for the building of a communist society reduces itself to a struggle for the proper organization of the productive forces and their rational utilization in social production.” It is not true, in the second place that the production, i.e., the economic, relation lose their independent role under socialism, that they are absorbed by the productive forces, that social production under socialism is reduced to the organization of the productive forces.
It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society». Here too we can appreciate the two distinctive aspects of Stalin’s thought: primacy of the political will over technical aspects, necessity of a lasting and unceasing guidance towards the limitation of the mercantile area of the production and distribution, in favor of socialized production and distribution.
In the third answer, to A.V. Sanina e V.C. Vensger, Stalin focuses on a technical issue, which will later acquire a great political value during Khrushchev’s reformation period. «Assuming for a moment that we accepted Comrades Sanina’s and Venzher’s proposal and began to sell the basic implements of production, the machine and tractor stations, to the collective farms as their property. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be, first, that the collective farms would become the owners of the basic instruments of production; that is, their status would be an exceptional one, such as is not shared by any other enterprise in our country, for, as we know, even the nationalized enterprises do not own their instruments of production. Can it be said that such a status would facilitate the elevation of collective-farm property to the level of public property, that it would expedite the transition of our society from socialism to communism? The outcome would be, secondly, an extension of the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, because a gigantic quantity of instruments of agricultural production would come within its orbit.

Would it not be truer to say that our advance towards communism would only be retarded by it? Comrades Sanina’s and Venzher’s basic error lies in the fact that they do not understand the role and significance of commodity circulation under socialism; that they do not understand that commodity circulation is incompatible with the prospective transition from socialism to communism.

They evidently think that the transition from socialism to communism is possible even with commodity circulation, that commodity circulation can be no obstacle to this. That is a profound error, arising from an inadequate grasp of Marxism.

What, then, does the collective farm own? Where is the collective-farm property which it disposes of quite freely, at its own discretion? This property of the collective farm is its product, the product of collective farming: grain, meat, butter, vegetables, cotton, sugar beet, flax, etc., not counting the buildings and the personal husbandry of the collective farmers on their household plots. The fact is that a considerable part of this product, the surplus collective-farm output, goes into the market and is thus included in the system of commodity circulation. It is precisely this circumstance which now prevents the elevation of collective-farm property to the level of public property. It is therefore precisely from this end that the work of elevating collective farm property to the level of public property must be tackled. Such a system, by contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, will facilitate the transition from socialism to communism». It is impossible to be clearer.
What happened after Stalin’s death, when Khrushchev’s reforms started? As a first step, machinery and tractors’ stations were sold to Kolchoz. This laid the foundations for the restoration of capitalist accumulation in the USSR. What happened after Khrushchev’s removal from office on October 15th, 1964, when the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet accepted his resignation from the leadership? The policy to withdraw from the full social property of the means of production and the restrictions to mercantile commodity circulation went on. Here we cite an article by the economist E. Liberman, appeared on Novosti, November 9th, 1964. “Stimulated in pursuing high revenues, the enterprise itself will find in its plans the best ratio between quantitative and qualitative indexes. It will become easier, then, to fulfill the basic principle, upon which what is important for society must be important for every single corporation and worker. […] when the necessity of a substantial renovation of the planning system will come to evidence, it will be necessary to elaborate a sole general criterion, free from both corporate concepts and subjective stratification” (Piano e profitto nell’Economica Sovietica, Editori Riuniti, 1965, pp. 163-166).
Under the pretext, that the centralized planning was too “rigorous and inefficient”, a line of lack of principles and exclusive attention to indexes was adopted and liberalism started affecting Soviet economy. Contrary to Stalin’s standpoint, the task was no longer to achieve the fixed goal, but to move in the most “efficient” way, no matter in what direction. Just to refresh the example of the car trip, it’s like if the driver were now following the most rapid route without a precise destination: the only important thing is the lack of traffic or heavy slopes.
The fateful 1953.
The events following Stalin’s death and those before the XXth Congress are actually impressive. Here we list them following a geographical criterion just to highlight the impact they had not only on the USSR, but also on People’s democracies, as well as on the respective Communist and Workers parties, just to give an idea of the earthquake occurred.
 
USSR.
In the immediate aftermath of Stalin’s death, Lavrenti Beria, one of his nearest collaborators, was imprisoned and sentenced to death. Notwithstanding the infamous accusation of being a spy of British imperialism and other charges later invented by Kruschev, Beria had been the leader of Soviet intelligence that put an end to repressions started in 1937, for which Ezhov was the major responsible.
 
Differently from the Moscow trials, which condemned the block of Bucharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev after legal trials, about which we have detailed information, charge proofs against Beria were never provided.
 
Poland
Bolesław Bierut, Komintern’s officer in the USSR (back in Warsaw in 1943), was one of the commanders during the anti-nazi Resistance, and the first President of the People’s Republic of Poland (1947-1952). After the Presidency, he substituted Władysław Gomułka as the Secretary General of the Unified Polish Workers Party and appointed Prime Minister (1952-1954). He died in Moscow, while heading the Party’s delegation to the CPSU XXth Congress. Władisław Gomułka was accused of “nationalist deviationism”, removed from all his offices
(1948-1949), expelled from the Party (1949) and imprisoned (1951). Released in 1954 and rehabilitated in 1956, he was re-elected Secretary General of UPWP and the following year became member of the State Council. He started his own reforms program, based on the idea of a “national way to Socialism”.
 
Hungary.
Mátyás Rákosi was the Secretary General of the Hungarian Communist Party between 1945-1956. He took part in the government held by Béla Kun under the Soviet Hungarian Republic; after its fall, he fled to the USSR, where he became one of the leaders of Comintern. In august 1952, Rákosi was appointed Prime Minister, but on June 13th 1953, he was invited to Moscow and obliged to resign in favor of Imre Nagy. In January 1955 the CPSU Politburo again summoned at the Kremlin all the Hungarian leaders and violently attacked Nagy. However, a few months after the XXth congress, in July 28th 1956, Rákosi was obliged to resign from the Party Secretariat, and to sign a humiliating self-criticism, where he took upon himself the absurd responsibility for the events that will occur shortly later in Hungary.
 
Czechoslovakia.
Klement Gottwald. One of the founders of the Czech Communist Party, Secretary General of the KSČ from 1929 to 1945 and Comintern Secretary from 1935 to 1943. Between 1945 and 1946 he was deputy Prime Minister, then Prime Minister until 1948 and President from 1948 to 1953. Gottwald died in 1953 in Moscow, only five days after Stalin’s funerals, in which he took part, on
March 9th.
 
DDR.
Walter Ulbricht. He has been heading the illegal Communist Party during Nazism, then he fled to Paris and in 1938 moved to Moscow. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Ulbricht was one of the leaders of the Comintern. After Stalin’s death, on March 5th 1953, Ulbricht was charged with cult of personality.
Italy.
Pietro Secchia. One of the undisputed leaders, along with Luigi Longo, of the Italian antifascist Resistance. In December 1947, Secchia traveled to Moscow and had long conversations with Zhdanov and Stalin, being entrusted with forwarding their harshest criticisms about the guidance of the Italian Communist Party, led by Togliatti. This criticism are confirmed by the hard fight Secchia engaged inside the leadership of the ICP.
 
«I do not propose», Secchia said, «to change our line or to adopt two lines, but we must not deceive ourselves, we must be conscious that this fight becomes more and more difficult… We must think about broader, harder and firmer fights, [without excluding the possibility of] being engaged in the near future in a fight different from the legal one, in a violent fight against reactionary groups, keeping in mind that the sole way to achieve victory is to act through broad unitary actions…». He concludes: «Today, the Italian situation, in my opinion, is still favorable for unleashing an offensive, we have forces to do this and, if the enemy will try to block us by violence, we still dispose of such a force potential to break their violence and lead the Italian workers to the final victory».
 
This policy was reported, in Italy, at the VIth Congress of the Italian Communist Party, which took place in Milan on January 4th, 1948. The report is heavily self-critical, «it reflects the criticism from the outside» Secchia contentedly commented, and warning against “constitutional illusions”, he alerted: «We follow a democratic line, but we will not let any provocation, any reactionary plan to take us unprepared. We acquired the experience of the partisan war». In that moment, no need was to add anything more to be clearly understood by those delegates. The new Central Committee, in its first session, elects the Party’s Directing Committee, the Secretary General and the Vice-Secretary. Togliatti and Longo were confirmed again in these positions. Anyway, this decision caused Secchia’s protest and a firm disappointment of the CPSU, to the extent Togliatti was obliged to find an immediate solution. Without even waiting for a new session of the C.C., Togliatti wrote a letter to the CC members, for them to immediately vote Secchia for Deputy Secretary General, along with Longo. Secchia was the Head of the Organization Department of the CC and, under his leadership, the Party reaches its highest political and organizational point, with two million members. “In the history of the Italian movement there never have been such a spontaneous, compact and extended general strike like the one of July 14-16th, 1948», Secchia commented after the attempt against Togliatti. The strike of July 14th had just been the first “great demonstration of unity, of class and national consciousness” and others will come. “The party – Secchia continued -, “has become under the ideological, political and organizational point of view thanks to this strike”. In 1954, the Seniga affair (Seniga was Secchia’s closest assistant, who fled away with the Party’s cash and many important documents) weakened Secchia’s position to the extent that he had to resign from the Organization Department, being excluded from the Secretariat too. Secchia also, like Rakosi, had to sign a humiliating self-criticism which paved the way for the final victory of Togliatti’s line.
 
Criticisms against the USSR.
Criticism against the USSR is not new and comes from the most different sources. Here, we want to briefly report the one by the Trozkyite wing, which broke up with the party a long before 1953, and the one by the Maoist wing, just to clarify the distance between us and them: a sidereal distance from the former, and a considerable one from the latter.
 
The Trozkyite wing.
As it is notorious, Trozky was used to talking of “Degenerated workers’ State”, accusing the bureaucratic “caste” which allegedly came to power after his expulsion. In the following years, Trozky himself had to admit the non-scientific character of the term “caste” and its scarce adherence with Marxist theory, given that it does not describe any kind of production relation. It is like saying that society is founded on theft: it’s a commonplace that does not describe who produces, what produces and why he does that. Coming back to Trozky’s “caste” theory, we find out that it is defined not as a class, but as a generic category of people, identified through sociological and psychological aspects. This theory unveils the personal aversion of its author to the Soviet leading group, who had reduced him to a scant minority, basing on a clear political line.
Trozky’s disciples are more refined and they are well aware of this serious gap. They defined the “caste” as a true class that imposes exploiting production relations on Soviet society, replacing the old bourgeoisie. According to this view, Socialism would have created a new class of appropriators of surplus value, produced by the working class. This interpretation is hardly justifiable from a Marxist point of view. In fact, in the USSR the property of the means of production was not private but public and, consequently, any kind of appropriation by the “caste” would have had the character of mere individual appropriation, not of capitalist class exploitation.
This question does not scrape Trozkyite critics, who solve the problem in the most simple way ever: by inventing new specially-made categories. As property belongs to the Soviet State, thus, we are talking of “State capitalism”, tracing back to Lenin’s definition of a completely different historical period, like the one of the NEP. No matter if there is no production of goods for profit to be realized on the market. The “Caste” is not the capitalist bourgeoisie? It does not matter: they coin the definition of a new class and new production relations, allegedly created by socialism, inventing a new stage, “more” supreme than imperialism. What does really matters for them is to “imitate” some Marxist and Leninist concepts, with no care of their coherence with the rest of the theory.

Titoism belongs to the same category of opponents, who collided with the socialist field in 1948. Here too, arguments stand on a non-scientific level, focused on distribution aspects with no connection to production relations, often resulting in pure tautology (“Capitalist State strengthens capitalism, Socialist State strengthens Socialism”).
All these gaps do not escape to more able Trozkyite thinkers, who are more used to Marxist theory, such as Ernest Mandel. He highlights that some features of capitalism are lacking in the USSR: the law of the maximum profit, that pushes capitalists to invest in the most profitable sectors, does not operate, since the heavy industry is more favored; there are no capital exports, no economic cyclic crises, no private international trade, no reserve army of labor. 
In our opinion, these features have been existing in the USSR more or less until Gorbachev’s reforms. However, Mandel too, at least, is obliged to take shelter in the distribution issue. Obviously, in order to give these ghosts substance, he too was obliged to invoke “the exclusion of proletarians from corporate administration”, “the regime of terror and espionage” and the “soviet expansionism”, up to the most vulgar lies from the dirtiest bourgeois trash. Our duty is to clean away the waste, tossed on real socialism.

The Maoist wing.
The other wing that opposed the USSR after the XXth Congress was the one led by the Chinese Communist Party, headed by Mao Tzetung, and by the Albanian Party of Work, headed by Enver Hoxha.
The controversy came out gradually, about Stalin’s heritage defense and the concept of peaceful coexistence. Actually, the controversy did not patently came out until 1960. A record from the Moscow Conference between the 81 Communist and Workers parties says: «The popular republics of Albania, Hungary, Germany, Viet Nam, China, Korea, Mongolia, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, together with the great Soviet Union, constitute the mighty socialist field» And «The Communist and Workers Parties unanimously declare that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been and still is the universally recognized vanguard of the world Communist movement, being the most expert and trained contingent of the international Communist movement … 
The historical resolutions of the XXth CPSU Congress are not only of great importance for the CPSU and for the construction of Communism in the USSR, but they also started a new stage of the worldwide nCommunist movement, promoted and developed on the ground of Marxism-Leninism». The controversy initially mounted in an indirect way, without mentioning parties and leaders, then it became more stinging, by attacking such leaders, as Togliatti in 1962/1963 and Khrushchev in 1964, accusing him of being a revisionist (the Work Party of Albania already did that in 1962). Soviets replied with the counter-charge of breakaway activity.
Later, the controversy turned from ideology to the relationship between states, leading to the breach of diplomatic relations and trade cooperation. We will not mention here the breach between the Workers Party of Albany and the Communist Party of China after Mao’s death and the criticism by Enver Hoxha of the Cultural Revolution in China. We want to focus on some aspects of the Sino-Soviet controversy. From an ideological point of view, the Maoist criticism on the subject of the Soviet system after Stalin could be closer to our criticism of opportunism from Khruschev to Gorbachev, but the mode it took since the second half of the ’60s is unacceptable.
First, the charge of the USSR with “social-imperialism” does not have any Marxist scientific basis. In the USSR, until 1988, if a primitive capitalist accumulation existed, it was far from being dominant and, in any case, from the five features identifying imperialism, according to Lenin. The “Hoxhaist” version, according to which Kruschev wanted to impose on Albanians the construction of Socialism without the working class, by placing Albania in a given sector of the division of labor and cooperation within the Socialist area, reports a typical opportunist attitude, lacking in ideology, that focuses on the result without considering who, for whom, why and how that result should be achieved. This kind of argument in any case cannot define the USSR as an imperialist power.
In the 70’s the Maoist-Hoxhaist wing charged the Soviet leading group with the accusation of having turned the country of Socialism into a fascist one, dominated by a a bureaucratic-militarist “caste”. The absurdity of this charge is evident and it is not necessary to waste time in objecting that even basic prerequisites, supporting this thesis, do not exist in the real world. At the end of Mao’s life, Chinese policy became more and more embarrassing. This circumstance became evident not only with the rupture with the Socialist field, that such leaders as Kim Il Sung and Ceausescu tried to prevent, but also later, with the “thawing” towards the USA. Until that point, the Chinese Communist Party was accusing the USSR of being too submissive to imperialism. After the growth of the controversy, the USSR became the “main enemy”, considered more “aggressive” than the USA, that were supposed to be in a defensive position. Among the other consequences, this deviation led China to undermine the support to anti-colonial movements, as it happened in Angola. The crisis of relations with the USSR resulted also in a territorial dispute along the Siberian
border.

Our analysis.
In the following lines, we propose our own arguments about the reason of socialism’s fall in the USSR and the People’s democracies. The analysis starts from an economic examination of the evolution (or involution) of society, with the creation of a parallel economy out of public control, which allowed capital re-accumulation and the re-organization of a reborn bourgeoisie in antisocialist
political groups.
These groups, skillfully supported by western imperialism, initially infiltrated the Party, undermining its authority and prestige, then led it to a substantial incapacity of ruling society. How could those people and those ideas rise and make their way in the Party and Soviet society?
In our opinion, the answer is the following:
– In Socialist society interests, opposing the full enforcement of the proletarian dictatorship, continue to exist. We are not talking of the big agrarian and industrial bourgeoisie, which was eliminated, but small dealers and businessmen, who find the possibility to realize an original wealth accumulation, which cannot be defined as a capitalistic one yet;
– these groups, small but powerful and wealthy, find are connected to the “economicistic” wing of the Party. This wing is not Marxist-based, it lacks in principles and prioritizes results rather than values, the amount of road traveled rather than the direction taken. It is basically wanting to get out from the working class dictatorship;
– these two groups, supporting each other, manage to become prominent in the party and society; the shell formally remains unaltered, as well as the apparent features of the society. Step by step, both the parallel economy and the parallel ideology find their way. If, to a certain extent, the parallel economy was able to fill eventual gaps of the centrally planned economy, slowly it turned into the cause of these gaps: robbery and embezzlement grow, and neither a party that is losing ideological principles, nor a state that lost its class characteristics, being declared “state of the whole people”, can fight this drift;
– at a certain moment the break occurs: economic groups became so strong and powerful that they bring into question even the existence of such a super-structural crust, as the Communist Party, which is no longer needed to cover their parallel activities. The Party, where a confrontation between the Marxist-Leninist part and the opportunists is going on, became an obstacle to their goals;
– the prevalence of opportunists in the leading group of the CPSU discredited the Party in front of the working class and the people, while the delay of reaction and the lack in mobilization capacity by the revolutionary forces remaining in the Party brought to its selfdissolution by means of the betrayal of the group, headed by its Secretary General, supported by the imperialist circles;
– at this point, the way was paved for the destruction of Socialism and the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the other republics of the USSR. The biggest assault in history to the people’s wealth began. 
Summarizing, in our opinion, a dominant “caste” never existed: the cases of robbery and embezzlement did not alter the class nature of society until they gave birth to a parallel system of “black” economy.
The crisis and the degenerative process were generated outside the Communist Party, but were carried into it, due to a lack in surveillance and alertness, especially from the ideological point of view: this is a typical feature of opportunism. The economic structure of the Soviet system remained mainly socialist until the reforms by Gorbachev, even if the causes of its own fall were growing inside it.
 
Conclusions
We hardly can definitely draw some conclusions, even if temporary, because the issues herein deserve the most accurate study in order to synthesize various experiences in different countries. Nonetheless, avoiding to answer the question highlighted in this work, is an obstacle to the ideological relaunch of the international Communist movement. These answers should give new oxygen and new lymph to the Communists’ struggle allover the world.

We have a great theory behind us, Marxism-Leninism, and a great history also: the history of the USSR and the Socialist countries.

Finally, we have a great task too: to change the world.
Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) – The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today
| August 14, 2017 | 8:18 pm | Party of Communists USA, Russia, USSR | No comments

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) – The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/party-of-communists-usa-pcusa-october.html
The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today.
Contribution of the Party of Communists, USA (PCUSA) at the Scientific Conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution.
Leningrad, August 10-13, 2017.
This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the socialist revolution in Russia. It was the first time that the working class anywhere in the world was able to seize and hold power. The revolution grew out of the conditions of imperialism and the First World War. Russia had been ruled by a tsar, or emperor, making it one of the most reactionary regimes in Europe.
In the 1930’s, when the entire capitalist world sank into depression, and tens of millions were left jobless and starving (much like today), the Soviet Union was forging ahead building a new society without unemployment and hunger. They transformed a country with a 90% illiteracy rate into one in which nearly everyone could read and write.
The Soviet Union not only freed the workers but also fought against racism and sexism. The great Afro-American activist Paul Robeson said about his trips to the Soviet Union, “I felt like a human being for the first time since I grew up. Here I am not a Negro but a human being.”
Achievements of the Revolution.
Under the Bolsheviks the last serfs of Europe were freed and the country was transformed into a modern, industrialized socialist state. The prison house of nations became the community of nations.
The Soviet Constitution abolished racism and every man and woman were guaranteed the right to work, A 40-hour work week, social security, housing, food, education, and medical care were the law. Child labor was abolished; Homosexuality was decriminalized; and Women for the first time were granted the right to vote, hold office, and were paid the same wages as men.
Influence Abroad: The West Invaded and later Pushed “Reforms” to forestall Revolution.
Fearing the spread of Soviet socialist revolution, Winston Churchill remarked, “We have to strangle the baby in the cradle.” Thus in 1918, an Expeditionary Force consisting of 17 nations and 22 legions invaded the young Soviet Union. It was during this war that the British army first used chemical weapons in battle. Over 8 million people were killed, but the Soviets defended their revolution and the invaders were expelled by 1921.
The benefits of the Bolshevik Revolution were not limited to Russia alone. The 40-hour work week, minimum wage, social security, abolition of child labor, free education, the right to clean water, and many other concessions that Americans now take for granted are a by-product of socialism. President Roosevelt did not “give” these concessions. It was the militancy of workers led by a young, militant American communist party who were inspired by the example of their Russian comrades.
The Soviet Union Rescues the World from Nazism.
When Mussolini, Hitler, and the rest of the Fascists unleased war upon the world, it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the attack. The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the Second World War. The total number of Soviet lives lost exceeded 22 million.
The accomplishments of building socialism and defeating fascism are a tribute to the leadership of the Communist Party and its General Secretary Joseph Stalin. Communists are reviled by anti-communist “historians” in the pay of world capitalism for this reason.
During the post-war period, the Soviet Union became a beacon for workers in the West that demanded greater concessions from their capitalist masters. The USSR with its policy of proletarian internationalism, provided a shining example to national liberation movements throughout; Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
To destroy the Allied alliance which included the Soviet Union, finance capital replaced Henry Wallace with Harry Truman on the Democratic Party ticket in 1944. Truman became President when President Roosevelt died. The Truman administration started the Cold War, which began with the first use of nuclear weapons that were dropped on civilian centers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It was Karl Marx who said we should “question everything.” It was Lenin that pointed out in history we must view everything from a class viewpoint; who benefits from capitalist policy?
The Capitalist-owned mass media began a propaganda war falsifying history against the Soviets and their allies, concealing their true motives for dropping those nuclear bombs on Japan. Western Capitalists spent trillions of dollars over many decades trying to defeat socialism militarily. Unable to defeat the USSR with an escalating arms race, the Western powers funded a counter-revolution inside the country led by Mikhail Gorbachev and other traitors. The Soviet Union did not collapse. She was betrayed by paid anti-communist forces within Russia.
Lessons to Be Learned.
We know from our study of history that the return of capitalism to the USSR is a temporary historical setback. Without the USSR and a strong world communist movement to act as a brake on capital, we live in an era of widening imperialist wars, fascist attacks on the working class, mass unemployment, drug addiction, diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C killing millions.
Our movement is daily studying to learn from the Soviet Union’s great battles and achievements as well as the human errors that led to her deliberate destruction. The main lesson we learned from the tragic collapse of the USSR is that reformism and concessions to capitalism only lead workers to defeat, and a life of poverty and insecurity.
We honor the bold fight by the workers and peasants in the Bolshevik Revolution against capitalism and for a working-class socialist world.
Today, we must organize workers, students and soldiers in the USA to build a mass working class Party that will turn this era of imperialism into a new, higher stage of human development called socialism.
From our historic viewpoint, the Soviet experiment was not a failure. It was a successful first step towards building a scientific socialist society. Its success can be measured by the economic reforms that workers in the US and the West have today. It’s no accident that the quality of life for workers in capitalist countries has deteriorated substantially since 1992, the year the USSR went out of existence. The success of national liberation movements in China, Vietnam, DPRK (North Korea), Cuba, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, and Angola to be free of colonial oppression are a direct result of the Leninist policy of Soviet proletarian internationalism.
Let us be inspired by the shining example of October to create a new, socialist-communist world free of all exploitation and imperialist war! Long live the example of the 1917 Revolution! Peace, land, bread!
We Communists have been peace activists all our political lives. That is why we find life today so troubling. The two USA parties of monopoly capitalism, the Democrats and Republicans, worship war and military spending. Along the way, they corrupt the minds of workers and promote hatred among peoples. It has been suggested that the leaders of these parties are addicts, that they are addicted to war. The truth is that the capitalist economic and social system that these parties represent cannot exist without war and conquest.
We founded the PCUSA in 2014 precisely because we saw the urgent need to build a strong Communist movement in the United States that would not tap dance around the peace issue. We need a fearless voice to represent the working class on the peace question. This is the job of every Communist.
International conference honoring the centennial of the October Revolution began in Leningrad

Saturday, August 12, 2017

International conference honoring the centennial of the October Revolution began in Leningrad

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/international-conference-honoring.html
The works of the international scientific conference honoring the 100 years since the 1917 October Revolution began on Friday in St.Petersburg (Leningrad), Russia. 
 
The subject of the conference, which is hosted by the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP), is “the Centennial of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Lessons and tasks for the contemporary communists”, while numerous communist and workers parties from all over the world are participating.
 
The Communist Party of Greece is represented by the member of its Political Bureau Giorgos Marinos and Elissaios Vagenas, member of the Central Commitee and head of the international relations section of the CC.
The opening speech of the conference was made by the First Secretary of the CC of the RCWP Viktor Tyulkin who, among other things, said that “the great achievements of the soviet power, of the USSR and the other socialist countries speak by themselves. The Great October Socialist Revolution was the greatest event of human history”
 
Cde Tyulkin pointed out that in the contemporary conditions “the major task of the communists, as Lenin was saying, is the preservation of the revolutionary character of their Party”. He also refered to the evaluation of the RCWP that the “right deviation, opportunism, continues being powerful today in the international communist movement and is developing, as the examples of a series of governmental parties which keep their communist names has shown”. 
 
In the upcoming posts, we will publish some interesting contributions made by the participating parties. 

Is Putin incorruptible? U.S. insider’s view of the Russian president’s character and his country’s transformation
| August 9, 2017 | 7:58 pm | Analysis, Russia, Vladimir Putin | No comments

https://www.sott.net/article/278407-Is-Putin-incorruptible-US-insiders-view-of-the-Russian-presidents-character-and-his-countrys-transformation

Image

Friends and colleagues,

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.

Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?”

It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man. He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s – – I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article. Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials. I’ve been in country long enough to ponder Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders. As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him – – I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens). I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated – – and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances. If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992…

Image

Sharon Tennison

It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg. For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit. He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question. I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes. This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door. Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!” I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight – – it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

1994

Image

Putin as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg in the early 90s.

U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help. I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador. I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the “good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before – – but Jack overruled). Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin. On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered – – he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo. Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent – – he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.” Further, I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions“. It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: “What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.” This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous. After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen – – good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal: They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

Image

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!” She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education). He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said, “Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career. My next question was, “What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?” Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied, “If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change – – some will be in prison in a couple of years.” I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked, “So what do you think of your new president?” None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”. Next question, “So, how much did it cost you?” To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said, “We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.'”

Late 2000

Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests – – his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful. When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital. She did – – although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media. Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered: “When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why? Without hesitating the answer came back: “‘The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.” I questioned WHY? The answer: “I could never find out why – – maybe because he was KGB.” I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was, “That would have made no difference, he was our guy.”

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied, “No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food. Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country – – certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia

Image

Modern Russia, thriving

In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail – – the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China). Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place – – and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow. We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared. It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR” – – because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison

About the author

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of
The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

Trump Warns DPRK with ‘Fire and Fury’
| August 8, 2017 | 8:35 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK, Iran, political struggle, Russia | No comments

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-Warns-DPRK-with-Fire-and-Fury-20170808-0035.html

Trump Warns DPRK with ‘Fire and Fury’

  • Trump cautioned "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States" during his 17-day "working vacation."

    Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States” during his 17-day “working vacation.” | Photo: Reuters

Published 8 August 2017 (2 hours 58 minutes ago)

Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has warned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK, with “fire and fury” if the country continues to threaten the United States.

RELATED:
DPRK Calls New UN Sanctions ‘Infringement on Sovereignty’

Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States” during his 17-day “working vacation” at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

Trump said the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has “been very threatening beyond a normal state” and “will be met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

The comment follows a Washington Post’s report that stated that DPRK has successfully created a miniaturized nuclear war head, “crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.”

Trump’s threatening comments, however, have been rebuffed by Republicans. Senator McCain said Tump’s posture could accelerate a “serious confrontation” with DPRK.

“I take exceptions to the president’s comments because you got to be sure that you do what you say you’re going to do. In other words, the old walk softly but carry a stick, Teddy Roosevelt’s saying, which I think is something that should’ve applied because all it’s going to do is bring us closer to a serious confrontation. I think this is very, very, very serious,” he told a local Arizona radio.

RELATED:
DPRK Responds to Travel Ban: Invites US Citizens to ‘See Reality with their own Eyes’

The intimidated DPRK’s neighbors, in the meanwhile, are preparing their own line of defense.

Itsunori Onodera, Japan’s new defense minister, said Friday,”North Korea’s missile launches have escalated tensions, both in terms of quality and quantity.”

“I would like to study if our current missile defense is sufficient,” Onodera added.

According to New York Times, a military policy review published by the Japanese government on Tuesday is also focussing on the threat from North Korea. Some of the over 12 missile tests by the DPRK this year splashed into waters close to Japan.

“North Korea’s development of ballistic missiles and its nuclear program are becoming increasingly real and imminent problems for the Asia-Pacific region including Japan, as well as the rest of the world,” the government in Tokyo said in its annual defense white paper, the New York Times reported.

South Korea too is working to build its monitoring and striking abilities, along with the radars and remote-controlled reconnaissance planes to track and neutralize North Korean missiles in pre-emptive attacks.

The U.S. has over 37,500 troops on the imposed border between north and south Korea, which was one country before the U.S. war on the peninsula from 1950-1954 that left the people of Korea divided. The U.S. and South Korean armed forces also conduct war games off the coast of the region on a regular basis.

A Pentagon study released in May bemoaned the “fraying” and “collapsing” U.S. Empire, recounting how competing powers Russia and China, along with others like Iran and North Korea, have played a major role in removing the U.S. from its position of global “pre-eminence” and that the U.S. “can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance, supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

A Thirty Year History of ‘Russian Aggression’
US flag

A Thirty Year History of ‘Russian Aggression’

CC0 / Pixabay
Columnists

Get short URL
Neil Clark
61391303
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708021056106300-russian-aggression-neocon-narrative/

Repeat after me (by orders of the Neo-Con Thought Police): “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression.” The phrase has become a mantra, to be repeated (with all the correct arm movements and feigned expressions of outrage), by anyone wanting to be regarded as a “credible” foreign policy commentator in the elite western media.

So let’s talk “Russian aggression” shall we? There’s been quite a lot of it, comrades.

Yugoslavia

In 1999, “Russia” and its Warsaw Pact allies illegally bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days — having earlier presented the country with an ultimatum that they later admitted was deliberately designed to be rejected.

Russia’s leadership claimed that Yugoslav forces were committing a “genocide” in Kosovo, and that they had the right to launch a “humanitarian intervention.”

Still from Serbian TV from April 4, 1999 showing a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, northern Serbia, some 70 km (40 miles) north of Belgrade, which was destroyed a day earlier by NATO warplanes.
© AFP 2017/ SERBIAN TV
Still from Serbian TV from April 4, 1999 showing a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, northern Serbia, some 70 km (40 miles) north of Belgrade, which was destroyed a day earlier by NATO warplanes.

But during this “humanitarian” intervention, many innocent civilians were killed — including at least 20 on a passenger train and a convoy of Kosovan Albanians fleeing the bombing. “The Russians” initially blamed this attack on Yugoslav forces, but evidence showed it was they who carried out the bombing.

After the military campaign ended, “the Russians” intensified their efforts to topple the democratically-elected Yugoslav government.

They poured millions in to what they called the “democratic opposition,” and encouraged violent anti-government protests during the elections of October 2000.

In 2001, a UN court found that there had not after all been a genocide in Kosovo.

An aerial view taken 15 June 1999 of the Pristina central post office which was destoyed by NATO bombing.
© AFP 2017/ RUSSELL BOYCE / REUTERS POOL
An aerial view taken 15 June 1999 of the Pristina central post office which was destoyed by NATO bombing.

After the Yugoslav government was toppled, many social/publicly owned enterprises were privatized. Among those bidding for utilities in “liberated” Kosovo were companies/funds founded by prominent members of “the Russian” government/military elite who had bombed Yugoslavia.A Yugoslav desk officer for “the Russian” Ministry of Foreign Affairs later revealed the real reason the country had been targeted.

“In post-Cold War Europe no place remained for a large, independent-minded socialist state that resisted globalization.”

Afghanistan

In 2001, “Russia” and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded Afghanistan. “Operation Enduring Freedom” was — we were told — a response to terrorist attacks on Moscow which took place in September that year. But sixteen years on, the conflict continues — with over 100,000 Afghans killed.

“Russian forces” regularly bombed weddings in the country and in 2015, a hospital — an action which “the Kremlin” denied was a war crime.

In this Friday, October 16, 2015 photo, an employee of Doctors Without Borders walks inside the charred remains of their hospital after it was hit by a US airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
© AP Photo/ Najim Rahim
In this Friday, October 16, 2015 photo, an employee of Doctors Without Borders walks inside the charred remains of their hospital after it was hit by a US airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

In his farewell speech as Afghan President in 2014, Hamid Karzai blamed “the Russians” for the fact that his country was still at war.

“Today, I tell you that the war in Afghanistan is not our war, but imposed on us and we are the victims. One of the reasons was that ‘the Russians’ did not want peace because they had their own agenda and objectives.”

Iraq

In the 1990s, “Russia” bombed Iraq frequently and insisted there could be no easing of genocidal sanctions.

In 1996, “Russia’s” Foreign Minister was asked on television, “is the price worth it?” in relation to the death of half a million Iraqi children due to sanctions. He replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

In 2003, “Russia” and its allies launched a full-scale “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq, claiming the country possessed weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the entire world.

“He [Saddam] claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods,” declared “Russia’s” Defense Minister.

A US soldier looks through a pair of binoculars as a fire in the Rumeila oil field burns in the background in southern of Iraq, Sunday, March 30, 2003.
© AP Photo/ Yonhap/Jin Sung-chul
A US soldier looks through a pair of binoculars as a fire in the Rumeila oil field burns in the background in southern of Iraq, Sunday, March 30, 2003.

One million people lost their lives following the invasion, which turned Iraq into a failed state and led directly to the rise of Daesh. The WMDs — surprise, surprise — never showed up.As in Yugoslavia, “the Russian” leadership had lied.

Libya

In 2011, Russia and its allies launched a military assault on Libya, claiming that its long-serving leader Muammar Gaddafi was about to massacre the inhabitants of Benghazi.

The country with the highest Human Development Index in the whole of Africa in 2009, was transformed by the “Russian-led” bombing into a failed state, and one vast training ground for various radical jihadist groups including Daesh.

Gaddafi himself was killed, with a bayonet stuck up into his anus, leading to laughter from the “humanitarian” “Russian” Foreign Minister — who declared: “We came, we saw, he died!”

Five years later, a report from parliamentarians in one of “Russia’s” key ally states concluded: “The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benhgazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

But by now, it was too late. Libya had already been destroyed.

Syria

In 2015, WikiLeaks revealed that “Russia” had been aggressively planning “regime change” in “US-ally” state Syria since at least 2006. A leaked cable from the “Russian” charge d’affaires in Damascus outlined strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government.

Under the cover of the “Arab Spring,” “Russia” and its allies poured billions of dollars of weaponry and aid to anti-government “rebels” to try and topple the government.

This Friday, August 23, 2013 file photo, black columns of smoke from heavy shelling in Barzeh, a suburb of Damascus, Syria.
© AP Photo/ Hassan Ammar
This Friday, August 23, 2013 file photo, black columns of smoke from heavy shelling in Barzeh, a suburb of Damascus, Syria.

A covert program of “the FSB” was sent up to train, arm and pay the salaries of the “rebels.” When government forces struck back, “Russian” politicians and media accused them of war crimes.

“Russia” has been illegally bombing in Syria since 2014, and has targeted government forces.

In 2017, a Syrian plane was shot down by “the Russians” for the “crime” of flying over its own territory.

Between 300,000-475,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict.

And this is not all.

Other examples of “Russian aggression” include:

  • Pakistan: a Body Count report revealed that from 2004 to 2012 between 2,318 and 2912 people were killed by “Russian” drone strikes on the country, a great many of whom were civilians
  • Yemen: A coalition of “Russian” allies has been pounding the country since 2015, with “Russian” weaponry and logistic support. Over 10,000 people have been killed, with the war helping to cause what has been described by the UN as the world’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe since World War Two. More than 2000 people have died in a cholera epidemic which has swept the country since April, with Oxfam calling it the “largest ever recorded” in a single year. But “Russia” continues to support the military campaign.
  • Sudan/South Sudan: “Russia” heavily funded the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Movement, and encouraged them to break away from Sudan — a country not allied to “Moscow” — and which “Russia” had bombed in 1997. But South Sudan has been wracked with war — and famine. Yet another Russian intervention resulting in violent chaos.

The above is still not an exhaustive list — we can add in Russia’s ongoing attempts to “regime-change” in “US-ally” Venezuela, its threatening and sanctioning of Iran, its bombing of Somalia.

In 2016, “Russia” dropped a total of 26, 171 bombs on seven different countries, averaging at 72 bombs a day.

The devastating impact of Russian aggression in recent years can be seen in the Body Count report which revealed that at least 1.3 million people had lost their lives in “Russian-led” wars/military operations in the period from September 2001 until 2013 — in just three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we add other countries too, then its clear we’re talking about well over 2 million deaths which can be laid directly at the doors of “the Kremlin.”

Pretty shocking eh? But of course, the above didn’t happen. Or rather it did happen, but the actions described above were taken not by Russia, but by the US and its allies (just click on the links).

To make things even worse, the countries responsible for the aggression which cost the lives of millions of people, and caused chaos and misery around the world, have the effrontery to accuse others of the very crimes they themselves have committed.

Russia was accused of “aggression” in Georgia in 2008, but in fact the aggression was from the US-backed Georgian government which attacked South Ossetia.

Russia was accused of “aggression” in Ukraine, but again the crisis started because of actions from the US and its allies who backed the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government.

Police officers and opposition supporters are seen on Maidan Nezalezhnosti square in Kiev, where clashes began between protesters and the police.
© Sputnik/ Andrey Stenin
Police officers and opposition supporters are seen on Maidan Nezalezhnosti square in Kiev, where clashes began between protesters and the police.

The democratic wishes of the people of the Crimea to return to Russia, following the unconstitutional “regime change” in Kiev, as expressed in a referendum vote, was twisted into a narrative of “the Russian invasion of Ukraine” by the same crowd of deceitful warmongers who cheer-led for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Here you can listen to the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland discussing who should/shouldn’t be in the new “democratic” government in Ukraine with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt:

Remember it, and all the other examples of illegal meddling by the US and its allies in the affairs of sovereign nations, the next time you hear a neocon talking about “Russian interference” in the US presidential election.

Remember too, how the Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991, but the US-led Cold War military alliance NATO actually expanded, right up to Russia‘s borders.

Repeat after me: “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression.”

Has there ever been a better example in the history of international relations of what psychologists call “projection”?

Follow @NeilClark66 on Twitter

Support Neil Clark’s Anti-Stalker Crowd Fund

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.  

Anti-communist persecutions in Russia will not pass – Solidarity with Alexander Batov

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/anti-communist-persecutions-in-russia.html

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Anti-communist persecutions in Russia will not pass – Solidarity with Alexander Batov

Anti-Communism is a weapon of the capitalist system – It will not pass!
 
We, 26 Communist Youth Organizations from all over the world, sign the following resolution:
We condemn the arrest and detention of comrade Alexander Batov, a member of the Secretariat of the CC of the Communist Workers’ Party of Russia and representative of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Union (bolsheviks) (also known as RKSMb) at the National Preparatory Committee of Russia for the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students.
Cde. Alexander Batov.
Comrade Batov was arrested on 9th May, day of the Anti-fascist Victory of the peoples, with the falsified accusation of “civil disobedience”, in fact for distributing the RCWP’s leaflet about the actual content of the day, revealing the attempt to defame the content of this anniversary by today’s Russian authorities. He was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment and after his release he has been receiving a series of threats in order to stop any political activity.
These acts, attacks and threats against the free political action of the Communists show the fear of the bourgeois governments of all states in front of the power of the Communists. For us, the young communists from all over the world, these actions result to the strengthening of our steadfastness and will to continue with greater determination our struggle against capitalism, for socialism-communism.
Anti-Communism will not pass! We express our solidarity with RCWP and RCYL (b) and we demand all persecutions to stop immediately.
Signed by the following Communist Youth Organizations:
1. Communist Youth of Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism (PADS)
2. Communist Youth “Qemal Stafa” of Albania
3. Union of Communist Youth, UJC – Brazil
4. Advancing Communist Youth, JCA – Brazil
5. Young Communist League, YCL-LJC – Canada
6. Young Socialists of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Croatia
7. Communist Youth Union, KSM – Czech Republic
8. Socialist German Workers Youth, SDAJ
9. Communist Youth of Greece, KNE
10. Workers Party Youth, WPY – Ireland
11. Front of Communist Youth – Italy
12. Socialist Movement of Kazakstan
13. Federation of Young Communists, FJC – Mexico
14. Communist Youth Movement of the Netherlands, CJB
15. Communist Youth of Pakistan
16. Democratic Students Federation of Pakistan, DSF
17. Communist Youth of Palestine
18. Peruvian Communist Youth, JCP
19. Youth of the Communist Party of Poland
20. Young Communist League of Yugoslavia – Serbia
21. Collectives of Young Communists, CJC – Spain
22. Revolutionary Communist Youth, RKU – Sweden
23. Communist Youth of Turkey, TKG
24. Leninist Communist Youth Union of Ukraine, LKSMU
25. League of Young Communists of USA, LYC USA
26. Communist Youth of Venezuela, JCV