Showing posts with label Communist Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communist Party. Show all posts

March 21, 2011

PCV Statement against the military aggression against the Libyan people and the presence of the President of the United States in Latin American territory, CARACAS, 21 MAR. 2011, Tribuna Popular

http://www.pcv-venezuela.org/


CARACAS, 21 MAR. 2011, Tribuna Popular TP .- The Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) rejects the military aggression against the Libyan people and the presence of the President of the United States in Latin American territory, saying that at present the "concern of the people is the struggle for peace and against imperialist aggression. "

This was announced at a press conference,by the national secretary for international relations of the PCV, Latin American Parliament deputy, Carolus Wimmer, who emphasized that "the capitalist ruling-class is once again advancing imperialist aggression in its eagerness to take the energy resources of all our countries. "

The communist leader accused the United States and other members of the Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Resolution No. 1973 of the Security Council of the United Nations (UN), as being on the margin of international law.  "To threaten or attack Libya or any other country with international intervention is totally unjustified," he said.

For the Communist Party of Venezuela indiscriminate aggression on the Libyan people is done with the intention to weaken and to strike at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order to control energy resources.  "We reject such an active attack and join with the mobilizations that are taking place in Caracas against the embassies," said Wimmer.

The PCV supported the proposal made by the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, who proposed a peaceful alternative to foster a commission to mediate in Libya's internal conflict and seek a peaceful solution. This is the only real proposal still not too late for that, "he said.  Wimmer said that the conflict in Libya is a dispute for power, for it is the duty of governments worldwide to help peaceful solutions rather than the military aggression that is now being done indiscriminately as "smart bombs are not able to discriminate between civilians and military. "

"The United Nations was created after World War II, for peace, that is the role it should play and not give permission for war," said the communist leader.  The Party calls on the peoples and governments, to pressure the contending parties in Libya, through dialogue, it seeks a peaceful solution that benefits the vast majority of the Libyan people.

Obama's trip to Latin America seeks to regain control of our resources  For the Communist Party, is no coincidence, nor is it surprising that at the same time that there is military aggression against the Libyan people, the United States President Barack Obama, is making a tour of some Latin American countries.  "As Obama himself declared, has two objectives: One, as representing the interests of multinationals, seeking increased exports of waste products from the United States to our countries and, secondly, ensure that natural resources, energy, water and minerals pass  over under the control of the U.S. government, "said Wimmer.

The PCV called for strengthening the anti-imperialist front and join the protests  As part of this counter-imperialist, the Communist Party of Venezuela called on the Venezuelan people, parties and revolutionary movements to mobilize and strengthen the Anti-imperialist front against U.S. aggression and the aggression of the countries of capitalist Europe, stressing that Venezuela is also targeted by attackers.  In this framework, the PCV called to strengthen and consolidate the Bolivarian revolution against imperialism. "The only defense against assault, is a  people united with the revolutionary process, to successfully confront the media campaigns that seek to divide us," he said Wimmer.

Therefore, the Communists made a new call to accelerate the formation of the Broad Front and National Patriotic Pole, a broad range of all patriotic forces, to agree upon an agenda for collective and unified organization, "this is a urgent task to defend against economic and military aggression, "they said.

Mobilization agenda:

Tuesday March 22 at 12 m, protest against imperialist aggression, the U.S. Embassy.

Thursday, March 24, to express our solidarity with the Libyan people in the Libyan Embassy.

Saturday 26 March, "Day of the Right of peoples to armed rebellion", convened by the Continental Bolivarian Movement (MCB), in the parish on January 23 throughout the day with marches, forums and cultural activities in the Plaza Manuel Marulanda.

May 17, 2010

PASOK (socialist) and New Democracy (conservative) fall in support, Greek communists gain in percentage, Andrew Taylor, May 17, 2010










Recent polling in Greece shows support for the two major political parties,the ruling PASOK (socialist)and New Democracy (conservative), has plummeted over the past month,while there has been an increase in support for left parties, specially for the Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

March 09, 2010

Has the CPUSA Leadership Said "No" to the first significant anti-war marches since Obama planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq War ?








By: Andrew Taylor

The first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war in light of "Communist Party USA 29th National Convention Official Discussion Document: International Issues and US Foreign Policy"

Medea Benjamin of Codepink has written that "...March promises to be a revival of sorts. The ANSWER coalition is gearing up for the first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war....("With 1000 US soldiers dead in Afghanistan, Time to Revive the Anti-war Agenda" http://codepink4peace.org/blog/2010/02/with-1000-us-soldiers-dead-in-afghanistan-time-to-revive-the-anti-war-agenda/)March 20th is a National Day of Action Against the Wars and Occupations. Coordinated actions are planned for cities in other areas of the U.S., as well as the March On The Pentagon in DC. But in the section from the cpusa 29th National Convention Official Discussion Document (one of the main draft political resolutions for the CPUSA convention)on US Foreign Policy extracted below it would seem that such anti-war marches are slammed as counter-productive and divisive ("...it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-people’s movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities." See Document extract below). Can the Webb Leadership of the CPUSA actually be suggesting that American labour, African Americans and US Latinos are indifferent to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Or is the inference that the CPUSA leadership does not presently deem it politically expedient to participate in anti-war protests in the streets of the nation? Isn't the role of a Communist party to lead the struggle against imperialist wars?

What is the CPUSA Leadership's position on Obama's massive military Surge in Afghanistan ? How does the Webb-group leadership of cpusa participate in the struggle for World Peace and against wars undertaken by the Obama Administration ? Can the attribution be true that Webb's leadership group has virtually called off marching against its ruling-class's imperialist wars because these adventures are now led by a Democratic Party administration? Or is the problem the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition's leadership of the March 20th anti-war rally? But anyone who has participated in a few peace marches or rallies over the years is quite accustomed to marching beside people from very different political tendencies ? Is this abstention from marching for peace a principled strategy or tactics?

We look to the following Official document for guidance:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9265/

"Peace movement and its role"

"Some narrow left elements within the peace movement insist on lumping the new [Obama]administration in with the Bush administration, maintaining the same oppositional stance. To be sure, an important task of the peace movement remains opposing and mobilizing against policies that continue the old destructive path, such as the military escalation in Afghanistan. But failure to see the positive developments, even if small, hesitant and inconsistent, and failure to appreciate the significance of the divisions in ruling circles on foreign policy, means missing significant opportunities to build for more and deeper advances. In addition, it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-people’s movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities."

What's going on ?

September 24, 2009

History, American Exceptionalism, and the new US Communist nomenclature, (amended) first posted Sat., May 2, 2009, by Andrew Taylor




I find it quintessentially American that many US theorists from different disciplines and political points on the compass continually try to re-invent America de novo and 'out of nothing'.

Since Cotton Mather, America's theorists seem busy re-packaging and re-stating their 'beacon set upon a hill' - a place utterly unlike (tainted) old Europe and its sinister history. American Protestant Restorationism was one of the powerful theories that posited a focal role in the scheme of world-redemption for the USA, a new work to be performed in an America where the unsullied, primitive church of Christ was to'appear again.'('With signs and wonders following'...)

And many political theorists from the USA have propounded an "American Exceptionalism" in variant forms and from a number of points on the political spectrum, - that is,-(in embryo)the idea that the United States and its people differ from other nations and peoples in its unique type of democracy and political culture, in its destiny to fulfill "a more perfect union". I think of that liberal Democrat stateswoman Madeleine Albright of the Clinton State Department who when referring to the US attacking Iraq, said in a peroration expressive of this political trend: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

Sam Webb leader of the CPUSA certainly is no Madeleine Albright or war-monger in his politics:on the contrary, he is a veteran Communist leader with a forty year honourable record in the US party.. But is there some sort of thematic continuity in his preoccupations with Mrs. Albright's preconceptions, namely the US tendency to separate and re-birth itself from les autres. Sam Webb recently wrote that the newer democratic socialism he is ptoposing is "not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century..."(1) What does Sam Webb's new American socialism consist of, and what implications does it have for the future of the Communist Party, USA?

Are we to gather from his changes that every thing in the past century of Communist revolutionary history is taboo/tainted and so irredeemable ? Is the leadership of the oldest communist party in the USA now averse to the global movement's history and the currents and trends of the communist revolutionary processes in the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba?... It does strike me as bizarre that just 9 years out of the 20th century the leadership of the cpusa is already speaking as though incalculable light years of history separated America from that dark benighted world of Asian and Latin American 20th century revolutions!

It may be that for the current cpusa leadership the maintenance of any historic connection with the historic struggles for socialism in the 20th century is equated with a total capitulation to the most mordant expressions of the Marxist-Leninist movement's errors. Frequent mention of the Leninist tradition of socialism seems to be a thing avoided in the American party leadership's official statements. Therefore international Communists have wondered if Marxism-Leninism is now viewed as an unenlightened or malign bind tying a modern new-style US leadership a hostage to a 20th cen. imported “model”.

But surely only the heirs of a historical movement who have maintained a critical link of solidarity to their past have the right and ability to offer a critique of their for-bearers errors and insights? Severance from one's movement's history is not a creative critique or contribution. But just what is it? What is going on?

Is it an opportunist panic reaction, albeit a panicked red-scare of American domestic production? If so, does it represent a retreat from the whole tradition and corpus of Marxism-Leninism in favour of what Mr Webb terms the socialism "not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century
"?

To be fair, it is also possible Sam Webb is rightly and properly contextualizing Marxism-Leninism to US traditions, social relations, and conditions, a task of contextualization incumbent on every Marxist party leadership. His words and terms may connote something similar to what the Bolivarian revolution(s) mean by "the second wave of socialism — the socialism of the 21st Century."

But adopting a nebulous,new-style socialist horizon equally might might free an uncertain party leadership from responsibility for and to an uneven, controversial political past. Talk of a new socialism in the communist movement has certainly been open to abuse in certain quarters(2). Opportunism is a worry.

In any case, the principle of a radical discontinuity with one's history raises its head once again in US political culture - a breathtaking and worrying feat always fascinating to non-Americans, always astonishing to historians of political cultures!

We shall have to let a future history judge the whole trajectory of the new path taken by the American party. For the present we respectfully ask clarification even while we wish the efforts of the cpusa be crowned with every success in the struggle for the deepening of American democracy, and the future victory of socialism in the USA.


1. "Obama, reform and the role of the left" by Sam Webb, People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/01/09
Webb writes:
"The left's political analysis, solutions to today's pressing crisis and a vision of socialism, rooted in a democratic ethos and practices, and not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century, will receive a fair and favorable hearing from millions of Americans to the degree that left activists are active participants in the main labor and people’s organizations struggling for vital reforms today..."
Sam Webb is national chair of the Communist Party USA

2."On the topic Scientific Socialism: experiences and contributions for its construction" By Miguel Figueroa, in Political Affairs(online),10-26-2006
Figueroa writes:
"Without doubt, the "second wave" of socialism — the socialism of the 21st Century — will distinguish itself from the "first wave" of socialist construction during the last century insofar as the revolutionary forces today have the benefit of analysing and learning from those previous experiences — both their achievements and their failures and distortions — and in this sense we can confidently predict that the "new socialism" will be better, stronger, and more enduring than the previous wave of socialist construction.

But we also know that in some quarters, the expression "new socialism" is advanced to differentiate it in an opportunist way from the "old socialism", to negate not just the errors and failings, but indeed to negate all that was attempted and achieved in the past, and to present in its place a denuded, vulgarised and impoverished conception of socialism, stripped of much of its essential content. We must categorically reject such an approach.

Like many other communist parties, our party went through a protracted period of reflection following the catastrophic overturning of socialism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, culminating in the adoption of our new party program in 2001. On the basis of that analysis and discussion, we placed special emphasis on our evolving conception of socialism, particularly with respect to the democratic content of socialist construction and development. But we also reaffirmed what we believe to be the essential aspects or features of the socialist alternative, namely: (1) that although socialism can and must involve all social forces that can be united in its construction, the process must be led by the working class and its political representatives; (2) that the socialist alternative must be deeply imbued with the principles of equality, social justice and internationalism; (3) that the working class and its allies have the democratic right and also the responsibility to defend socialism in the face of resistance from its class enemies — domestic and external; and (4) that the economic foundation of socialism must be based on the systematic transformation by degrees of ownership relations from private to social
."
Miguel Figueroa has been the leader of the Communist Party of Canada since 1992

3.Miguel Figueroa ibid.,
Figueroa writes:
"Without doubt, the "second wave" of socialism — the socialism of the 21st Century — will distinguish itself from the "first wave" of socialist construction during the last century insofar as the revolutionary forces today have the benefit of analysing and learning from those previous experiences — both their achievements and their failures and distortions..."


June 09, 2009

The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE) – “HADASH”














Hadash (Hebrew: חד"ש‎, lit. New, an acronym for HaHazit HaDemokratit LeShalom VeLeShivion (Hebrew: החזית הדמוקרטית לשלום ולשוויון‎, lit. The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality); Arabic: الجبهة الديمقراطية للسلام والمساواة‎, al-Jabhah al-Dimuqrāṭiyyah

Head of Party: Hadash - Mohammed Barakeh -Born 1955, In shefaram, In the lower Galilee,To parents born in Saforia: married to Dr.Amal Ra'abi,three children live in Shefaram.
Number of Seats in 16th Knesset : 3
Number of Seats in 15th Knesset : 3

A Communist party also known as the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality, Hadash is primarily an Arab party, although it has Jewish candidates in its list. In the previous elections it would be the first time in the party history that Hadash won't have a Jew among its representatives in the Knesset, since he was placed #4 in the list and they got only three seats. Historically, Hadash has favored peace among Jews and Arabs, the withdrawal of Israel from Arab territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The DFPE has three deputies in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) out of 120, a number of mayors, including the city of Nazareth, members of local councils, including Tel Aviv and Haifa and significant representation in the Histadrut (General Federation of Labor). DFPE by its activities and by virtue of its Jewish Arab composition has fortified its position as the main consistent, authentic Left in Israel. In its long years of struggle, it has contributed to changes in public opinion regarding issues of peace and equality, while remaining faithful to the overall interests of the two peoples – Israelis and Palestinians (to one point, it was the only formation which called for two states for two peoples).

The DFPE peace platform, as it appears in its program, is of particular importance these days during the current restoration of the Israeli occupation.
1. Evacuation of all the settlements and Israeli withdrawal from all the Palestinian territories conquered in the June 1967 war [from all of the territories of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.]

2. Recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to establish its own independent and sovereign state in the territories alongside the State of Israel.
The June 4, 1967 lines will become the recognized and secure borders between the State of Israel and the Palestinian State and the Arab countries. The Golan will be returned to Syria and Israel will withdraw to the international border with Lebanon.

3. In the framework of a permanent and stable peace settlement, West Jerusalem will be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and East Jerusalem – the capital of independent Palestine. The accords will ensure cooperation between the two capitals, free access to the Holy Places and free movement between the two parts of the city.

4. A just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees will be secured in accordance with the UN resolutions (which recognize their right to choose between return to their homeland or to receive compensation) and in the framework of the negotiations.

5. The peace provisions will be anchored in agreements that will provide the legal basis for peaceful co-existence between states and non-interference of one state in the affairs of the other.

DFPE condemns the policies of the American government and its president George Bush for extending full and complete backing to the Israeli occupation, which is an act of state terrorism continuing for 35 years.

Hadash (Israel Communist Party)
The party's goals are:
1. To work for a just, comprehensive, and stable Israeli-Arab peace, at the center of which is Israeli-Palestinian peace based on two states for two peoples;

2. To act on behalf of the working class, the collective of workers and common classes in Israel, to raise the standard of living and further the development of the country for the benefit of all its Jewish and Arab citizens;

3. To work to ensure the political and economic independence of Israel;

4. To struggle for the equality of civil and national rights of the Arab population in Israel, to struggle against every manifestation of racism and nationalism, to defend human rights, and to defend democratic freedoms and the equality of ethnic rights;

5. To struggle for equal rights for women and to ensure freedom of conscience and the annulment of any form of religious coercion;

6. To act to establish a socialist society in Israel.

Hadash -The Israeli communist party


A Jewish State Vs. state for All Citizens

Hadash believes thet Equality should be given to all religions and all individuals in Israel.
Hadash will struggle for the equality of civil and national rights of the Arab population in Israel, to struggle against every manifestation of racism and nationalism, to defend human rights, and to defend democratic freedoms and the equality of ethnic rights;

Separate state & Church
(Synagogue)


Hadash is In favor of a complete separation between state and religion, and of legalizing civil weddings and of canceling all the laws that are forcing religion believes.

Settlement dismantlement

Evacuation of all the settlements and Israeli withdrawal from all the Palestinian territories conquered in the June 1967 war [from all of the territories of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.]


National Priorities

Hadash will act to establish a socialist society in Israel.
To act on behalf of the working class, the collective of workers and common classes in Israel, to raise the standard of living and further the development of the country for the benefit of all its Jewish and Arab citizens.

Protest the Czech Republic's Banning of the Communist Youth League!


The Czech Communist Youth Organisation has been banned since 2006 because of its belief as a Communist group in replacing private ownership of the means of production with a collective social ownership of the means of production. Banned not for "plotting" anything subversive, or in any way harming the Czech Community - but for believing in and advancing the eventual goal of socialized means of Production ! The real reason for the banning is the mass character of the KSM and The Communist Party, and its high level of organization on municipal, regional and national levels.

The "liberal" capitalist Czech state authorities hate The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM), Because despite all the Big Business smears, all the banning, calumny and detraction against it, the Czech people still vote for and belong to the Communist Party in large numbers. In yesterday's vote the Communists came in third behind the Social Democrats, out of a full slate of parties.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -


On 16 October 2006 The Czech Republic's Interior Ministry banned the Communist Youth League (KSM) and dissolved the organization.

The Czech state's official justification for this ban is that KSM under its program is working to replace the private ownership of production with collective ownership.
Converted to Canadian conditions such logic would mean that all Canadians who work for a large public sector, would be banned from organizing themselves.

The attack of the Ministry of Interior against the legal existence of the KSM was initiated in November 2005 under a pretext that the goals of KSM interfere with an area reserved for activities of political parties; an area that civic organizations are excluded from in terms of interventions and activities. This argument was utterly unfounded because according to the Czech legal system the political parties’ exclusive area of activities is their participation in electoral processes. KSM did not participate in any electoral processes.

Moreover, the Ministry of Interior tried to coerce KSM to renounce its Marxist character, its political program, communist identity, goals, and theoretical foundations in Marx, Engels and Lenin; that is Marxism as a whole. After dropping all its originally employed arguments, the Ministry of Interior used another argument: a programmatic goal of KSM to replace private ownership of means of production with a collective ownership of means of production. It appears the Youth organisation of the Czech communist youth may not legally have an option for an alternative social organization that contradicts capitalist restoration!

This action can not be justified and is totally unacceptable in a society claiming to be democratic and pluralistic. Please urge the your national governments, parliament and the members of the legislature to protest against this reactionary anti-democratic ban and call on the Czech Government to immediately repeal the ban on The Communist Youth League KSM and incorporates the organization's political rights.

April 26, 2009

BOOK REVIEW by Andrew Taylor, The Best Sons of the Fatherland: Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivization by Lynne Viola







The Best Sons of the Fatherland:Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivization, Lynne Viola, 1988: New York, Oxford University Press,A BOOK REVIEW By Andrew Taylor



In November 1929 at its Central Committee plenum, the Communist Party of the USSR volunteered to take on and organize collectivization of agriculture. Of 70,000 volunteers, 27,OOO plus were selected, and became known as “the 25,000ers”. In the main they were factory worker-activists, factory committee activists and union committee members. About 80 per cent of them were Communist party members, or in the party's youth organization. Over 50% were under 30 years of age; 8% were women. A strict vetting process was run to eliminate workers from wealthier farmer backgrounds, as well as drunkards, ‘bad characters’, and those with connections to party opposition factions.

After a brief training course the 25,000'ers were sent out amid communist party rallies to the rural areas in order to establish the organized collectivization of agriculture. They were of the most class-conscious layers of the industrial working class prepared to assume tasks as chairs of collective farms and administrators.

Soviet archival records reveal that the old rural officialdom, established in their roles, very often resented the urban volunteers' entry onto their turf, denigrated them, and frequently handed them shovels and pointed to the manure mound. The peasantry was to say the very least ambivalent from the start in their approach to the centre’s exacting grain requisitions, and was often hostile to the urban Party volunteers and their outsider, urban, working class culture. The letters of peasants to relatives show that there was resentment against the valorization of the urban industrial working-class at the expense of the peasantry. We might at this point refer to the long history of Marxian disdain for peasant ‘backwardness’.(“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life..(Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, Sec. 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians). In organizing resistance to the post 1928 collectivization policy, the peasants circulated Stalin’s earlier pro-famine, authoritarian, speeches and essays as proof of the unfairness and novelty of the new line on Agriculture.

Lynne Viola notes that documents show the 25,000’ers general attitude towards the peasants was a distinct improvement on that of the average rural officials. But no influx of new organizers is accepted into a bureaucracy without incident, and a few volunteers were murdered with the utmost cruelty. At the close of the collectivization 25,000'er campaign at the end of 1931, fully 18,000 of the volunteers remained in the countryside and had retained leading positions in rural party and administrative structures.

The author states that collectivization was intended "to be a revolution which would undermine the old order, modernize agriculture, institute a reliable method of grain collection, stimulate a cultural revolution, and build a new social and administrative base in the countryside". Today we know modernization was achieved at a stunning human and political cost to the soviet people, but in light of new research from the soviet archives (including letters from 25,000’ers in the countryside back home) the enthusiasm and valor of the 25,000'ers themselves can not be gainsaid.

According to Viola, agricultural collectivization, though at the start a proletarian policy of political education launched by Stalin through the 25,000’ers, became limited in its potential by ad hoc policy responses made in response to immediate crises and widespread peasant resistance. And it is her contention that collectivization came over time to be shaped less by Stalin and the party center than by the often less-than-disciplined or irresponsible activity of rural officials, the experimental methods of collective farm leaders left to manage as best they knew how, and the stark realities of a backward countryside and the wealthier and middle peasantry who did massive wrecking by destroying cattle, hoarding, and destruction of reserves.1

According to Viola, the Centre’s response changed following the first wave of the 25,000'ers service in the vanguard of the revolution. In response to continued wrecking, strict repressive measures rather than class political action gave the lie to soviet “control” of agricultural policy.

And the policy of repression that grew with the resistance to collectivization, continued after the collectivization struggle had completed in distortions of Leninist norms and violations of socialist legality.

The author calls the 25,000'ers the cadres of the Stalin revolution, the advanced workers, served in the front lines of the Stalin revolution. The Centre had continuing outbreaks of food shortages in the cities and viewed the “kulaks” or wealthier peasants as the hindrance to socialist construction and the open enemy of the working-class. Shortages and dislocations became famine. And as we know, severe famine led to terrible famine in areas of the Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933. Millions are believed to have perished, though estimates vary considerably. Hundreds of thousands who were charged with kulak hoarding and wrecking of the Grain requisitions endured harsh exile to the north or east.

Viola's closely documented study using original documents from the Soviet Archives illustrates the jury is still out on the precise conjunction of factors responsible for the famine. Some other prominent historian-agronomists do not concur in the claim made by many Ukrainian nationalists that the famine was an "act of genocide" and question the whole thesis of a collective persecution of the Ukrainian nation. Professor of History at the University of West Virginia , Mike Tauger and Professor of History at the University of Melbourne, Steven Wheatcroft, argue that the famine was not a result of a deliberate policy against the Ukrainians, and they bring out agricultural and political documentation to illustrate their contention that the widespread 1932 starvation in Ukraine and western Russian areas was due to a lack of control over the dynamics of collectivization by the central leadership, misguided or misapplied economic policies during collectivization, to severe drought conditions, and to a harvest that turned out to be much smaller than originally anticipated.

This is on one level an academic debate among experts on soviet agricultural and national history. But it is at the same time an impassioned often extremely politicized contended space with an ongoing vigorous global campaign by Ukrainian nationalists, anti-communists, revisionist communists and the crisis-ridden “orange revolution” government of Ukraine (which is pressing a charge of genocide at the UN as one front of its ongoing struggle with Moscow). The head of the Russian State Archive, Vladimir Kozlov, rejects claims of genocide in 1930’s Ukraine. Kozlov claims not a single document exists in the archival materials that would even indirectly suggest that a strategy was adopted against Ukrainians that was different from other regions, never mind a strategy aimed at genocide.

Viola affirms the 25,000ers as enthusiastic idealist workers fighters for Socialism, the best of their generation. She shows that early in the collectivization campaign the Soviet state mobilized working-class activist support for collectivization and also shows from Soviet Archive documentation that, contrary to previous anti-communist claims, the 25,000ers went into the countryside as enthusiastic recruits 2. Her unique social history uses an "on the scene" approach from letters and documents of cadre to offer a new understanding of the process of the USSR agricultural revolution under Stalin.


Second, I suggest to academic readers that they read RW Davies & SG Wheatcroft's book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-33 (NY: Macmillan, 2004)esp p 214; Also see Mark B Tauger's article: "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933", Slavic Review, 50:1 (1991) esp p 89; and see Terry Martin's The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union 1923-1939 (Cornell U Press: 2001) esp 273-308

NOTE: None of these scholars are ‘Stalinists’. They are social scientists and historians of Soviet agriculture who do not however support the notion of a conscious conspiracy by Stalin and the CPSU of 1929-31 to create a "Ukrainian Holocaust". Their careful research shows there are intermediate positions.
________________________________________________________________________

1. From 1929 to 1933 the number of cattle fell from 70.5 to 38.4 million, pigs from 26 to 12.1 million, horses from 34 to 16.6 million, and sheep and goats from 146.7 to 50.2 million.

2.Such an upsurge [pod" em] which we now observe is characteristic only
of large revolutionary overturns. This is not an ordinary upsurge, but a
revolutionary upsurge, especially the upsurge among workers. All
questions of workers' daily life [byt], all questions with which the trade
unions are concerned in relation to wages, etc. are now subsumed by the
question of collectivization. All problems in workers' provisioning, all
questions about inefficiencies, food shortages, high prices, etc., are
subsumed by collectivization. All the attention of the working class is
centered on collectivization. It [the working class] instinctively feels that
the key to all these problems is collectivization and that the sooner this
issue is resolved, the sooner all the remaining problems will be resolved
. . . We presently have a real revolutionary movement in the working
class for collectivization: a real revolutionary socialist campaign to the
countryside for collectivization when workers gladly decline a high
salary and go to the countryside. There are masses of cases of the best
skilled workers refusing high salaries and going to the countryside.

A. A. ANDREEV, speech at the Third Plenum of the North
Caucasus Regional Party Committee, 13 January 1930
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chapters of Viola text are as follows:

The Best Sons of the Fatherland: Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivization
by Lynne Viola; Oxford University Press, 1987. 292 pgs.
Introduction
1: Workers to the Countryside: from Revolution to Revolution

2: The Recruitment of the 25,000ers

3: Setting the Campaign in Motion

4: The Drive to Collectivize Soviet Agriculture: Winter 1930

5: The 25,000ers and the Cadres of Collectivization: The Offensive on Rural Officialdom

6: The 25,000ers at Work on the Collective Farms

7: The Denouement of the Campaign
Conclusion
Notes
Glossary
A Note on Sources
Index

Featured Story

Dejemos que la izquierda de Estados Unidos tenga cuidado! por Andrew Taylor 23.06.2021

La Administración Biden ha habilitado una nueva "Iniciativa contra el terrorismo doméstico" para defender "The Homeland"...