Response to Sam Webb’s paper on “A party of socialism for the 21st century…”

Is the CPUSA a Communist Party in name only?

By the Houston Communist Party

The Houston Communist Party met on 2/6/11 for its monthly meeting. Naturally one of the most important points of discussion was Sam Webb’s new vision of the party as presented in his recent article “A party of socialism in the 21st century: What it looks like, what it says, and what it does.” Most found the document confusing and contradictory. Confusion and contradiction are the classic tools used by the right wing to discredit Communists and the working class.

Many important points were made by club members. One of the first questions that came up was “Do xenophobia, nihilism, anti-communism and blatant self-destruction have any place in the program of the CPUSA?” These are fairly serious charges and should be examined one by one.

Since this revisionist document is the opinion of an individual party member and is not the party program, we will post a critical analysis of this article.

Xenophobia

Certainly Webb is correct that there is more opposition to anything “foreign” from the nutty nuts on the right. Does this mean that the party should capitulate to this way of thinking and formally jettison anything that might be taken as “foreign” from our ideology? He maintains that “Leninism” might be seen as “foreign” and should be removed from our ideological positions. From this logic, also Marxism, socialism, a revolutionary party and class struggle might be seen as “foreign” concepts and should be expunged as well. What does this line of thinking mean for internationalism, support for immigrant’s rights struggles as well as world peace? Back in the 60’s, the John Birch Society used to put up billboards along the highways demanding “Get U.S. out of the U.N.” Should the party embrace this thinking since the right wing view it as “pure” and not “foreign”?

One has to wonder what would have become of the great U.S. civil rights struggle led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. if he had decided to abandon Mahatma Gandi, since he was “foreign”? What if the leaders of the Haymarket uprising had been run off since they were German socialists and anarchists and were therefore “foreign”? What if Fidel Castro had sidelined Che Guevara since he was “foreign”? What if organized labor in this country silenced Joe Hill since he was “foreign”? By the way, Marx and Engels are just as “foreign” as Lenin and are equally detested by the wealthy elite.

If Leninism is seen as “foreign”, then that is a major failure of the party to educate people about what Leninism means.
Dropping Leninism from the party in any kind of formal way is not only dishonest, and self destructive but is “foreign” to the thinking of most party members.

Nihilism

The nasty stench of nihilism can also be detected in Webb’s long discourse which he, himself, describes by stating “Readers will surely note inconsistencies, contradictions, silences and unfinished ideas.” The scary part is that top CPUSA leadership seems to have finished their ideas on the party and intends to finish the party. Webb damns our party ideology (the same ideology on which a great history of working class struggle has been built) as “too rigid and formulaic, our analysis too loaded with questionable assumptions, our methodology too undialectical, our structure too centralized, and our policies drifting from political realities.” These are serious charges and Webb fails to back up his thinking with any facts. It appears that Webb is advocating nihilistic idealism and rejecting materialism. Adolf Hitler, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly could not have slammed the party more effectively.

Webb’s nihilism does not stop here. He predicts war, climate disaster and all manner of apocalyptic catastrophes which could prevent any forward movement of the working class. He certainly does not provide any answers as to how working people can fight back against these overwhelming forces. He opines “After all, there is no direct or inevitable path to socialism. Nor is the working class going to simply ‘rise up’ at some appointed time and fight for a society of justice.” With a CPUSA cowering in the corner, where can the working class seek leadership and guidance?

From this line of thinking should our new slogans be “Workers of the world, come to your senses! Your chains are better than starvation!”? and/or “What do we want? Nothing! When do we want it? Whenever!”

Anti-Communism

Again, it is appalling that the ugly face of anti-communism appears at our top leadership. One Houston member pointed out “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.” Webb is using the ideological weapons of right wing opportunism and liquidationism to mount an anti-communist assault on the party of the working class.
We have theory as a guide to action based on scientific socialist principles discovered by Marx, Engels and Lenin as well as others. The uniqueness of our party is that our theory (Marxism Leninism) is interconnected, interdependent and coherent as well as flexible and fluid to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world. We have a method of analysis (dialectical materialism), practice (historical materialism) and organizational principles (democratic centralism – democracy and unity of action). Without theory, we have no vision that is based on sound foundations, leaving us to flop around aimlessly. Without a path forward based on material conditions, we grow frustrated and ineffective. Without organizational cohesiveness, our force is greatly diminished, easily split and made to work at counter purposes. What Webb proposes is to discard those elements which make us a revolutionary party.

While most of the article was an attack against an imaginary left sectarianism, the most effective disruption of the CPUSA program has been from the right. This is easily demonstrated in our history – Jay Lovestone, Earl Browder, Committees of Correspondence, etc. Have we forgotten Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Yakovlev? How did their “new ideas” work out for them? Gorbachev and Yakovlev are some of the most despised people in the former Soviet Union. It is often said that those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Have we learned nothing from the experience in the former Soviet Union where opportunists in the party gutted the CPSU until there was nothing much left to defend?
Liquidationism is the elimination of the party of the working class as an independent force, gutting its theory and purpose and blurring the lines of fundamental class conflict.

Webb has propelled the CPUSA onto the slippery slope of right wing opportunism, reformism, economism and finally liquidation of the party

Self Destruction

Continuing along the road chosen by Webb will only lead to the self destruction of the party. We are reminded of the boiling frog analogy. If a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out and save itself. This is what happened when Earl Browder proposed dismantling the party. Webb is being much more subtle and potentially much more effective in destroying the party. If you place a frog in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.”

The future of the party and the working class

Obviously, anti-communism, xenophobia, and nihilism are poison to a working class party of action. It is up to the members, friends and allies as well as local clubs and district organizers to recognize the self-destructive path we are on and take concrete steps to get us back on course. Obviously, the tactics and strategies we use to fight the class struggle cannot be identical to those strategies and tactics used by Lenin, and Stalin. But to renounce them because the right wing might find them distasteful is unforgiveable. We must not throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. It is up to us to educate working people about our history and what our theory has to offer them in their everyday struggles against the real enemy, capitalism. If we renounce Stalin completely, then we are saying that his contributions to the defeat of German fascism and Japanese imperialism were wrong and we are renouncing the fact that he was a powerful ally of the U.S. in those global struggles.

Since the left and organized labor are in disarray, our party needs to seize the moment and reclaim our role as the vanguard party of the working class. No one is going to award it to us just because we’re good looking. We are going to have to earn it through struggle and victories for the working class.

We, the Houston Communist Party, call on all Communists to demand an extraordinary National Convention to decide the future of the party. We are calling for a people’s trial of the Webb faction for its blatant and open betrayal of our Party Program and Constitution, mismanagement of party resources, disassembling of the party organizational structure as well as advocating right wing opportunism and efforts to liquidate the party. Such a trial should be easy to carry out since Webb and his small group of cronies have been very public about their treachery against the CPUSA. If found guilty of crimes against the working class and the Communist Movement, they should be unceremoniously removed from office and the control of party resources should be wrenched out of their grasp. It is time to close this humiliating chapter of CPUSA history and move forward with a fully rejuvenated party.

By James Thompson and Arthur Shaw

Sam Webb’s latest article “Class and democratic struggles in a volatile time” analyzes what he sees as the current situation in U.S. politics and prescribes the direction for the CPUSA to follow. Under one subtitle, he describes his vision of the “Role of the Communist Party” by stating “Our role is to assist labor and its allies to fight more consciously and strategically across every front of struggle.” We’ll revisit this tactic later in this paper. One of his “radical” proposals is a new ad campaign on Facebook.

Since this is the work of an individual party member and is not an expression of the party program, we will respond critically to the paper’s assertions.

Let’s face reality about our party. After all, a number of International Communist Parties have heaped criticism on the CPUSA and condemned its leadership for its revisionism and opportunism. A number of clubs around the country have also criticized leadership and even called for corrective action. It is natural that given the building pressure, leadership would want to conceal its intentions and attempt to hide and run. However, as they say, “you can’t hide and you can’t run.” Leadership should immediately respond to international criticism so that party members will know where our party is headed. Party members need clarity, but Webb’s paper muddies the waters.

Let’s look at some of the major points.

Occupy Wall Street

Webb makes the point that OWS does not have a specific set of demands. This is the big lie that is being repeated by countless talking heads on the mainstream media. Instead of simply regurgitating this right wing claptrap, the Huffington Post does an admirable job of analyzing the OWS demands http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat/occupy-wall-street_b_1089079.html  .

Working America, an AFL-CIO affiliate organization, proposes demands as follows:

“Tax Wall Street for gambling with our money. Pass the financial speculation tax.

Support Education. Put teachers back in classrooms and ease the crippling burden of student debt.

Keep working families in their homes. Pass a mortgage relief plan that puts the needs of homeowner above the greed of mortgage bankers.

End too big to fail. Rein in the big banks NOW and hold the people who caused the financial crisis accountable.

Fair share of taxes from the 1%. End the Bush tax cuts for the 1% and close corporate tax loopholes.

Businesses should invest in jobs. Corporations must stop sitting on their profits and start hiring again here in America.

Extend unemployment insurance. Millions of Americans are still out of work, and unemployment insurance is a vital lifeline.

End corporate control of our democracy. Abolish “corporate personhood” and restore full voting rights to real people?”

If CPUSA leadership was doing its job, it might propose demands to include:

End all imperialist wars and bring the troops home.

With 58% of Federal Discretionary Spending going to the U.S. military, it is no wonder that there is no money for health care and education and rebuilding our infrastructure. Stop provocations of Iran, North Korea, China and other nations. Drastically reduce the military budget and redirect funds to support working people.

Pass the Employee Free Choice Act right away. Pass further legislation to facilitate expansion of unions and increase their power.

Expand Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid. Implement Universal Health Care immediately.

Pass laws to outlaw hate speech, racism, sexism and all other forms of exploitation and oppression of working people. End wage discrepancies between men and women and between various ethnic and racial groups.

End the blockade of Cuba and expand trade with one of our closest neighbors. Demand release of the Cuban 5 immediately and facilitate their return to Cuba.

Shorten the work week and provide equal pay.

Put the working class on a fast track to become the ruling class. Educate people about socialism and worker’s democracy.

Webb further opines that Labor, although supportive of OWS generally, diverges from the movement in that it “sees the defeat of the Republican Party – the party of right wing extremism – as the critical terrain on which the class struggle will be fought.” He fails to mention that some in the leadership of the major trade unions are openly discussing the possibility of withdrawing union financial support to the Democrats because of their anti-union, anti-labor policies. Probably when Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff under President Obama, declared “F… the AFL-CIO!” he did not create a warm fuzzy feeling among trade unionists. Throwing the Employee Free Choice Act under the bus probably did not create much enthusiasm for the Democrats among union members or working people in general.

According to Webb, the greatest fear of the 1% is that the 99% might vote on Election Day. If the choice is between tweedledum and tweedledee cheerleaders for capitalism, what difference could it possibly make to working women and men. The 1% could only see a high voter turnout as an affirmation of their power. What could be more chilling to them would be if the working class organized a party of working people to fight for the rights of the 99%. This would require leadership who pushed for training in electoral political struggle so that working people achieved a mastery of the technological skills and grassroots organizing necessary to win a political campaign. If CPUSA leadership really wanted to chill the 1%, they would provide the support and direction for Communists to run and win political campaigns.

Strategic direction of the CPUSA

The report briefly considers the possibility of a change in strategic direction but then immediately dismisses this possibility. It holds up the bogey man of the right wing and even lists the dire consequences Webb conjures up if the right wing controlled all three branches of the government.

He predicts:

“The right to organize into a union would be annulled.

The unemployed would be left out to dry.

Abortions would become a criminal offense.

Education and health care would become a privilege.

The social safety net would disappear.

Discrimination would become the law of the land.

Global warming would accelerate to the point of irreversibility.

Prison populations would expand still further.

The projection of military power would become the favored instrument of foreign policy.”

What he fails to understand is that the election of Democrats in the legislative and executive branches of government has failed to halt or even slow down the process leading to the above mentioned social disasters. In fact, under the Obama administration the process has been speeding along with no brakes in sight. In reality, the only items that he mentions above that have not already happened are the annulment of the right to organize, and criminalizing abortion totally. Everything else is already in place.

Following from his previous uninspiring thinking, Webb fails to envision any leadership role for the CPUSA, no matter how small. While embracing the Democratic Party as the answer to all evil, he fails to recognize some problems with that capitalist party. The Democratic Party is not a monolithic structure devoted to the interests of the working class. On the other hand, the CPUSA should be a monolithic organization which is devoted to the interests of the working class. By hitching the CPUSA wagon to the Democrats, Webb weakens the party and annuls the independence of the party and nullifies any positive political contribution our party might make.

He fails to recognize that the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party, is a very diverse, heterogeneous organization made up of people primarily committed to capitalism ranging on the political spectrum from the extreme right wing to left leaning liberals. It is made up of some people who supported George Wallace as well as people who support Dennis Kucinich. It is made up of people who despise unions as well as people devoted to unions.

Webb makes an important statement when he says “The main obstacle to social progress remains right wing extremism and its corporate backers. It casts a reactionary shadow over the whole political process.”

However, he equates the right wing with the Republicans when many right wingers can be found among the Democrats. The CPUSA position of supporting the Democrats uncritically and proposals to change the name of the party and drop Leninism as “foreign” could be considered “right wing.” Parties and candidates should be judged based on their current programs, policies and actions, not according to their names.

He goes on: “This election is not about choosing a lesser evil. Politics is not a morality play and the Obama administration and Democrats are not evil. It is about our nation’s future: are we going to move in a progressive-democratic or right wing anti-democratic authoritarian direction?”

Here we have an ideological dead end leading straight to idealism. Webb conjures up images of hobgoblins, sprites and demons to justify his claims. He also uses words to suggest that “democrats are progressive” and the people who oppose democrats are “anti-democratic authoritarian(s).” This obfuscation sets up an idealistic smokescreen to conceal the “anti-democratic authoritarian” tendencies we have seen from the Obama administration and right wing democrats. It is also a splitting tactic that will alienate progressives from the CPUSA.

Progressives are not stupid and can detect unreserved, blind, slavish, subservient, homage to the Democratic Party by CPUSA leadership. Many progressives are concerned about the expanding wars and increasing deaths of innocent people in our armed services and deaths of the people in the countries which are attacked by our military. Mindless allegiance to the Democratic Party will stop them in their tracks if they are considering allying with the CPUSA.

The CPUSA should completely redirect its policy. As an independent party with a Marxist Leninist tradition, we should remain firmly grounded in science and wholeheartedly reject the nihilism, idealism and revisionism/opportunism advocated by national CPUSA leadership.

Most people who want to work for a better future for all recognize that the electoral struggle, even though it occurs within a bourgeois dominated political system, is one of the most important arenas for struggle. However, we must reject the diabolical idealism of Webb and his supporters and affirm dialectical materialism as our methodology in political struggle. Instead of beseeching mythical political entities that may well be poised to throw working people under the bus, we must carefully examine each political candidate and view them through the age old filter “Which side are you on?” If their record and views and positions are in the interest of the working class, we should support them as long as they support working people. If they change direction, we should sharply criticize them on each position they take that is not in the interest of working people. The same test must be applied to Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and any other political party candidates including Communists. If they fail to get back on track, that is a sign they have sold out to the capitalists and they must be repudiated and defeated. Communists should not be hypocrites and should oppose reactionary Democrats just as vigorously as reactionary Republicans. The working people do not need a Communist Party in name only.

Only by sticking with the scientific methods of dialectical materialism can we move forward in our efforts to support the working class and build our party. Anything less will result in confusion and a reduction in the power and prestige of the party. Most party members have seen enough of that in the last few years.

So instead of posing the question “Are we going to move in a progressive-democratic or right wing anti-democratic authoritarian direction?” we should be asking “are we going to fight for the working class or are we going to fight for increasing imperialistic wars of occupation and decimation of worker’s wages and benefits, the social infrastructure, as well as the right to organize.”

Failure to lead

The CPUSA has abandoned many of the cornerstones of Marxist Leninist ideology. These important concepts include: dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism and the Communist Party as the vanguard party of the working class.
Webb’s first statement about the role of the party is “Our role is to assist labor and its allies to fight more consciously and strategically across every front of struggle.” Again, the idea of leadership or of a vanguard party is completely lost.

Webb states:

“In other words, broad unity is the path out of this crisis and the fight for such unity is a distinguishing hallmark of communists. As Marx and Engels wrote long ago, we have no interests separate and apart from the movement and our foremost concern is with the unity of the movement as a whole.”

It is certainly understood that our interests are congruent with the interests of the working class. However, it is our duty to educate, organize and lead the working class in fighting for their interests. Working people are so distracted by the culture of confusion created by the bourgeoisie that it is hard to chart a path out of the darkness. We working people need all the help we can get and a vanguard party could fill a gap in the direction of struggle, organizing opposition and clarifying the current situation in which we find ourselves. Working people don’t need a CPUSA leadership that advocates uncritical support of a President that has expanded wars and is caving to right wing demands to reduce Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. CPUSA passivity and failure to speak out on a wide range of issues is a disservice to the people of the United State as well as the international working class movement. Workers need a vanguard party and the CPUSA could be such a party. Failure to assume our historical, independent role will only lead to further decline of the party in terms of membership and prestige among workers.

Fighting for party unity is essential, but this does not mean uniting uncritically with reactionaries. Fighting for party unity should refer to fighting for unity among the working class and the party to fight for our interests.

Fighting for the rights and interests of working people is what we are about. If the Communist Party firmly and unreservedly moves in that direction, we cannot fail since we will be fighting for the vast majority. Once the 99% recognizes that the Communist Party is their party, the party will be propelled forward at a breathtaking speed. However, we have to break our ties to reactionaries in order to move forward.

Instead of continuing with the “circle the wagon” mentality of national leadership of the CPUSA, why not reach out to our allies for advice on where to go from here. Has anyone in leadership had a conversation recently with Michael Parenti? Has anyone in leadership proposed a meeting or conversation with the parties that have sharply criticized CPUSA? What can be learned from the criticism? Has leadership conducted any kind of poll of membership to seek advice on what direction the party should take? We know that discussion at the last convention was severely limited and criticisms of major party documents were ignored and censored.

Direction of the party

In sum, we propose

1. That the CPUSA reaffirm its allegiance to the working class and the independent role of the Communist Party, not to bourgeois political parties.

2. That the CPUSA embrace Marxism-Leninism as its philosophical foundation.

3. That the CPUSA renounce imperialism and all imperialistic wars.

4. That the CPUSA embark on a bold program of education of our membership and allies.

5. That the CPUSA answer the criticisms from international parties and local clubs of its ideology, tactics and strategy.

6. That the CPUSA embrace the concepts of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e fight for the working class in its efforts to become the ruling class and for the CPUSA to assume its historical role as the vanguard party of the working class.

7. That the CPUSA develop a means of screening candidates for political office based on their positions and policies vis a vis the interests of the working class. This could be similar to the COPE committees of the unions, but should be different in that it should have an internationalist and anti-imperialist perspective.

8. That the CPUSA develop concrete methods for supporting the development of local clubs. This would include providing the names of people who contact the party to the local clubs, but also listening to the concerns of local clubs about local conditions as well as national and international concerns.

9. That the CPUSA reorganize our party press and provide a national paper for use in organization efforts.

10. That the CPUSA institute an organizing department made up of people committed to the growth of the party. Focus should be on organizing the unorganized and reaching out to low income neighborhoods and people.

11. That the CPUSA be more transparent in disclosing financial resources to membership and provide a clear direction on how these resources can be used to promote the interests of the working class.

12. That the CPUSA denounce, cease and desist from engaging in revisionist, opportunist tactics which devastated the party under Earl Browder and is having the same effect on the party today.

13. Fully support democracy within the party. Efforts should be made to clarify who is a member of the party. Once established, membership as a whole should elect officers of the party. There should be a clear path defined so that the membership as a whole can recall officers if they fail to discharge their duties properly according to the constitution of the party.

14. Elected officers should uphold the constitution of the party.

15. A national message board should be instituted so that all party members can discuss issues and the direction of the party without censorship and suppression of free speech.

Let’s fight for more democracy in the party! We have nothing to lose but our alienation!

PHill1917@comcast.net

By Thomas Kenny

How does a good Communist tell that the Party line is wrong?

When the line fails to hold any explanatory power.

When its assumptions no longer conform to obvious facts.

When it misidentifies the main enemy (as a party, the GOP) , not as a class ( finance capital, in other words, Wall Street) .

When, objectively, it steers Party activity toward infliction of damage on real anti-monopoly allies (Occupy) .

When it abandons a tough-minded analysis of class rule veiled by the US two-major-party duopoly and, instead, resorts to demagogic rants against Republicans as if they were the unique, Satanic carriers of the ultra right virus.

According to Fred Dicker, a conservative but well-informed veteran Albany, New York journalist, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_jitters_threaten_cuomo_tax_cut_oLfX8F1FPEPV3lfqyJ11NK upstate New York Republicans don’t want to let the “millionaires’ tax” expire.

Dicker states the Republicans may fight Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who wants the tax to expire, and who is demonstrably in the pocket of Wall Street lobbyists (example “the Committee to Save New York”) on most issues, especially tax and spending policy.

The truth is concrete, and this is a concrete illustration of the incorrectness of the Party line: “unity-against-the-ultra-right-support-the-Democrats,”

Here in New York, the Democratic governor, Cuomo, is the prime representative of Wall Street power and intransigence. Almost all trade union leaders in the state believe this and say so privately. Some now say it publicly.

For this reason such formulations as “Objectively, the 2012 election is critical to achieve any and all of the goals of Occupy…” is a completely wrong assessment if it means “Elect Democrats to save us from the ultra right” or “work for Obama.”

Objectively, corporate Democrats such as Cuomo and Obama are on the opposite side of the anti-monopoly Occupy Wall Street movement and its offshoots, whatever verbal games Democratic politicians play to appease the party’s mass base. That base, by a huge majority, supports the goals of Occupy.

According to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and reliable journalists, Obama’s Homeland Security agency is coordinating mayoral evictions of Occupy movements by big city police.

The tragedy is the present Party line aligns the CPUSA with monopoly capital, grouped around Obama, against a promising new anti-monopoly movement, Occupy.

Defenders of the Party line have shifted their ground. The line can’t be defended openly. No one in his right mind thinks the likes of Cuomo or Obama are leaders of the people’s movements.

Instead, the new defense is a hysterical litany of the horrors of the ultra right, as if that settled the matter.

Far from it. The ultra right is indeed horrible. But such a litany omits the reality that corporate Democrats such as Cuomo and Obama — at their own pace and in their own way — are imposing the agenda of Wall Street and the ultra right.

Example: The present US Administration is demanding cuts in the social safety net which the US working class movement, including the Communist movement, won by fierce struggle over the last eight decades.

What kind of Party aligns itself with the destroyers of some of its noblest achievements?

That question should give pause to anyone.

Written by Bill Preston

From the remarks of Bill Preston, President AFGE Local 17, at a November 18 panel sponsored by U.S. Labor for Friendship with Cuba and the Metro DC Coalition to Free the Cuban Five.

Via: http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/cuba/where-the-99-kicked-out-the-1-percent-1261.html

Cuba is a country where the 99% actually took over and kicked the 1% out of power.

While we in the imperialist countries learn about current developments in Cuba’s socialist economy, we cannot forget the internationalist duties of those of us who reside in the land of U.S. imperialism:
We cannot “forget even for one moment,” Lenin argued, that “our” imperialists stand for the exploitation, oppression, and annexation of the nations and peoples who form the greatest masses of humanity, in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

For someone who lives in the U.S. who thinks they support socialism to fail to do this—to forget U.S. imperialism’s historical and ongoing rapacious desires to exploit, oppress, and, yes, to annex Cuba—makes that U.S. person, as Lenin would put it, “an abettor of imperialism in practice.”

In Lenin’s time the struggle for the right of self-determination within the ranks of the Second International centered mainly on the advocacy and fight for freedom of secession for oppressed countries. “Without this,” wrote Lenin, “there can be no internationalism.” (“The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up,” 1916.)

Today the struggle for the right of self-determination includes the right of socialist countries, like Cuba, where the working class is the ruling class, to independent development free from imperialism.

Cuba’s freedom from foreign imperialist control, its right to develop its socialist economy in the way Cuba determines is in her sovereign best interests, is inextricable from consistent internationalism today. By supporting Cuba’s rights actively, we help fulfill our internationalist obligation to struggle for the right of self-determination.

By Zoltan Zigedy

Via: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

When the so-called “dismal science” – economics — resorts to hollow metaphors like “contagion,” “belt-tightening,” “toxic,” or “tsunami” to describe economic facts and events, one might reasonably wonder if it represents dismay more than science. For sure, practitioners in this field eschew metaphors for technical jargon in their narrow academic studies that have earned many prizes and peer acclaim. But these studies have proven singularly unhelpful in explaining or resolving the four years of chaos that has befallen the global economy.

Thus, it comes as a surprise that those who are paid handsomely to think for us are hailing the appointment of two professional economists to run Greece and Italy. Reflecting these changes, stock markets and other market indicators also reacted happily. Aside from the fact that — over the course of a weekend — the democratic content of two bourgeois democracies were exposed as shams, aside from the fact that the appointments were largely dictated by forces outside of the two countries, it is incomprehensible that two economists—one a former vice-president of the European Central Bank and the other a former European Union Commissioner – will do anything other than continue subservience to the neo-liberal agenda. In effect, Greece and Italy have been put into receivership by the European Union.

That receivership promises no new approach, no retreat from austerity for the masses, no lessening of the slavish commitment to capital, and no defiance of financial markets.

“Centrifugal Forces”

There are properties of economic actors that exert pressure, propelling them away from each other, confounding collaboration and sowing antagonism. Marx identified these properties as intrinsic to capitalism. The properties of individual self-interest, competition and exploitation are inseparable from the social relations that define capitalism in all of its forms. From the small business owner to the CEO of a mega-corporation, from the Chamber of Commerce to the union of nation-states, the opportunity for gaining an advantage always stands in the way of any real, lasting unity between agents big and small. Within the confines of the capitalist mode of production, pressures are always latent to fracture or dissolve combinations or collectives.

Yet economic actors are wise enough to recognize the advantages that may arise from combination and cooperation; a larger capitalist enterprise enjoys an advantage over a smaller one: a big fish eats the little one. On the level of nation-states, a larger nation, or a federation of states, better competes against its rivals. Thus, they strive to advance their interests by striking some measure of unity with some against still other competitors.

Frederick Engels, in the seminal work of Marxist political economy, explained this dialectic well:
Each smaller group of competitors cannot but desire the monopoly for itself against all others. Competition is based on self-interest, and self-interest in turn breeds monopoly. In short, competition passes over into monopoly. On the other hand, monopoly cannot stem the tide of competition—indeed, it itself breeds competition… F. Engels, A Critique of Political Economy

It is this dialectical dance between immediate individual self-interest and self-interest promoted through opportune unity that explains the unstable existence of the European Union. Established as a bloc to compete more favorably against the economic might of the US and Japan, a senior partner in the Cold War rather than a compliant underling, the European community was a last-ditch effort to restore prestige and power to the old, formerly dominating European empires. Devastated by war and in the shadow of the new, post-war great powers, Euro-leaders hoped to forge a unity that would create a formidable entity capable of holding its own, or even overwhelm in the competition between imperialist blocs. Later, the bloc was the European answer to the post-Soviet international landscape that saw other economic powers like Brazil, Russia, India and China join the global competition for markets, resources, and ultimately profits.

In the better part of the twentieth century, imperialist competition led invariably to war; new economic, geographic and political arrangements were settled militarily. By contrast, the European Union was perhaps the most ambitious attempt at a voluntary and peaceful unification of capitalist states to secure economic advantage in global markets. But because each of its constituent states was in widely different circumstances and at uneven levels of development when accepting membership, they had widely divergent goals. The more economically successful states saw preferred markets for their products and downward pressure on their labor force from low-wage members. The poorer countries foresaw better financial terms, investments, and consumer spending from the newly adopted, successful Euro-siblings. In short, all the members – rich and poor – acquiesced to the Union for their own self-interest.

Today, these divergent interests are in immediate danger of destroying the EU. The only solution possible is outside of the logic of self-interest and individual advantage, that is, outside of the logic of capitalism. As Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini put it, in an otherwise confused, cynical op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal (Whose Economy Has It Worst? 11-12/13-11), “[the solution] implies a gradual transfer of wealth from the core economies to the periphery, a ‘transfer union’ from rich to poorer states.” Put plainly, the future of the EU rests on a program of affirmative action that will equalize the disparity in wealth and economic development between the European haves and the have-nots.

Instead, policy makers have resolved to punish the poorer states for being poor. The devastating austerity programs imposed by the EU, The European Central Bank and the IMF drive Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and soon Italy, into even greater depths of poverty. The inequalities in the EU generated greater inequalities and now the richer states propose to solve the financial crisis of the Union by proposing even greater inequalities. There is no affirmative action in this scheme.

Contrast this with the other twentieth-century experiments in unification: the union of republics constituting the USSR and the post-war CMEA project uniting Eastern European countries (and later, Cuba). For most of the twentieth century the USSR followed a Leninist policy of affirmative action regarding the poorer constituent republics of the USSR and likewise for post-war reconstruction of Eastern Europe (excepting the GDR which paid a heavy price in war reparations). Growth rates in the poorer republics and Eastern Europe’s former backwaters usually exceeded the rates of the Russian Republic. Most of these countries achieved levels of development on a par with or exceeding that of top European powers, measured by telling socioeconomic indicators: education, life expectancy, access to health care, culture, social securities, leisure, etc. And these achievements arrived in a short time.

Tellingly, the breakdown of Leninist policies during the Gorbachev era, the move to basing trade and aid policies on international market forces led to disintegration and the dissolving of this hard-won unity, another example of the centrifugal forces spawned by markets and the emergence of unequal, individualistic policies. Few will recall the disastrous effects of this policy shift, especially upon Cuba, and well before the demise of the Soviet Union. Indeed, these changes contributed powerfully to that demise.

With justification, one might conclude that unification – mutually beneficial combinations of national entities—is extremely unlikely to be successful with capitalist social and economic relations intact. Conversely, socialist social and economic relations, linked with an internationalist perspective hold the only real, lasting opportunity for unity among diverse states.

These same centrifugal forces gnaw at the twenty-first century effort to achieve economic integration among several progressive, anti-imperialist countries in Latin America. Clearly the European Union model cannot guide this effort. Its success can only come with a concerted effort to overcome the stubborn stance of self-interest and exploitative competitiveness of capitalist social relations.

From this perspective, I wrote in November of 2008:
As with the Great Depression, the economic crisis strikes different economies in different ways. Despite efforts to integrate the world economies, the international division of labor and the differing levels of development foreclose a unified solution to economic distress. The weak efforts at joint action, the conferences, the summits, etc. cannot succeed simply because every nation has different interests and problems, a condition that will become more acute as the crisis mounts… It is highly unlikely that the [European] Union will come up with common solutions. Indeed, the unraveling of the EU is a possibility.

Five months later, and well before Greece became the focus of EU crisis, I wrote:
The EU old guard, led by France and Germany, has adamantly refused to expand financial support for the Eastern European members. The limited aid to the newer members has been mainly exhausted by assistance to Latvia and Hungary. Germany, along with France, the dominant members of the EU, oppose additional EU-wide stimulus. It’s not only Eastern Europe, newly capitalist states that thrived on international loans, but many of the original EU states that are left to their own devices. Spain suffers from the implosion of the construction industry, with delinquent loans and unemployment provoking a banking crisis. A 19% unemployment rate is projected for next year, the highest in the EU. Italy suffers continued stagnation, huge debt, and a broken, corrupted political system – a system that seems incapable of even generating a modest response to the crisis,

Germany has been only too anxious to accept the role as the “big dog” in the EU, dictating most of the terms of Union-wide economic policy. Much as the US assumes that role in the global economy, Germany uses its economic might and relative health to impose its will upon the EU.

Three years later, these assessments and projections have been borne out.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

Works of Frederick Engels 1872
________________________________________
Written: 1872;
Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Republicano;
Source: Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.;
Translated: Robert C. Tucker;
Transcribed: by Mike Lepore.

Via: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
________________________________________

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?

Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.

Let us take by way of example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practiced during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve reaction.

Occupy Houston supporters on 11/17/11

Occupy Houston rally on 11/17/11

By James Thompson

via: www.houstonpeacecouncil.org

HOUSTON – Today, November 17, 2011, Occupy Houston had a massive rally of more than 400 people that marched to a downtown bridge. Along the way was a planned act of civil disobedience in which about 12 people were arrested for obstructing an intersection at Commerce and Travis. Three of the Occupy Houston protesters were union members to include Zeph Capo, Houston Federation of Teachers, Local 2415, Beverly Ortiz, SEIU, Local 1, and Marisol Rodriguez, HOPE, Local 123.

The crowd was large, loud and spirited. It consisted of many organizations to include: Good Jobs-Great Houston, SEIU, Houston Peace and Justice Center, Houston Peace Council, UAW, IBEW, Seafarer’s Union, Harris County AFL-CIO, Houston Interfaith Worker Justice Center, Houston Peace Action and many others.

Participants were quite diverse and included men and women from all racial and ethnic groups. People of faith as well as non-believers were present and worked in a concerted effort to achieve mutual goals.

People were loud in their demands for good jobs, support for public education, police and fire personnel. Demands also focused on fixing our deteriorating infrastructure to include schools and deteriorating bridges across the country.

There was a great deal of support for the American Jobs Act expressed in the lively crowd.

Speakers declared that Occupy Houston is here to stay until the people’s demands are met.

The action in Houston was linked to actions around the country to express solidarity with the two month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The rally and march were peaceful and orderly and everyone showed the utmost respect for each other including the police.

Many people around the country have commented that this is only the beginning of a mighty movement which has the potential to change things for the better for working people in this country and around the world.

PHill1917@comcast.net