(A response to Sue Webb opinion in People’s World on January 4, 2016)

Dear Editor:

In Sue Webb’s opinion piece which appeared in the January 4, 2016 edition she implies that all that is needed in the USA is for us to change the word “capitalism” to “socialism” and everything will fall into place. Of course, this is pure fantasy, the words of a person who is satisfied with the capitalist system of greed and corporate control, what we used to refer to as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Ms. Webb is, indeed, bourgeois and her oversimplifications show that.

Her slanders of the USSR and socialism are particularly disturbing. She writes “[socialism] – has been tainted by much of what happened in the Soviet Union and some other countries. But there’s nothing in socialism that equates to dictatorship, political repression, bureaucracy, over-centralization and commandism, and so on. Those features of Soviet society arose out of particular circumstances and personalities. But they were not “socialist.”

Ms. Webb never objected the to the USSR when, in an act of great proletarian internationalism, the Soviet Union and the socialist community of nations led an international movement to save the life of Angela Y. Davis. Now that there is no more USSR thanks to the counter-revolutionary activities of Mikhail Gorbachev and those around him that promoted the concept of socialist “markets” and private enterprise, Ms. Webb all of a sudden finds fault with the socialism of the 20^th Century, calling it dictatorial, politically repressive, bureaucratic, and over-centralized, with a command style structure. And what dare I ask, was the USSR when they supported the CPUSA and its fight against racism and its political anti-monopoly program? So soon she forgets! Ms. Webb never objected when the Soviet Union supported the Cuban economy and the development of Cuba. She never objected when the USSR supported the national liberation movements in Angola, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and the Congo. All during the existence of the Soviet Union, the world witnessed the greatest fighter for world peace and socialism. Real socialism. To deny that is the worst kind of right opportunism.

As her alternative to scientifically planned economic socialism, Ms. Webb describes how we in the USA have many publicly owned electric utilities. That’s nice. We also have private utilities Sempra Energy, Pacific Gas, and Electric (PG&E), and Edison International for example, that endanger our environment and public health, cause great disasters like the natural gas explosion in San Bruno, California, the natural gas leak in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles, and the financial manipulation of energy prices by companies like Enron. What is the plan of the social-democrats to deal with these privately owned conglomerates in a socialist economy?

Ms. Webb says that Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist because he rejects the idea of a planned economy. Great! So we should continue living with the chaos we live in now, where material goods are produced not for the benefit of the people, but to continue the system of private profits and exploitation at any cost? She speaks like a typical believer in American exceptionalism. As long as we have markets for goods everything will be OK. She even says it would be OK to operate private businesses that continue to exploit workers, a kind of touchy, feeley, nice capitalism!

Gus Hall, the great American Communist leader, said many times that there is no “socialist model but that there are general concepts and economic laws of socialism that cannot be ignored. When they are cast aside as Sue Webb suggests we should, the result is counter-revolution and an increase in anti-worker activity. As long as there is a bourgeois class and that class holds the levers of power, it makes no difference who is President of the United States. We have two Americas. A capitalist America, and a working class America. The class war intensifies more every day. We will never have socialism unless and until the workers themselves take power and own the means of production and write their own ticket. They don’t need a Democratic Party messiah to do that. They need a real trade union federation like the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), another contribution to humanity from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.

So what is socialism? In any country, in any language, socialism is the intermediary step toward a communist society. Socialism is defined as follows: “The social order which, through revolutionary action by the working class and its allies, replaces capitalism. It is “the first phase of Communist society, as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society” (Marx). It is the social order in which the exploitation of man by man has ended because the toiling masses own the means of production. In contrast with the higher phase of Communist society, where “each gives according to his need,” in Socialist society “each gives according to his ability, and receives according to the amount of work performed”.

Contrast this with Democratic Socialism, *which is the general term for reformist and opportunist parties in their “theory” and practice in the Labor Movement [in sharp contrast with class conscious, anti-imperialist trade unionism of the WFTU]. Social-Democracy’s history is marked by timidity, legalism, “respectability,” capitulation to the influence of the capitalists, and consistent betrayal, of the working class.

Time to ask yourselves, which side are you on?

*Marxist Glossary, L. Harry Gould, Sydney. Australia 1948

Joe Hancock

PCUSA, Los Angeles

There’s Something About Stalin: Why West Still Reveres the Soviet Leader

© Sputnik

13:03 21.12.2015(updated 13:18 21.12.2015)

 

There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin was a world class politician, Joseph Hancock, a member of the Party of Communists USA, noted in an exclusive interview with Sputnik; although the Soviet leader was presented as a “backward peasant” by the Western press, Stalin used this to his advantage, Hancock remarked.

On December 21, 1879 Joseph Dzhugashvili, the future Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, was born in the small town of Gori in the Tiflis Governorate (modern Georgia) of the Russian Empire.

Remarkably, Stalin, who had been at the helm of the USSR from the mid-1920s to 1953, still attracts a lot of interest from his supporters and antagonists not only in Russia but also in the West.

Why do Western people, particularly Americans, either criticize Stalin or pay their respect to the prominent Soviet politician?

There are many reasons why Joseph Stalin is the subject of heated debate among Americans.

“Uncle Joe” and the Second World War

“Firstly, Americans know that he is our ‘Uncle Joe,’ because of his friendship with President Roosevelt and their collaboration in defeating the Nazis in WWII. The interest exists because there is a mystique about Stalin. Americans are fascinated by it. Perhaps it is his name, translated to mean, ‘the man of Steel.’ A super hero. Mostly the interest in Stalin comes from the quote by former General and US President Eisenhower that ‘the Soviets will be destroyed in six weeks.’ Of course that did not happen,” Joseph Hancock, a member of Politburo and Central Committee of the Party of Communists USA, elaborated.

© Sputnik/ Shagin

Holodomor Hoax: The Anatomy of a Lie Invented by West’s Propaganda Machine

However, due to the Cold War propaganda campaign and the rise of the Trotskyist movement Western media sources and US scholars even went so far as to compare Joseph Stalin to Adolf Hitler, the infamous Nazi leader, according to the American political activist.”Then the question arises, ‘if Stalin was such an evil man, why did all the workers and peasants fight under him to win WWII?” Joseph Hancock asked rhetorically.

“As for the ‘great terror’ or Yezhovshchina we understand that most of this occurred without Stalin’s knowledge, and was carried out in the Moscow oblast by Nikita Khrushchev and those First Secretaries of the CPSU for their own personal reasons…  It is our understanding that Stalin and [Lavrentiy] Beria were responsible for bringing the ‘great terror’ to an end,” the American political activist noted.

The “Yezhovshchina” (dubbed after Nikolay Yezhov, the NKVD chief) was the period of the “great terror” of 1937-38 in the Soviet Union. Yezhov organized a series of severe repressions against the Soviet people. In 1939 the infamous NKVD chief was executed for atrocities and anti-government conspiracy.

© Sputnik/ Olga Lander

US soldiers congratulating Soviet officers with the victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

© AP Photo

The Munich Betrayal: How Western Powers ‘Sold’ Czechoslovakia to Hitler

According to Hancock, one the most the most controversial political decisions and maneuvers of Stalin’s was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact inked between the USSR and Nazi Germany on August 23, 1939. It should be noted that the Kremlin’s decision to conclude such a deal with Germany was made after major European powers, most notably Britain and France, signed similar non-aggression agreements with Adolf Hitler.”This agreement was not well understood by left wing people in the United States. They felt betrayed knowing that the agreement had been signed, but without that agreement, nothing would have been prepared when it came time for the USSR to fight against the fascist menace,” he stressed.

“Signed before Soviet Union was attacked on June 22, 1941, this non-aggression agreement gave the USSR time to set up its defenses and to build necessary weaponry. One of the greatest inventions of the war was the T-34 tank. Tractor factories were turned into T-34 manufacturing assembly lines,” Hancock explained.

Due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which postponed the German advance against the USSR, the designers of the famous Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik warplane got an opportunity to finalize their work and bring the aircraft into production. By the time of the German Blitzkrieg 249 Russian ground-attack aircraft had already been built. During the Second World War Soviet factories produced almost 42,330 of the Il-2 and the Il-10 military jets.

“Stalin took nothing for granted. He signed the non-aggression pact knowing full well that the Nazis would break it… This is what Stalin was best known for, but there were many other critical political decisions that he made under the most difficult of conditions,” Hancock emphasized.

© AP Photo/ German War Department

Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, seated, signs the German-Soviet non-aggression pact in Moscow, August 23, 1939, a few days before the outbreak of World War II.

A World Class Politician

“There is no doubt that Stalin was a world class politician,” the American political activist continued, “But like all communist leaders, he was never seen as such by the bourgeoisie that controlled the media. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt, [Harry S.] Truman, and [Winston] Churchill are seen as sophisticated, while Stalin is presented as a backward peasant. He used this to his advantage.”

Russian historians admit that the Anglo-Saxon nobility had many times dealt a severe blow to Russia’s geopolitical interests. Can we say that Joseph Stalin and his team had repeatedly outmaneuvered wily Western politicians?

“There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin outmaneuvered wily Western politicians, except in one instance,” Hancock told Sputnik.

“In the United Nations, the Soviet delegation walked out of the UN Security Council which allowed the United States to bring in UN Security Forces into the Korean conflict [25 June 1950 — 27 July 1953]. Had the Soviets stayed and argued a little longer, they could have prevented the UN Peace Keeping Forces from entering the conflict, and the North Korean forces could have maintained their position in Korea,” he narrated.

“As things turned out, the UN Peace Keeping forces and United States under the command of General Douglas MacArthur were able to push back the North Korean offensive to the 38th parallel where Korea remains divided to this day. Had the Soviets stayed at the UN Security Council, the situation would have turned out differently, possibly resulting in a united Communist Korea,” Hancock stressed.

‘Stalin’s Nuclear Initiative Was Very Smart’

© East News/ USA/Science Photo Library

Post WW2 World Order: US Planned to Wipe USSR Out by Massive Nuclear Strike

But what about Stalin’s famous nuclear project? Did this initiative escalate further tensions in the post-WW2 world? Or had it preserved the balance of power in the world for decades?”Stalin’s nuclear initiative was very smart,” the American political activist believes.

“He [Joseph Stalin] knew that the US was developing nuclear weapons with the help of former Nazi scientists and that the US used them two times on Japan when it was completely unnecessary. Japan was already defeated and prepared to surrender to the Red Army and Navy. So Stalin knew that he had to have parity. The Soviets always sought parity for self-defense. They never had a first strike policy,” he pointed out.

“As for increased tensions, the nuclear arms race actually reduced tensions in my opinion. As long as the USSR had parity with the USA, there would be no conflict,” Hancock stressed.

According to the member of the American Communist party, once the USSR was destroyed the US gained complete hegemony over the entire world and now remains an unchallenged superpower. The national liberation movement promoted by Lenin and Stalin has been thwarted.

“I only hope that Mr. Putin has enough political conviction and gumption to take on the United States and save the world from WWIII!” Hancock remarked.

© Wikipedia

Who Controls the Past Controls the Future: Why Does West Hate Stalin?

“Western mainstream historians are still afraid of the return of communism and the USSR. They are still very much afraid of the return of Stalinism (read that Leninism) which is proletarian internationalism. They like things just fine the way that they are. They make millions of dollars writing what amounts to fantasies for television about the bad old Cold War,” the American political activist told Sputnik.

“We don’t bother to watch or read them anymore. We prefer to read the foreign press like RT that doesn’t get so involved in anti-Sovietism (anti-Stalinism). Most Americans are amazingly ignorant about world affairs. Occasionally, an old timer will surface that remembers what it was really like during Stalin’s time,” Joseph Hancock underscored.

A lot of controversy still surrounds the Stalin era and “there are as many opinions as there are experts” as Franklin D. Roosevelt used to say.

“I am not impartial about discussions of Stalin,” Joseph Hancock, a member of the Party of Communists USA, stressed in a conversation with Sputnik.

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

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151221/1032079238/why-west-still-reveres-joseph-stalin.html#ixzz3v0vk14UP

By James Thompson

In the book “Henry Winston: Profile of a U.S. Communist” by Nikolai Mostovets (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983) can be found a recounting of a historic speech by Henry Winston at the 15th Convention of the CPUSA which was held in Harlem. The speech was later developed into a pamphlet entitled “What it means to be a Communist.”

Mostovets tells us:

“In his speech, Henry Winston denounced some Party leaders who were showing bureaucratic inclinations. He especially elaborated on the work Communists were to conduct in the unions. Party members were to educate the working-class politically, organize the unorganized and secure a close interrelationship between the economic and the political aspects of working-class struggle. Winston stressed that economic struggle alone led to opportunism and collaboration with the monopolies. That was important because recently some left and Communist union leaders and activists have forgotten the importance of political struggle and been caught in the quagmire of opportunism.

Winston also touched on the major aspects of the Party’s cadre policy. he emphasize the importance of establishing and maintaining close contact between the party leadership and rank-and-file union members: ‘the job of leadership is not alone to guide and direct the work of others-it is also necessary to learn… from the members and the workers. Separation from the membership, from the workers can result only in bureaucracy, and placing oneself above the Party, above the interests of the workers.

‘Secondly, it is necessary to show the utmost vigilance and noting and checking the corrupting influences of our present-day society on the thinking and living habits of some comrades, to expose these influences in the interests of the comrade himself, but primarily in the interest of the party as a whole.

‘Thirdly, it is necessary to eliminate all self complacency, cliquish and ‘family circle’ atmosphere in relationship between Communists, especially rooting out all elements of false praise and flattery. For, as one wise comrade put it, flattery corrupts not only the flattered but the flatterer as well. Fourthly, it is necessary to apply criticism and self-criticism in the molding of Party cadres. Criticism and self-criticism are not to be applied on occasions-on holidays-so to speak. They must be applied daily, as indispensable weapons in the examination of the work of our Party and the individual cadres… Only by learning the lessons from mistakes can our Party cadres develop Communist methods, habits, and qualities of leadership.

‘Finally, only those leaders can withstand the pressures of enemy ideology, can relentlessly fight against opportunism in practice, who constantly strive to master Marxism Leninism-the great liberating science of the working-class which alone gives us the confidence in the inevitable victory of the working-class, headed by its Communist vanguard. Those who see only backwardness, immobility and disunity in the working-class are bound to ignore the essential truth that it is the working-class that possesses all the necessary qualities to bring about the transformation of society and build Socialism.'” (PPS. 46-47)

At the end of the book, there are several tributes to Henry Winston:

“The Soviet people know and deeply respect Henry Winston, a staunch revolutionary and Marxist scholar, a sincere friend of the USSR and other socialist countries, and a dedicated champion of friendship between the Soviet and the American people, of peace throughout the world.

On February 4, 1977 the Learned Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of US and Canadian studies conferred a doctorate honoris causa on Henry Winston. Pravda wrote in this connection: ‘Henry Winston, a prominent figure in the international communist movement, has been awarded this degree for his outstanding contribution to the national liberation struggle theory, for his profound scholarly analysis of practical revolutionary struggle by the working people of the United States for a democratic and social transformation of society, against imperialism and racial discrimination.’

Henry Winston was in Moscow during the 26th Congress of the CPSU is a member of the CP USA delegation.

Upon his return to the United States he declared: ‘I am proud that I have witnessed a historic Congress. The Soviet Communists have advanced a program of further raising the people’s well-being and a comprehensive platform of struggle for peace, détente and disarmament. Only this road of concrete and constructive negotiations and accords to curb the arms race can save mankind from the threat of nuclear catastrophe. This isn’t glaring contradiction to the policies of the current Republican administration. The latter not only dooms millions of Americans to poverty and unemployment but also pushes the world to the brink of catastrophe accelerating war preparations and fomenting anti-Soviet hysteria. Common sense demands acceptance of the Soviet proposals. Today, we American Communists view efforts to publicize and explain the new Soviet peace initiatives to our people as one of our foremost tasks.’

On April 2, 1981 Henry Winston turned 70 years old. The Central committee of the CPSU sent him the following message to mark the occasion:

‘Dear Comrade Henry Winston,

‘The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union since you warm fraternal greetings and heartfelt congratulations on your 70th birthday.

‘You are well known as a prominent leader of the US Communist Party who has devoted all the long years of his sociopolitical activities to a courageous struggle for the interests of the working class and all the working people of his country, against racism and reaction, for genuine equality, democracy and social progress. Your unwavering loyalty to the ideals of Marxism Leninism and proletarian internationalism has gained you prestige with the world Communist movement. The Soviet people value highly your tireless efforts in the name of peace, disarmament, understanding and peaceful cooperation between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union.

‘We wish you, dear Comrade Winston, good health and success in your work for your people, peace and progress.’…

Henry Winston received messages of congratulations from other Communist parties, progressive organizations and individuals. Among them was a message from Fidel Castro:

‘On your 70th birthday, we wish to extend greetings from our Party and reiterate the admiration of our people feel for a life dedicated to the Communist cause.

‘We Cuban Communists heard in your voice the message of solidarity from the most just people in North America at the Second Congress of our Party. We wish you knew success in your indefatigable struggle for social justice and peace.’

And another message:

‘On the occasion of your 70th birthday, please accept the Portuguese Communists’most sincere wishes of good health, fruitful work and personal happiness, as well as our tribute to a lifetime wholly dedicated to the cause of liberation of the working people.
Alvaro Cunhal
General Secretary
Communist Party of Portugal’…
Gus Hall… had written in an article to mark Winston’s 60th birthday: ‘the bonds that unite us are something more than political ties. We are brothers in regard each other with particular wants, typical of soldiers fighting for a, and in just cause. In this sense we happen to represent the common destiny which unites white and black workers in a close brotherhood of class, in a union for national liberation and working-class struggle. They are involved together in a single worldwide revolutionary process which embraces all nations and all races and which is aimed at freedom and prosperity for all mankind.'” (pps. 130-132)

Two more tributes can be found on the back cover of this book:

“The life of Comrade Henry Winston is a proud page in the history of our Party. It is an illuminating page in the history of the working-class, in the history of Black Americans fighting against racial and national oppression. It is a page of leadership, of courage, of dedication. It is commitment to the full measure.”
Gus Hall
General Secretary, CPUSA

“The spirit that animates Henry Winston infuses the courageous and beautiful people who are fighting imperialism. It is the spirit of people who know deep down within themselves which side they are on, and who know, to, that their side-our side-is invincible.”
John Abt