Category: struggle against anti-communism
Citizens head to court against city of Montreal


Citizens head to court against city of Montreal

Montreal, January 18, 2018

Members of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) and the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) are suing the City of Montreal for compensatory and punitive damages for the city’s actions which occurred during the 2015 federal election campaign. The 5-day trial will begin January 22, 2018.

During the 2015 federal election campaign, the BDS movement and the CPC, both duly registered with Elections Canada, joined forces to denounce the pro-Israel policies of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party during the electoral campaign. BDS was registered as a third party and the CPC is a registered party which ran four candidates in Montreal. The election posters portrayed a Palestinian child murdered on a beach in Gaza during the 2014 bombings. Their aim was to raise the awareness of Montrealers concerning the cause of the Palestinian people.

These posters, identified as election posters in accordance with the Canada Elections Act, were nevertheless systematically removed by the City of Montreal, undermining the fundamental right to freedom of expression of BDS members and reducing the visibility of candidates of the CPC in the midst of an election campaign.

Following complaints to the Chief Electoral Officer, the City of Montreal has admitted to violating the law.

Today, although it recognizes this fact, the City refuses to acknowledge its fault in this case, forcing the continuation of the trial next week.

A joint release from the Communist Party of Canada and BDS Québec

Counterrevolution in the USSR – Mikhail V. Popov

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Mikhail V. Popov – Counterrevolution in the USSR (Михаил Попов- Контрреволюция в СССР)

By Mikhail V. Popov., 10 April 2017.

Transcript and translation by Srećko Vojvodić.

Now almost everybody understands that a counterrevolution took place in the USSR. It is so simple to see it since up until then there was socialism in the USSR, as a first phase of communism, whereas now we have a fully established capitalism in Russia. Therefore, it is not that only the counterrevolution happened, but also a restoration has taken place: all bourgeois institutions have been restored and we have a fully-fledged bourgeois state, with bourgeois democracy, as a form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
When did this happen?
Initially, some people deemed that it happened somewhere between the end of 1990 and the beginning of 1991. However, a deeper analysis shows that it was not so. Things do not happen that way.
Transitions from one system to another do not happen instantaneously in history. Let us review some examples. The transition from capitalism to communism took 18 years in Russia and the USSR: between 1917 and 1935. And how long did the transition between the first phase of communism back to capitalism take? This is the question to be deliberated.
When is a state socialist? A state is socialist if the working class holds the power in it. And when does the working class hold the power? The working class holds the power when the dictatorship of the proletariat is being implemented.
Then what is the dictatorship of the proletariat? The dictatorship of the proletariat is, as indicated in Lenin’s Great Beginning, a scientific, Latin-derived, historical-philosophical expression, meaning that only a specific social class, namely urban, factory-based industrial workers are able to lead the whole mass of working and exploited people in the fight for a complete destruction of all classes. To be explicit, this means not only the liquidation of the exploiting classes, but also the elimination of the differences between the city and the countryside, between men of physical and intellectual work.
Then there is another definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which fits our needs in deliberating the counterrevolution in the USSR even better, although it does not contradict the previous definition. This other definition was given by Lenin in his book ‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder, and says: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economical, pedagogical and administrative, against forces and traditions of the old society.”
Well, if we pose the following questions:
  • Are the forces and traditions of the old society disappearing under socialism?
  • Is not the class struggle waged under socialism against petty bourgeois mentality and attitudes?
  • Has the working class under socialism completed its task, and have all social classes been completely destroyed, effectively ending class struggle against petty bourgeois mentality and attitudes?
then the answer is:
  • If you do not fight them, then they fight you!
These are the petty bourgeois mentality and attitudes, which are present and which contradict the interests of the working people in a socialist society. Therefore, if we formulate the questions that way, it will become clear as to when the counterrevolution took place in the USSR: the counterrevolution took place in the USSR when the ruling party voted in its congress for the removal from its program of the centerpiece of Marxism, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This happened in 1961, at the XXII Congress. That meant that this Party did not want to wage a persistent struggle against forces and traditions of the old society any more, that it did not want to wage this struggle any more either as a party, or as a leading force of the society, i.e. as a political party, holding in its hands the political power in the state. Consequently, based on the decision of the XXII Congress, the state changed instantaneously its nature: once a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it became a state of the opposite nature.
What does this mean: a state of the opposite nature? It means: the bourgeois state. Some people ask “but where was the bourgeoisie?“ assuming that there was no bourgeoisie under socialism. That is true; there was no bourgeoisie – until the very moment, when this decision was made! However, as soon as it was made, what happened to the state apparatus, which managed the whole economic and political life? It started consisting of those people who, de facto, had a grip on the means of production. Then, if they earlier had to run those means of production for the sake of satisfying the needs of the whole society, in the interests of the working class – which expresses interests of all working people, now they became able to run those means of production for their own interests. In fact, it became their duty! A caste was thus formed which used the means of production for its own interests.
In general, state ownership – if we are talking about it – is not identical to social ownership. State ownership is a form of social ownership only if the state belongs to the working class and acts in the interests of the working class. Therefore, as soon as the state ceases to act in the interests of the working class, the state property becomes property of a part of the society, and the property of a part of the society is private property. That way, beginning in 1961, private property of the ruling nomenclature’s highest echelon appeared in the USSR.
Well, this private property was collectively owned – just as it is in any joint-stock company. In any such corporation private property is not individual, it belongs to all stockholders. In Russia, it happened that initially there was no fragmentation to individual stockholders; instead, everybody of this whole nomenclature highest echelon held it together in their hands. It should be noted that at this level of power only rare individuals remained in working-class positions, while everybody else jumped at the chance to appropriate this common, state property – which was no longer a social property.
We may say that the best solution was found in Belarus. They did not undertake a fragmentation of this common private property. Therefore, state property, as a large private property, remained there. However, in the rest of the USSR, at the easy hands of Chubais, Gaidar and other ideologues: Nemtsov, Iavlinskii, Boldirev and other gurus of liberal capitalism, which did not grow up even to the imperialism, to the state monopoly capitalism, a decision was made to squander this state property, to tear it down to smithereens.
This carve-up did not happen all at once. It was necessary first to bend the adversary; it was necessary to solve the problem that Nikita Khrushchov was solving when he put up the shooting of workers, and their children, in Novocherkassk in 1962. I think that anybody who will be considering this historical fact will have to conclude that if workers were being shot upon orders of the government head, then such a state was not exactly a working class state.
Now, what those workers were demanding? They were demanding only that prices not be increased and tariffs not lowered – the same thing that workers demand all over the world. This is a demand for which nobody in the world, even in the bourgeois world, shoots at workers. Therefore, in this aspect, Khrushchov spat even over those who carry out the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in other countries. Because of this, one may say that so begins, since 1961, the transition stretch from the first phase of communism to capitalism and further, that a political revolution took place at the XXII Congress in 1961.
Accordingly, if we use the term “revolution” to denote transition from one economic order to another then such a process is very lengthy. It is evident that it lasted from 1961 to 1991 – which is a 30 years span – and it is much longer than the 18 years [needed for the transition from capitalism to communism, first in Russia, and then in the whole USSR].
This pushes against the popular notion that the Soviet Union “broke up”. No, it did not break up, it was fought against, from inside and from outside. By both traitors to the cause of socialism, to the cause of the Communist Party and to the cause of the working class within the top leadership, and by the external forces that were invited during Ieltsin’s years into all ministries, to reconstruct everything as a capitalist economy, and to direct it, not even towards interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, but towards the interests of foreign bourgeoisie, and especially those of the American bourgeoisie.
So the whole thing was long lasting, and bears no similarity with a “breakup” of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union resisted for a very long time and we know that there were forces that resisted.
In 1989 the Unified Front of Working People was constituted and I participated in it, together with comrades Pizhov and Krasavin, as candidates for people’s representatives of the USSR from the national-territorial ward of Leningrad. We constituted the Leningrad Section of the Unified Front of Working People and then another such section was constituted in Moscow. Finally, a Joint Front of Working People of Russia was constituted – with the support of our trade unions, of some Party organs and some Party cadres.
The Joint Front of Working People nominated Gen. Makashov for President and Dr. Sergueiev (Economics) – who used to be my Ph.D. thesis opponent – for Vice President, while I was Gen. Makashov’s Advisor. Therefore, it is impossible to say that nobody resisted – as a matter of fact, we resisted a lot. We had constitutive congresses of the communists of Russia – because all Party members who were in the Joint Front organized this constitutive movement, which stood against Gorbachov’s cupula, wrote a corresponding program and in this program we wrote: “Expel from the Party Gorbachov’s anti-communist faction conducting anti-people’s policies.” In my capacity of member of Leningrad Regional Committee, I moved a motion to vote on this proposal at a plenary session of the Leningrad Regional Committee. However, only 17 members of the Committee voted in favour of it, while some people who used to speak a lot about communism, such as Bielov, did not support my motion. They did not want to vote against Gorbachov.
We defended this demand: Dolgov, Jelmeiev and I. We collected Party organizations’ decisions, succeeded in constituting the Communist Party of the RSFSR and participated in authoring its Program. There was no revisionism in this Program and, therefore, those who wanted us to go to capitalism under red flags had to shut down both the CPSU and the CPRSFSR. Well, that was an openly counterrevolutionary action of Yeltsin’s power structure.
At the same time, this struggle never ceased. Russian Communist Workers’ Party and after that Workers’ Party of Russia was constituted – which means that forces, opposed to the counterrevolution, have been acting and keep on acting.
In conclusion, we have to answer the questions from the beginning: “When the counterrevolution began in the USSR, what was its course and what did it consist of?” Here is the answer:
The counterrevolution in the USSR took place in 1961 but its preparations began in 1956 and even earlier. Judging by the attitude towards the foremost person who fought for socialism – comrade Stalin, of his former comrades-in-arms, indicates that even in the Central Committee a counterrevolutionary and anti-communist group was formed. Judging by their voting at the Congress, how they voted unanimously against the dictatorship of the proletariat, it becomes evident how they selected the Congress delegates – which means that Khrushchov’s group functioned well and, not accidentally, managed to intimidate Party officials by killing Beria because this is a dark affair and it is understandable that, as we were told then that Beria was an English spy, it was a fairly ridiculous accusation since Beria supervised both the nuclear program and the missile program, while building, at the same time, Moscow State University. Therefore, when such things are published, and we were observing that those people, who glorified Stalin and, so to say, were putting him on the shield, did not utter a single loud word in his defense during all this time, then it becomes clear why only much later the first pronouncements and correct evaluations of Stalin’s work began – which are now dominant, we may say. At that time, however, nothing of that kind could be heard.
This is what we can say briefly about the counterrevolution in the USSR.

* Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov is a Professor of the Department of Economics and Law at Saint Peterburg State University.  
“Gulag Archipelago”: Exposing the anticommunist fabrications of Solzhenitsyn

Monday, January 1, 2018

“Gulag Archipelago”: Exposing the anticommunist fabrications of Solzhenitsyn
 By Nikos Mottas*.
Originally published in
Translated from Greek.
One of the most famous and celebrated works of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the “Gulag Archipelago”, has been for a long time a kind of “holy bible” for every anticommunist. Firstly published in 1973, it- supposedly- consists an analytical record of the conditions existed in the so-called “labour camps” of the Soviet Union. Within the framework of the slanderous anticommunist campaign, bourgeois historiography has extensively promoted Solzhenitsyn’s work as a source of arguments about the so-called “Stalinist dictatorship” and “communist crimes” in the Soviet Union.
However, there is a fundamental problem in the work of the deeply reactionary Solzhenitsyn: Gulag Archipelago is a completely antiscientific book, based almost entirely in rumors, speculations, third party opinions as well as interpretations of opinions by Solzenitsyn himself! In other words, the reader of this book becomes “hostage” of a novel type, unverifiable, recording to alleged events by Solzenitsyn and others who supposedly “saw”, “heard” or “learned” something.
Even people who have nothing friendly to say about Stalin admit that Solzhenitsyn’s work is nothing but fairy tales. Let’s see what trotskyite historian and writer Vadim Z. Rogovin writes: Solzhenitsyn’s work, much like the more objective works of R. Medvedev, belong to the genre which the West calls “oral history,” i.e., research which is based almost exclusively on eyewitness accounts of participants in the events being described. Moreover, using the circumstance that the memoirs from prisoners in Stalin’s camps which had been given to him to read had never been published, Solzhenitsyn took plenty of license in outlining their contents and interpreting them” [1]. In fact, Solzenitsyn edited and cited, according to his own reactionary views, third parties’ testimonials in which he added anticommunist fabrications thus creating the “Archipelago” fairy tale.
Solzhenitsyn’s first wife, Natalya Reshetovskaya, seems to confirm the fact that “Gulag Archipelago” consists a fictional and completely non-scientific book. In her autobiography published in 1974 under the title “Sanya: My Life with Alexandr Solzhenitsyn”, Reshetovskaya actually challenges the validity of what Solzenitsyn writes in “Gulag Archipelago”. According to Reshetovskaya, she was “perplexed” by the fact that the the book was accepted by the western (capitalist) world as “the solemn, ultimate truth”, saying that the significance of his ex-husband’s work had been “overestimated and wrongly appraised”. [2]. Furthermore, Reshetovskaya unveiled that Solzhenitsyn himself did not regard the book as “historical research, or scientific research, but it was rather a “camp folklore” collection!
More or less, Reshetovskaya actually says that “Gulag Archipelago” isn’t a work that should be taken seriously or accepted as a valid source. The fact that Solzhenitsyn’s book is full of lies and inaccuracies is something that can be confirmed by a comparison of the data presented in the “Gulag Archipelago” with the real numbers. There lies a significant problem for the credibility of the much celebrated “nobelist” and former Nazi collaborator Solzhenitsyn: He presents fake numbers!
The following chart, published at the official journal of the Union of American Historians, includes the overall statistical data for the custodial population in the USSR from 1934 to 1953, during a period of Joseph Stalin’s leadership. Let’s now see how the numbers, researched and checked by bourgeois scientists and published at the American Historical Review, refute Solzhenitsyn’s anticommunist fabrications.
1st : Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s argument about 60 million deaths (!) at the Soviet labour camps consists a product of his deeply anticommunist fantasy and profound lie.
2st : Solzhenitsyn’s argument about 25 million detained people at the labour camps (“gulags”) in 1953 is a vulgar lie. In 1953, the overall number of the imprisoned people was not over 2.5 million. Two million were criminal prisoners, convicted for crimes or ordinary criminal law.
3rd: In the peak of his anticommunist paranoia, Solzhenitsyn had claimed that the total number of victims during Stalin’s period were… 110 million people! If this ridiculous claim was correct then, normally, the Soviet Union’s population during Stalin’s leadership (1924-1953) should have been decreased significantly. However, statistical data about the USSR’s population prove exactly the opposite!
On January 1926, the population of the Soviet Union was 148.6 million people. Fifteen years later, on June 1941 the population had been increased to 196.7 million. A decrease in USSR’s population took place between 1941 and 1946 (170.5 million), which is explainable by the huge casualties of the country during the Second World War. After the War, during the period 1946-1951, the Soviet Union’s population increased again, reaching 182.3 million people on January 1951 [4]. As for the annual birth rate in the USSR between 1920 and 1950, it is extremely insufficient in order to overlap (in terms of population) the number of the supposed “million deaths” of the Stalin era [5].
Solzhenitsyn is proved to be a blatant liar. Nonetheless, if someone isn’t convinced yet about the anticommunist fabrications of Solzenitsyn and the other “stalinologists” (e.g. Robert Conquest), there is more to come.
After the victory of counterrevolution and the overthrow of socialism in the USSR, the bourgeois government of Boris Yeltsin decided to open the official soviet state archives, hoping that they would find evidence about the “million victims of the stalinist era”. But, what did the official soviet state archives reveal? They revealed that the actual number of those who were sentenced to death during the period of Stalin’s leadership, from 1923 to 1952, is between 776,000 and 786,000 people [6]. The “million victims of stalinism” that Solzhenitsyn, Conquest and other pathetic anticommunists wrote about, consist propagandistic fairy tales.
Taking all the above into account, we can now ask a final question: How credible is an anticommunist fairy tale that is full of inaccuracies and monstrous lies? How serious must someone take the fabrications of Solzhenitsyn about Socialism, the USSR and Stalin? We leave on literature critics to evaluate “Gulag Archipelago” as a novel. But what is clear and beyond doubt is that Solzhenitsyn’s book is a non-scientific, anticommunist fabrication full of lies and slanders. In a few words, nothing more or less than the spiritual product of a nazi collaborator, a reactionary and a fascist.
[1] Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror, Mehring Books, 1998.
[2] Reshetovskaya, Natalya. Sanya: My Life With Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Indianapolis/New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1974.
[3] The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049.
[4] Andreev, E.M., et al.Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.
[5] BT.Urlanis, Trends in fertility level in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the years of Soviet rule, 1980.
[6] Getty J.A, Rittersporn G, Zemskov V. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Prewar Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence, American Historical Review, 98:4, Oct. 1993.
* Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of ‘In Defense of Communism’. 
Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror, Mehring Books, 1998.
Murderous attack against young communists by Neo-Nazi gangsters in Ukraine

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Murderous attack against young communists by Neo-Nazi gangsters in Ukraine

In Ukraine a group of young fascists affiliated to one of the neo-Nazi parties of the country “National Corps” attacked the premises, where the youth wing of Communist Party of Ukraine gathered for plenums in Kiev. 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine highligted in the press release on the issue that these criminal groups are controlled and supported by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It was added that during the attack, the police came to the scene and as always did not interfere in the situation.

The Communist Party of Ukraine declared: “All gangster attacks on members of the Party, members of the Komsomol, dissidents are carried out directly on instructions and are financed by political forces that seized power in Ukraine as a result of the armed coup in February 2014.” In the press release, it was also informed that the party sent detailed information about the attack to the international human organizations, PACE, OSCE, and to the UN Human Rights Office.
Previously in December 2015, the Kiev District Administrative Court banned the activities of the Communist Party of Ukraine. In January 2016, the Ministry of Justice stated that the Supreme Administrative Court refused to open proceedings on the appeal of the CPU, which tried to challenge its ban in Ukraine.

Source: international communist press.
* * * 
KNE: Condemns the fascist attack against Komsomol’s members

In a statement, the Communist Youth of Greece (KNE) condemns the new fascist attack against the young communists of Ukraine. Among others, the statement writes: “We denounce the identification of anticommunism and repression by the reactionary government of Ukraine which is supported- and supports- fascist groups.”

“It is the same regime”, the KNE statement points out “which has created black lists for its political opponents, including, among others, cadres of the KKE such as G.Lambroulis, MP and Deputy Speaker of the Greek Parliament and S.Zarianopoulos, KKE MEP, because they showed their practical interests and solidarity of the KKE to the people of Ukraine who is shedding blood in the Donbass region.

Anticommunism shall not pass. Solidarity to the communists of Ukraine”.

KKE: Protest outside the Polish embassy in Athens against anticommunist persecutions

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

KKE: Protest outside the Polish embassy in Athens against anticommunist persecutions
With a protest outside the Polish embassy yesterday in Athens, members of the Communist Party of Greece expressed their condemnation of the anticommunist persecutions that take place in Poland.
The delegation of the KKE, headed by the Member of the European Parliament Kostas Papadakis, delivered to the personnel of the embassy a statement in which the Party expresses its opposition to the persecutions.
It must be reminded that the court proceedings were due to start on Monday 27/11, with the judicial prosecution based on charges of propagating communist ideology in the „Brzask” newspaper and on the Communist Party of Poland’s website.
In its statement the KKE “condemns and denounces these anticommunist measures and persecutions, every kind of prohibitions against communists such as trials against them, prohibitions of communist symbols and of spreading communist ideas. This unacceptable persecution under no circumstances is lawful because it has the support of the reactionary EU or because similar (persecutions) are promoted in other countries”.
“The prohibitions”, writes the KKE statement, “the repression measures against the activity of the communists go hand-by-hand with the overall antiworkers measures and the attack to the rights and conquests of the working class”.
“They consist part of the known propaganda about “totalitarian regime” that promotes the provocative and unhistorical equation of communism with the monster of fascism, which is born and raised by the capitalist system”.
The KKE expresses its solidarity to the communists and the class-labour movement of Poland and demands the immediate withdrawal of all persecutions against the CP of Poland, its members and cadres.
Source: / Translation: In Defense of Communism.
The USA, European Union and Ukraine denied to condemn Nazism at the UN General Assembly

Sunday, November 19, 2017

The USA, European Union and Ukraine denied to condemn Nazism at the UN General Assembly
Hiding behind the pretext of “freedom of speech”, the United States– accompanied by Ukrainevoted against a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism introduced to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly by the Russian Federation. 
The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favor to 2 against, with 51 abstentions. 
Among the abstentions are the countries of the European Union (including Greece), Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Turkey and Libya. 
Following the draft’s introduction, the United States representative proposed an amendment to the text that would change all sections deemed to violate- according to the US- individual freedoms of speech, thought, expression and association. The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 81 against, to 3 in favour (Israel, Ukraine, United States), with 73 abstentions.
Speaking after the draft, as a whole, was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 2 against (Ukraine, United States), with 51 abstentions, several States commended efforts to combat Nazism, yet expressed concern over the scope of the draft.  
Showing the EU’s hypocrisy, Estonia’s delegate, on behalf of the European Union, said all contemporary forms of racism should be addressed in an impartial manner! We must remember that the government of Estonia- like other Baltic countries- have a leading role in glorifying Nazism during the last years, by honoring the Waffen-SS, organizing anticommunist fiestas and distorting history under the auspices of the European Union. 
No matter how hard they try to distort history, to glorify Nazism-Fascism and vilify Socialism-Communism, the historical truth is one and only: The Soviet Red Army and the peoples’ antifascist resistance crushed Nazism in WW2.
KKE MEP Papadakis gives decisive response to EU Parliament’s vulgar anticommunism

Thursday, November 16, 2017

KKE MEP Papadakis gives decisive response to EU Parliament’s vulgar anticommunism
KKE MEP Kostas Papadakis (standing).
A decisive answer to the vulgar anticommunism of the capital’s political represnetatives at the EU Parliament was given by the MEP of the Communist Party of Greece Kostas Papadakis. Speaking at the Plenary of the European Parliament on Wednesday in Strasbourg, the KKE MEP said the following:
“We defend Socialism, which within a few years solved big problems that remain unsolved in Capitalism. Socialism abolished unemployment and exploitation. Socialism showed to the people what permanent stable labor with rights, free Health – Education for everyone, low cost housing, certainty for the future mean.
The exploitative system that you are defending means labour galleon, queues of unemployed people, permanent insecurity, auctions, people searching in the garbage.
In Socialism, the people lived peacefully for decades. Your system is dripping blood from the crimes of the imperialist wars, with Hiroshimas, dismembered states, refugees.
Socialism defeated the monster of fascism in the Second World War and fascism is capitalism’s child. The democracy that you are promoting is the dictatorship of the monopolies.
The mud, the anticommunism, the prohibitions invoked by the supporters and apologists of Capitalism show their fear. The learned people will find again their way. Your rotten system is the past. 
The future of the world is Socialism-Communism.”
Source: / Translation: In Defense of Communism.