January 09, 2018

The struggle for socialism: is the only struggle that can change the world...' Elizabeth Rowley, the Leader of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC).

'The struggle for socialism: is not the only important struggle for working people, it is the only struggle that can change the world...'

Special interview with  Elizabeth Rowley, the Leader of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC).
ICP, 26.10.2017

ICP has interviewed Elizabeth Rowley, the Leader of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC). The interview was about where the Canadian state and Trudeau government stand within the imperialist system and the current condition of class and identity politics in the North American context. Rowley provided a detailed picture of issues on the agenda, and how the CPC takes on them.
ICP : For starters, we would like to talk about the recent rising of imperialist aggression. There is a remarkable increase in tacit and explicit US operations buttressed by defamation campaigns of the mainstream media against countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, the DPRK, Yemen, and else. Considering the stance and discourse of Trump administration, we see how the spotlight is easily put on the former with accusations of armament and warmongering in the American and Canadian public opinion. Democrats in the US and liberals in Canada, especially the Trudeau government, seems to dodge the bullet in this case. 
In the light of all this, how do you assess the overall situation? Where does the Canadian state and the Trudeau government stand within the imperialist system? And how does the CPC proceed its ideological struggle against imperialism in a country not so far from the centre? What are your priorities? What difficulties do you encounter?

ER: Canada is an advanced capitalist country and a second tier imperialist power closely allied with US imperialism.  Originally a British and French colony, Canada is now closely tied economically to the US through US foreign ownership of large parts of the Canadian economy. The free trade agreements implemented with the US in 1989, and with the US and Mexico in 1992, have further integrated the national economies into a continental economy, under the effective direction of the US and US-based transnational corporations.  The political impact has been to deeply erode Canada’s sovereignty and independence, to guarantee that 80% of Canada’s trade (and energy and natural resource extraction) is with the US, and to involve Canada directly in illegal US wars of aggression and regime change, beginning with the Liberal government of Jean Chretien and the Canadian bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, up to the present.  
US demands that Canada and all NATO members substantially increase their funding of NATO has led to an announcement by PM Trudeau that Canada will comply with these demands, and will increase its defence spending by 70% going forward.  Canada has also agreed to send troops to Latvia, Syria, Afghanistan, and an unnamed country in Africa, as well as selling arms to Saudi Arabia.   
The adoption of austerity policies by both Liberal and Conservative governments during the same period contributed to, among other important things, a very strong assault on public and post-secondary education, and on independent news sources and reporting in Canada.  The main news outlets in Canada are now owned by Post Media, one of the most reactionary corporations in the country.  The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) whose mandate is to provide objective news and information – national, international, and local – across Canada, has been systematically starved financially and has had its staff, offices and programming cut, and its leadership replaced with government cronies, in an effort to control the flow of accurate and objective information in Canada.  And so, while Canadians have better access to information than their US counterparts, public broadcasters (federal and provincial) rarely challenge the prevailing views of the government (or the corporations they represent) for fear of more cuts, or privatization.  At the same time, US privately owned media such as FOX News and CNN are flooding into Canada every minute of every day, with the views of the White House and corporate America.
The main theme of the pro-war propaganda circulating in Canada (and globally) continues to be the imperialist doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) which is the catch-all justification for invasion and the overthrow of progressive governments.  The weakness and disorganization of the peace and disarmament movements globally and in Canada, has made it easier for the US and its allies – including Canada - to “sell” this pro-war propaganda and to paralyze opposition to the wars and aggression they provoke.
Imperialism’s drive to war is connected with the drive to re-divide the world among the strongest imperialist powers, following the destruction of the USSR and the socialist system of states.  The USSR was the counter-weight to imperialism’s insatiable greed and drive to war, and when it was destroyed, imperialism was freed of all restraints.  This is also reflected inside the imperialist countries where the war on the working class has also been stepped up with austerity and state repression.  This has also created conditions (fertile ground) in the US and Europe (and elsewhere) for the rise of racist, xenophobic and fascist movements that pose a serious threat to the working class, to migrants and immigrants, and to democracy.    
Trump’s bellicose threats to “totally destroy” DPRK using conventional and nuclear weapons, to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Iran, and to bring down socialist Cuba, have alarmed working people and governments around the world, including in Canada.    The use of nuclear weapons by the US to “totally destroy North Korea” as Trump stated at the UN, is a recipe for a world war that could destroy the planet.  The use of conventional weapons to obliterate DPRK could lead to the same outcome.  And of course, the danger of a world war by accident or by obsession is a reality today as well.
These threats by the President and his administration endanger everyone, and are a real catalyst for the peace movement to re-organize and mobilize public opinion and action for peace; to press governments to step up and to demand political solutions to international crises.  Mutual security and survival must ‘trump’ mutual assured destruction if humanity is to survive.
Here in Canada we are doing everything we can to reinvigorate and re-activate the peace forces, and rebuild the powerful cross-class peace and disarmament movements of the 1980s.   Peace is everyone’s business.  It cannot be left to governments to accept or reject.   In particular we think it’s important to help build the anti-imperialist section of the peace movement that can take on the ideological battle against R2P and similar pro-war propaganda, and help the wider peace forces to mobilize and organize their very broad peace and anti-war constituencies.
Of course our Party is also fighting against R2P and the ideology and drive to war by the US, NATO and now Canada too.
We are also working to support the solidarity movements with Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, Syria, and Palestine -  to name a few of the movements active here - and to use our press and media to inform the public about the democratic and anti-imperialist struggles underway around the globe.
We are also working hard to build the anti-racist and anti-fascist movements in Canada, and to expose the right-wing arguments that racists and fascists have the right to free speech.  Let’s be clear:  advocacy of racism and fascism is not free speech, it is criminal activity that must be prosecuted, with jail sentences.  Further, these criminal organizations should be banned.
We are also calling on the federal government to withdraw from NAFTA, a continental corporate constitution aimed to transform Canada into a cheap source of natural and energy resources for US imperialism, and a market for its finished goods.  Renegotiating NAFTA will not change an agreement that is fundamentally built to benefit trans-national corporations, and to drive down the wages, pensions, living standards, as well as the civil, social, democratic, labour and national rights of workers across the continent.  Regrettably the labour movement in Canada is supporting renegotiations in the faint hope that these fundamental flaws can somehow be erased.  In fact, the US intends to make the current agreement even worse with demands for ever greater concessions from Canada and Mexico that would effectively eliminate what remains of their national sovereignty and independence.   
We campaign for a People’s Agenda, and a People’s Coalition – a coalition of labour and democratic movements, and organizations including political parties, united around an agreed-on set of policies including:  
  • A foreign policy of peace and disarmament
  • An environmental policy of sustainable development, development of alternative energy sources under public ownership, closure of the Alberta  tarsands (with job guarantees for current employees) as a vital step to reduce climate change
  • A trade policy that is multi-lateral and mutually beneficial
  • A full employment policy, increased wages and pensions and a substantially increased minimum wage (we call for $20/hour)
  • Expanded universal Medicare and social programs, creation of a universal public system of accessible, affordable childcare
  • A housing policy to build a million units of affordable social housing for rent and for sale, starting now
  • Public ownership and democratic control of energy and natural resources, banking and financial institutions
  • Environmentally sustainable development of a value-added industrial and manufacturing strategy for Canada
  • Plant closure legislation with teeth (corporations must appear before public tribunals to show ‘just cause’ to close their Canadian operations.  Tribunals can refuse, can levy fines, can order jail terms – this is the “teeth”)
  • A Bill of Rights for labour including the right to strike, picket and organize
These are some of the most important and urgent policies we are fighting for as key parts of a program for a people’s recovery.  This is a program that’s open to discussion and amendment in the kind of people’s coalition we are looking to build.     

ICP - For decades now, we have experienced a general withdrawal of class politics, ironically in an age of deepening exploitation. However, there are signs of a revival, especially in the Western imperialist centres. Mass demonstrations following the 2008-9 crisis in Europe, recent uprisings in the States, most notably Baltimore, student demonstrations in Quebec, all seems to point out dissent among working masses from worsening living conditions. 
Given the unwillingness of the ruling classes to appease even within the limits of capitalism, do you think a new potential is emerging? What do the CPC foresee for the coming decade? What are the possible opportunities for the communist movement?

ER - Recent polls in Canada have shown widespread disillusionment with bourgeois politics and the parliamentary parties.   This is because of inability of the bourgeois parties to address the growing crisis of mass unemployment and under-employment, precarious work, falling real wages and purchasing power, increase in household debt, and the inaccessibility of affordable post-secondary education and affordable housing.   The reality is that this generation will be poorer than their parents and even their grandparents, although they are working harder than ever and facing higher rates of exploitation than their parents and grandparents as a result of the STR and the intensification of labour, as well as 30 years of austerity and capitalist globalization.  They are angry.  And rightfully so.
Another poll indicated that 37% of those polled self identified as working class, not ‘middle class’ – the term used by Liberals, Tories, and even social democrats to describe the better paid sections of the working class.   Since organized labour represents about 31 – 32% of workers today, this would seem to indicate that that there is a growing awareness by workers that they are part of the working class, and unlikely to be able to leave it – unless it’s to fall into permanent unemployment and absolute impoverishment.   So some of the illusions about capitalism have faded, while the growth of inequality and poverty has focused public opinion on the growing gap between the ultra-rich 1% and the insatiable greed of the large Canadian and transnational corporations.  This is a positive development, and opens up new opportunities to push for a shift to the left.
In the US, because of the extreme weakness of the labour movement and the left (among other reasons),  these conditions have opened up pathways for ultra-right and fascist political movements supporting the Trump administration to  launch a vicious attack on the working class, focusing on immigrants, refugees, Muslims, women, racialized people, Indigenous peoples, the LGBTQ community, and more.  
In Canada, the situation is different, with a much stronger labour movement, a social democratic party, a social safety net that is badly frayed but still standing, and relatively better economic and social conditions compared to the US, where the unemployed and the poor face desperate conditions.
The ultra right and racist and fascist organizations are active and recruiting in Canada too, encouraged by developments in the US, and with close links to the Conservative Party including the new leader Andrew Scheer, plus several other leadership candidates.  One of these is Kelly Leitch, a member of the Harper Cabinet, who in 2015 introduced “The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act and Tip Line”, and then campaigned for the Party’s leadership on testing immigrants for “Canadian Values”.    Leitch, Scheer, and most others in the leadership are connected to right-wing organizations and media like Ezra Levant’s “Rebel News”.     It’s only after the Charlottesville Nazi demonstration that Scheer was forced to state he would stop giving interviews to Rebel News.
In Quebec, the PQ government floated the “Quebec Charter of Values” in a very ugly and divisive election campaign that encouraged the extreme right, and contributed to the growth of La Muete – the largest fascist group in Quebec.  In February, 6 Muslim men were shot to death (and 19 others injured) while at prayer in a Quebec mosque.  The shooter was an admirer of French fascist leader Marine Le Pen.
Following the shooting a Liberal MP introduced a motion, M-103 – asking the government to oppose Islamaphobia and hate crimes.  The motion passed by a vote of 201 to 91, with the support of the Liberals and NDP.  The Conservatives voted against.
The public reaction and opposition to all of this has been encouraging.  The upsurge of anti-racist and anti-fascist groups and actions across the country is very important and we are doing everything we can to support these events and ongoing organizing.  There have also been spontaneous demonstrations of public support for mosques around the country in the wake of the February shooting.
At the same time, public opinion polls earlier this year show that the public generally supports immigration but is divided on the issue of immigration from Muslim countries.  This is exactly the issue that Trump has been campaigning on since his election a year ago, and the issue that the right in Canada has been focused on in the same period.  This campaign is having an ugly and a dangerous impact.
We are at a critical point now in Canada where politics could go either way.  A lot hinges on the activity of the labour and people’s movements to challenge right-wing extremism, and to challenge austerity and the neo-liberal policies that the Liberals campaigned against during the 2015 election, but are largely carrying out two years later.  Public dissatisfaction is starting to show on a range of economic and social issues, including pipelines, fracking, the Alberta tarsands, all issues related to resource development, Indigenous rights, and the environment.  There is also deep concern about democracy and the government’s abrupt about-face on its promise to introduce electoral reform, its abandonment of its promise to embrace peace-keeping and its decisions to increase the defence budget by 70%, to increase support for NATO and NORAD, and to deploy troops all over the world.  The Liberals’ commitments to redress crimes against Indigenous Peoples with massive public investments and a new relationship has gone up in smoke, along with the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls – These are the policies the public voted for in 2015 – but which the Liberals have largely abandoned in 2017.  
As public anger mounts, it is the Tories who are the main beneficiaries while the NDP languishes in the basement.  The main reason for this is that the Tories are hiding their far-right policies while attacking the Liberals with populist rhetoric, while the NDP continues to compete with the Liberals for the support of Big Business.  This is what cost the NDP the last federal election, and it’s what will cost them the next election too if they do not change course.
The election in 2019 election will be very important for Canada, and could result in a sharp lurch to the right if the Tories win the election.  To prevent this, the labour and people’s movements must move towards mass, independent political action now to push politics to the left across the country, and – as a result – also in the NDP.  
The absence of an organized and united struggle now will leave the door open to the right and the far right 2 years from now.  That door must be closed, and a fight for a people’s agenda, a people’s recovery, and government that’s accountable to the people – not the corporations – is what we need today.

ICP - Related to the former question, we would like to talk about the topicality of Leninism. There are several arguments, which identify international political conditions of today with the eve of the WWI. Imperialist competition is intensifying while the global hegemony of the US seems to weaken. There are no explicit candidates for its place in the short run. The deadlock gives way to baffling military and political maneuvers by main actors, making it impossible to determine blocs or alliances. This may, of course, culminate in devastating consequences for the peoples of the world, but also may open new paths for socialist revolutions. In the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, all this testify the validity of Lenin’s inferences a century ago. 
How do the CPC assess the current crisis of imperialism, both politically and strategically? Do you think a new age of socialist revolutions is on the horizon? How do the CPC positions itself?

ER - This centennial year of the Great October Socialist Revolution is very significant for the world’s working people, for peace, for the anti-imperialist forces because it reminds us that, 26 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no alternative to capitalism, except socialism.  And further, that as capitalism loses all restraints imposed upon it by the socialist system of states, the struggle to survive it, to sweep it into the dustbin of history, and to replace it with socialism and peace, is more urgent with every passing day.  Imperialism’s crises is deepening, its social base is narrowing, and possibilities of a new global economic crisis are growing as the US administration strips away regulatory protections like the Dodd Frank Act, while committing new military expenditures and even bigger profits for the military industrial machine. Imperialism’s crisis has opened the door to fascism – not a new political system, but the iron fist of capitalism.
The objective conditions are at the critical mark, with war and environmental devastation threatening the survival of the world, while the subjective conditions lag behind as a result of the loss of the socialist system of states and resulting weakness of the international communist movement, the strength and resources of imperialism, and the impact of the STR. While this situation is historically temporary, it has brought us to a very dangerous moment in the transition from capitalism to socialism, globally.
Yet it remains the historic task of the working class of each country to become seized with the necessity of socialist transformation, and working class political power.  This is where the Communist parties are called upon to play their leading and vital role in the working class movement:  to expose capitalism, to make the case for socialism, and to lead the struggle for a revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism.  Lenin stressed the vital role of the communist parties in his book “What is to be done?”  This stands up very well as a guide for revolutionary parties and practice more a century later.  
To advance the struggle for socialism today, it’s essential that the Communist and workers’ parties grow larger, stronger, and more influential, strengthening their bonds with the working class and the peoples’ movements, developing and testing their revolutionary theory in the class struggle, providing guidance and leadership in the struggles today, in order to provide the revolutionary leadership that will called for when conditions change and a revolutionary situation develops in the new conditions of the 21st century.   
Imperialism is running out of options, which makes it more ferocious and more dangerous to working people and to the survival of the planet as President Trump has demonstrated. The stronger the Communist Parties, the stronger the left and the working class’ struggle for its emancipation.  The 21st century is sure to be a new century of revolution and liberation for the world’s peoples.   It must also substantially shift the balance of forces on the global stage in favour of socialism and in favour of peace and a sustainable environment.  

ICP - A rise of identity politics has come along with weakening of working class movement. In countries where communists and socialists have spearheaded progressive ideas such as women’s rights and anti-racism, the effects have been more dramatic, giving way to an amnesia about the former’s historical role. We witness today an increasing diversification of identity movements, and a corporatization of feminist and LGBTQ struggle. Radical politics claim to invent new forms for a united struggle such as “intersectionality”. 
How do the CPC navigate its path in such an environment, in a country where most of the population consist of recent immigrants? As a communist party, how do you articulate questions related to identity with revolutionary class politics?

ER - The ruling class has always tried to obscure the class question, by dividing the working class and setting one section against another, while the capitalists reaped the benefits – and the profits – off the backs of all workers.  They still do it, using gender, race, ethnicity, status, religion, age, ability, and whatever else is at hand.  
As Communists, we know that the class struggle is the primary struggle on the road to socialism, however we also know that it’s a struggle that can’t be won without the participation and support of youth, women and gendered people, racialized people, Indigenous people, immigrant workers, and workers from English-speaking Canada, Quebec, Acadia, and the Indigenous nations in Canada. To win them to the struggle for socialism we have to show how these specific struggles for democracy and equality fit into the larger struggle for socialism, and why the racism, sexism, chauvinism and oppression experienced daily by so many, can’t be resolved in any permanent way under capitalism.   We are building the case and the forces for socialism while we are engaging in the struggle for vital reforms.  We are educating about the limits of capitalist reforms, and exposing the system’s defence of privilege and profits, while we are teaching people who their allies are, how to fight and how to win, and not incidentally, what they can expect from the Communist Party in this life-long struggle with capitalist exploitation and injustice.   The class struggle and the struggle for socialism is not the only important struggle for working people, but it’s the only struggle that can change the world in the interests of the working class and working people.  That’s why it’s the most important, strategic struggle, and that’s why we try to win working people to support that most vital and decisive struggle.
The Communist Party of Canada is 96 years old, and built by immigrants, women and LGBTiQ people, racialized and Indigenous people through the struggles of the working class, that the Communist Party led and has been closely involved in over several generations.    The history of the Communist Party is the history of the working class struggle in Canada.      

ICP – Thank you very much comrade.

January 06, 2018

Russia, China and The White House: A Study in American Bonapartism, by Caleb Maupin

There are clearly big disagreements among the American ruling class. Donald Trump is President of the United States, despite having a large number of adversaries in powerful places. Congress continues to investigate Trump for alleged ties to Russia, with leftist comedian Randy Credico being subpoenaed and former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleading guilty to perjury. Meanwhile, an unprecedented number of public figures have been fired or stepped down in a wave of sexual assault and harassment allegations.
This is just the latest episode in an ongoing drama. As the impoverished countries of the world have been asserting their economic independence, centered around Russia and China, the circles of wealth and power in the United States have long disagreed about how to respond. Disagreements about geopolitics, which become particularly intense in the context of domestic unrest, has been the basis for lots of Bonapartist maneuvering in modern American history.
The Marxist Concept of Bonapartism
The conception of US politics held by a stereotypical Marxist is “They are all bad! All the politicians work for big money interests! We need a working class revolution to get rid of them all!” While this may be common among those who have only a basic understanding of Marxian thinking, this was certainly not the analysis of Karl Marx when observing french politics in 1851.
When military officials dubbed “The Party of Order” grouped around the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte took over France, government policies changed significantly. It was not a revolution, but an attempt to make the system function better with authoritarian methods. Marx observed and studied the 1851 coup, composing his famous pamphlet “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” He came to understand that when the rate of profit falls, and instability abounds, the rich and powerful begin fighting among themselves.
The new French regime built railroads, legalized labor unions and strikes, created hospitals for poor people, and enacted other dramatic reforms hoping to restore stability. Louis Napoleon violently suppressed many wealthy french capitalists who wanted “laissez faire” policies to continue. The reforms enacted by the “Party of Order” were only a temporary fix, and 20 years later France was once again in a crisis, with the Paris Commune emerging in 1871. When one section of the rich violently suppresses others, and takes dramatic action at the expense of other capitalists, this is what Marxists call “Bonapartism.”
In recent American history, the key issue of division among America’s ruling elite has been how to combat the rise of Russia and China as competitors on the global stage. The rise of the Eurasian superpowers is something the billionaire monopolists who run the USA find intolerable. But what can be done about it? On this point, the powers that be often disagree, and clash with each other.
“I Welcome Their Hatred!”
In the 1930s, the Soviet Union became a superpower. The five year plans brought the country into the 20th century, with the world’s largest hydro-electrical power plant, record amounts of steel production, the elimination of illiteracy, and modern housing provided to the population. Meanwhile, the western world was having a depression, with huge amounts of unemployment and poverty.
The new strength of the Soviet Union was seen as a huge threat to the power of American capitalism. However, Italy, Japan, and Germany also became enemies of the United States during this period. Germany refused to pay its debt to American bankers, repudiated the Versailles Treaty, and began expanding across Europe. Italy seized Ethiopia, and Japan continued to contend with the United States in the pacific.
The Soviet Union wanted to align with the United States against the fascist governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan. However, most of the wealthy people in the United States hated the Soviet Union and were very threatened by the Marxist-Leninist ideas it spread across the planet with the Communist International.
Roosevelt clearly represented a wing of the American political establishment that favored an alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany, Italy, and Japan. The Rockefeller Family, which controlled Standard Oil, and had backed Roosevelt since his earliest days in politics, seemed to share this position. However, the Morgans, Henry Ford, and all of the other rich and powerful people in the USA, disagreed.
In order to carry out his pro-Soviet foreign policy, Roosevelt became probably the most definitively bonapartist figure in US history. Roosevelt passed sweeping economic reforms, hiring millions of unemployed people with the Works Progress Administration. Roosevelt created unemployment insurance, social security, and passed the Wagner Act, guaranteeing the right to strike. Roosevelt sent the US military to protect striking workers in Michigan, and attempted to pack the US Supreme Court so it could not get in the way of his policies. These economic reforms won Roosevelt a huge level of support among the population.
In 1933, US Marine Corp General Smedley Butler testified before Congress about how certain wealthy interests were involved in the “Business Plot” for a military coup to remove Roosevelt. Speaking in Madison Square Garden in 1936, Roosevelt described the opposition to him among the corporate boardrooms and Wall Street suites, and received a thunderous standing ovation after proclaiming: “I welcome their hatred!”
A Congressional Committee led by Martin Dies investigated Roosevelt for alleged ties to the Communist Party and the National Youth Congress. In an act of defiance, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt invited members of the Young Communist League to sleep over at the White House while they were in Washington to testify.
Roosevelt was wildly popular among American people, despite hostility from almost all but a few of the ruling elite. Roosevelt is the longest serving President in American history, and term limits were added to the constitution after his death. Due to Roosevelt’s bonapartist maneuvering, the US entered an alliance with the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists on the basis of anti-fascism. This alliance ended after Roosevelt died, and the Second World War concluded.
Kennedy’s Soft Power Approach
In 1961 when John F. Kennedy was elected President, disagreements about how to relate to Russia and China were everywhere in America. 1950s Mccarthyism had died down, and fear of nuclear war was widespread. The Soviet Union was actively publicizing Jim Crow Segregation and racism in the United States, using the issue to discredit US claims about “freedom” and “democracy.” The Korean War, and the various proxy military conflicts across the world, did not seem to be halting the rise of Communism.
However, Stalin had died, and Khrushchev was offering a much more conciliatory tone to Washington. China, on the other hand, was presenting itself as a fountainhead of communist and anti-colonial revolution. Among the Central Intelligence Agency and the northern wing of the Democratic Party, there was a feeling that a “soft power” strategy might be more effective in moving against Russia and China. These forces also felt that Jim Crow segregation was too expensive and was an embarrassment to the USA.
John F. Kennedy took office talking of negotiations with Moscow and a stronger role for the United Nations. He also mouthed support for the civil rights movement. Kennedy talked of how “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and pushed allies of the USA around the world such as the Shah of Iran and the various regimes of Latin America, to make symbolic concessions, land reforms, while loosening their authoritarianism. Kennedy strongly favored the covert wing of the US government, operating behind the scenes to fund anti-communist paramilitary forces and stage coups, while the President could maintain a “Mr. Nice Guy” image of Washington on the global stage.
Kennedy pushed very hard to implement his soft power strategy, and made a point of utilizing the “ban the bomb” activists and civil rights marchers as his foot soldiers against Pentagon hardliners. When the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba failed, Kennedy refused to send in the US military. He also refused to further escalate US involvement in Vietnam. Military leaders openly voiced contempt for his “soft” and “weak” foreign policy approach. Southern Democrats couldn’t stand his perceived alliance with Martin Luther King Jr. The John Birch Society and other right-wing activists hated Kennedy with a passion, calling him a Soviet agent and traitor.
Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, a stronghold of military and right-wing opposition to his policies. Lee Harvey Oswald, said to be his assassin in the “official story” appeared to be a Marxist, but many remain unsatisfied with this version of events. Kennedy was never a bonapartist, but there were very big fears that he could become one. He attempted to push a very specific “soft power” strategy against Russia and China which most of the American elite rejected. After Kennedy’s death, US military involvement in Vietnam escalated significantly.
“Law and Order” for “The Silent Majority”
By 1968, the international and domestic crisis which Kennedy had intended to resolve with conciliatory words had further escalated. Black rebellions had swept almost every urban center following the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The USA was losing the Vietnam War, humiliated by the Tet Offensive, and student protests against the war were shaking the country. Richard Nixon, who Kennedy had defeated in 1960, took office, sounding a lot like the “Party of Order” in 1851 France.
Nixon’s speeches in the 1968 election pioneered neoconservative rhetoric in the USA for future decades. Nixon said he represented the “silent majority,” the millions of white middle class Americans who thought the anti-war protesters were disgraceful and were terrified of the Black urban rebellions. Nixon spoke of “Law and Order,” and promised to restore domestic tranquility while bringing “an honorable end” to the Vietnam war.
Nixon was not afraid to take strong actions against rivals. Nixon kept his campaign promise to fire Ramsey Clark, the liberal reformer who had been running the Justice Department. Nixon unleashed J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, who previous administrations had tried to restrain. The COINTELPRO program escalated with a wave political repression against Black Nationalist and left-wing activists.
Like all bonapartist figures, Nixon built a mass movement behind himself. In Manhattan, the country watched the “hard hat riots” as construction workers were mobilized to attack anti-war and counterculture youth. Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the cult leader from South Korea, was imported to the United States. Moon’s followers worked day and night on behalf of Nixon and against his opponents, even staging a hunger strike.
Nixon had taken office promising economic liberalism, and bringing Milton Friedman into the White House. However, when the economy went bad, Nixon booted Friedman out of his administration, proclaiming “We are all Keynesians now!” Despite his pro-market campaign words, he enacted a series of economic reforms, creating wage controls, price controls, workplace health and safety laws, as well as environmental legislation. He also supported and passed a constitutional amendment, lowering the voting age to 18.
Nixon recognized the People’s Republic of China, and worked with the Chinese government against the Soviet Union. After his “secret plan” of massive bombing failed to secure victory in Vietnam, Nixon withdrew US forces from the country, and ended the war. All of these moves were wildly controversial, and the typical, gentlemanly rule by consensus among the US elite would never have permitted such changes. Nixon swiftly enacted policies with authoritarian methods, seeing it as a mechanism for ending the turmoil.
Despite infuriating many rich and powerful people, Nixon achieved his goals, and the crisis ended. By 1974, when Nixon resigned, the USA was “back to normal.” Americans were already reminiscing about all the confusion “back in the 60s.” His bonapartist methods had been successful.
He left office in complete disgrace after the Watergate Scandal, hated by the US public. With no crisis on the global and domestic stage, Nixon’s strong-armed approach was no longer needed. Nixon’s Bonapartism had served its purpose. US society was ready to return to a looser style of government, and Nixon’s “enemies list” and spying on political rivals was a source of national outrage.
Will Trump Triumph?
The specter of bonapartism once again hangs over America. Donald Trump, like Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Nixon represents a minority within the US political establishment, with a possible policy difference related to relations with Russia and China. Like the previous figures who toyed with bonapartism, Trump continues to try and build a movement among the public to back him up against rival sections of the US elite.
However, Trump seems to have compromised much of his agenda in international politics, while facing a huge amount of difficulty enacting his policies. Trump has embraced the Saudi monarchy, which he denounced on the campaign trail, and directly attacked the Syrian government with cruise missiles. Trump’s plan for building a giant wall on the US border does not seem to be going anywhere, and his calls for building infrastructure across the country also seems to have flopped.
However, Trump’s first term in office is far from over, and some of his policies, such as the travel ban and rescinding of the Trans Pacific Partnership, have represented a bold shift. Trump continues to make statements on social media and in TV interviews, which deeply offend powerful people.
The US economy remains in turmoil, with wages lower than ever, despite low unemployment numbers. Household debt is at record levels, and the opioid epidemic keeps rising. Internationally, Russia and China continue to rise and exist as an alternative pole in geopolitics, while instability continues within the United States.
Amid the crisis, many within the ruling elite of the USA desperately want a “party of order” that can make the turmoil cease. However, this cannot be done without working against the interests of lots of entrenched power. Each and every wealthy American capitalist wants the crisis to be resolved at the expense of someone else, not themselves, and will protect their own profits in political battles.
If Trump is unable to resolve the crisis, other Bonapartist figures will undoubtedly emerge. If Trump cannot be the savior American capitalism longs for, infighting among the ruling elite is likely to become even more complex.
Originally Published in New Eastern Outlook

January 05, 2018

Italy – The time is now: united for the Communist Party!


Italy
The time is now: united for the Communist Party
31 December 2017
Just a bit less than a month ago, the Communist Party has announced its intention to participate in political elections 2018. Since that day, we have received hundreds of messages of support, proposals of active and specific help, as well as militant joining of our project. We thank everybody and will keep on connect you these days with our local representatives.
Following the developments of these hours, of the discussion in the communist formations and the choices made by the leadership groups, often despite broad opposition of the base of those parties, we want to make a further appeal to the comrades to take note of the choices made and mobilize to actively support the Communist Party, starting from the campaign for the 2018 elections.
Decisions of the Communist Refoundation (Rifondazione Comunista) and the Italian Communist Party (Partito Comunista Italiano), to join the common list of the left, Power to the People (Potere al Popolo), are proofs that the strategy of these parties is moving in a direction, opposite and irreconcilable to the communist reconstruction. As we have already pointed out several times during last couple of years, the communist question is a question of strategic choice and not of simple unitary proclamations, devoid of ideological clarity and political perspective.
Unitary list of the radical left has as its models Podemos, SYRIZA and post-communist movements. It is firmly anchored in the international reference of the Party of the “European Left”, movement built by Bertinotti, whose purpose is dissolution and transformation of communist parties in generic left forces, which accept the capitalist system and European Union, which, due to its perspective, is directly responsible for the social massacre in Greece. In some cases, even the confusion is such that one even looks at the English Labor Party of Corbyn, in Her Majesty’s opposition!
No communist reconstruction is possible within the furrow of the “European Left”. Everyone in the history of Italian communists who had renounced the symbol of the hammer and sickle, and supported the necessity to build a wider front, from Bolognina onward, moved in the direction of overcoming the communist question, which is the question of workers’ emancipation from capitalist exploitation, and of socialist construction.
Do not be fooled again! Communist reconstruction will not pass by yet another watering down into a common list, one more radical than another only by the choice of institutional parties; today in the Free and Equal (Liberi e Uguali), which have “downloaded” the Brancaccio and which were ready to leave, but which carries the same basic contradictions that are already affecting even the most genuine parts of that movement.
Communist reconstruction goes along another perspective. It goes through choices of those who are carrying forward the process of reconstruction of an autonomous and independent field of communists coherently and against many difficulties.
As we have already declared, we are making the list of the Communist Party open to contributions of all communists who do not want to resign themselves and turn themselves into an umpteenth bankruptcy and renunciation project. Imposed deadlines for list presentation are rigid and the time is short. However, the unitary strengthening of the communist reconstruction process is worth more than anything else. The CP is ready to evaluate in any possible way individual and collective contributions of comrades who want to join and support the communist cause, demonstrating in facts and not in words a real willingness to open a unitary process, in the direction indicated by our Party long time ago.
The time is now: united for the Communist Party.
(translation by Srecko Vojvodic)


January 02, 2018

The dark side of the West: NATO fascist "Stay Behind" Networks in post WW2 Western Europe By Felix Würsten

Conference "Nato Secret Armies and P26"  The dark side of the West

During the Cold War secret armies in all West European states prepared themselves for possible Soviet invasion. An ETH study was presented last week that shows how these hidden groups operated and did not even shrink from terror attacks against their own people.

It is now a little more than fifteen years since the fall of the Wall in Berlin brought the Cold War to an end. The division of Europe into two hostile spheres of control that had lasted for decades was thus overcome. Previous to this each side had done everything conceivable to maintain control over its sphere of influence–at any price. That the East resorted to drastic measures during the Cold War is borne out for example by the tragic events in Hungary or former Czechoslovakia.
By contrast, there is hardly any awareness today of how cohesion in the West was maintained. True, at the beginning of the 1990s, due to revelations in Italy, Belgium and Switzerland, the public learned that the western alliance had not always been squeamish when it came to choosing its ways and means. Most states, however, steadfastly refuse to shed any light on incidents pertaining to the Cold War. Some light now comes from a new publication (1) from the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich (2), which was presented to the public last week.

Direct connections to the Pentagon

During the Cold War, explains the author of the study, Daniele Ganser, NATO set up so-called "stay-behind" networks. These were secret organisations that–in the eventuality that a country was invaded–would fight the Soviet occupying forces from the underground. There was close co-operation between the different national organisations. Co-ordination was upheld by two secret sub-divisions of "Shape", NATO's Headquarters, which was directly subordinate to top NATO commanding officer in Europe (Saceur). Direct connections also existed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the USA and to the British Secret Service, MI6.
Secret underground armies existed also in the neutral countries. In Switzerland it was the organisation known as P26, the existence of which was brought to light in 1990 by a parliamentary committee for investigation (PUK-EMD) investigating the military department. P26 was not directly involved in the network of NATO's secret armies but it had close contact to MI6. In Austria in 1990 too, the government was obliged to admit that an underground organisation had existed.

Andreotti unveils the unbelievable

NATO's secret armies are a dark spot on the history of Western Europe. In a number of countries they attempted to influence political developments with terrorist activities. In Italy in 1990, the then Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti publicised the existence of the secret army "Gladio" under pressure from the investigators. Gladio was controlled by the military secret service Sismi and worked in close collaboration with the CIA. But apparently Gladio was also in league with the Mafia, the fascists and the Catholic Church.
The aim was to hinder–at any price–the government participation of the communists. Ministers of this party, so the fear, could pass on secrets to the Soviet Union, thus undermining NATO from the inside. Gladio did not flinch from cowardly terrorist attacks against its own people. The population was to be unsettled so they would demand more security from the state. By using false trails and exerting control over the the judiciary, Gladio succeeded in laying the blame on the political opponents.
In France and Germany (where former SS officers were involved), as well as in Norway and Belgium secret armies carried out terrorist strikes. In Greece one such was involved in a military putsch and in Turkey so-called "counter-guerrilla" groups fought against the Kurds. Following the revelations of Switzerland's PUK-EMD commission, the suspicion was voiced for the first time that P26 had carried out strikes. The suspicion, however, could not be confirmed.


Footnotes: 
(1
Daniele Ganser: Nato's Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass. London 2005. Project information at: www.isn.ethz.ch/php/collections/coll_gladio.htm

(2)

Homepage of the ETH Center for Security Studies (CSS): www.css.ethz.ch/

An unconscionable liberal silence over Ahed Tamimi The Morning Star Dec 29 2017


WHAT justification could be advanced for putting a teenage girl in leg irons for a court appearance and holding her in a foreign jail for over a week without charge?
What justification could Britain’s liberal media have for failing to highlight such a scandal, while the girl in question is subjected to threats of rape and murder in jail?
The answer is that 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi is a Palestinian living in the occupied West Bank whose village’s farmland and water resources have been appropriated by Israeli forces.
Nabi Saleh, about 20 miles north of Jerusalem, has a population of 600 people. Its land was snatched 40 years ago for the Halamish settlement.
Halamish periodically unleashes its heavily armed residents to set fire to the olive groves of Nabi Saleh, prompting protests that are met with state repression.
Ahed comes from a family that has never bowed the knee to the occupiers and has paid the price for this defiance.
She came to prominence in 2015 when she, her mother and her aunt were pictured struggling to release her 11-year-old brother Mohammad from arrest.
Her father Bassem Tamimi has been jailed several times and was named an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in 2012. Her mother Nariman Tamimi has been detained five times and her brother Waed Tamimi is currently serving 10 months in an Israeli jail.
Their home has been raided over 150 times by occupation forces and, in 2010, the military authorities imposed a demolition order, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over the Tamimi family.
This followed protests sparked by the settlers’ confiscation of Nabi Saleh’s spring, reducing running water availability in the village to 12 hours a day while Halamish residents have an unrestricted supply and a large swimming pool in the settlement.
Israeli soldiers enter the village on a daily basis, squirting vile-smelling “skunk spray” over houses, especially on rooftop water tanks, seeking to make life and continued residence intolerable.
“It's a silent ethnic cleansing,” Bassem Tamimi told al-Jazeera journalist Jaclynn Ashly in September.
His daughter was arrested after a video of her telling Israeli soldiers to leave her home and slapping one of them went viral and, for good measure, her mother and cousin Nour Tamimi were detained too. All are now held in Israel's HaSharon prison.
Israel’s media has gone overboard, praising the troops for their forbearance in not retaliating physically while providing a platform for politicians to demand life in jail for Ahed.
The Israeli military had, as so often, got its retaliation in first, firing a rubber bullet at point-blank range into the face of Ahed’s cousin Mohammad Fadel Tamimi, aged 15, leaving him in a coma and spurring her anger against the troops.
While rabid social media warriors demand that Ahed, Nariman and Nour be raped or killed in jail, Maariv columnist Ben Caspit was less specific but more chilling because of his national profile.
He pontificated that, “in the case of the girls, we should exact a price at some other opportunity, in the dark, without witnesses and cameras.”
Caspit then claimed unconvincingly that he had simply suggested that they be arrested quietly at night.
Whatever his weasel words, three incarcerated women are demonised at all levels of Israeli society and face imminent physical danger.
The world that has done nothing to end Israel’s illegal occupation must at least demand that Ahed, Nariman and Nour be released immediately and allowed to return home.

30 December 2017 PC of Venezuela : Bolvarian Revolution has to abandon class collaboration

PCV: Bolvarian Revolution has to abandon class collaboration

The Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) issued a letter to President Maduro underlining the pitfalls of the Bolivarian Revolution and the proposals of PCV.
ICP, 30 December 2017
The letter, signed by General secretary Oscar Figuera and Secretary of International Relations Carolus Wimmer, from the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of PCV, addressed Nicolas Maduro as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).
In the letter, it was acknowledged that during the political changes in Venezuela since 1999, the working class and the PCV could not ‘assume the vanguard of the broad class alliance’ and that the proprietor classes had played a determining role. The process did not carry ‘the character of a socialist revolution, but of a process of progressive reforms ...  in the face of neo-colonialist ambitions of US and European imperialism’.
The letter stated that the broad anti-imperialist alliance, unifying the forces ‘in defense of national sovereignty’ under the Simon Bolivar Great Patriotic Pole (GPP-SB) has not worked.The letter clarified that the PCV was ‘not requesting to be part of the Government’, but requested the PSUV to comply to the agreements between the two parties. The PCV criticised the arbitrary attitude of PSUV in relation to its revolutionary allies which weakens the Bolivarian Revolution.
The letter reminded that PCV, with its class committment within GPP-SB, had played a crucial role in defeating the pro-imperialist bloc during the October 15 elections. A commission had been formed by the Political Bureau of the PCV and the delegation designated by President Maduro on behalf of the PSUV's top leadership, and started working meetings in which, at the proposal of PCV, ‘a series of agreements on electoral politics and socio-political matters were established’.
The letter said that such agreements would support the Bolivarian process ‘with decisive worker, peasant, communal and popular leadership and with the intense and extensive activism of the PCV, the JCV (Juventud Comunista de Venequela, Young Communists of Venezuela) and our mass political fronts in the different battles necessary to take up for the defense of the country nationally and internationally’.
The PCV had complied with the registration of PSUV candidates to the Governorships in 22 states, with the sole exception of Apure ‘where the governor’s open anti-communism and his political practice at odds with the interests of the people of Apure’ was an obstacle. However, PSUV had not complied to the agreements on discussing socio-political issues.
The Political Bureau of the PCV expressed its concern about the perpetuation of ‘the liberal bourgeois state and the capitalist relations of production’ that allow ‘private and public employers to violate labor rights and to destroy or force to yield the defensive instruments of the working class’. Forces at the service of imperialism develop as previously nationalized public companies are reprivatized, accompanied by workers’ dismissals.
While economic conditions of the working class detoriate, ‘the kind of restrictions that private and public banks impose by illegally limiting the people in the use of their savings, made even worse with the reduced circulation of cash’. Meanwhile, it is necessary for the government to take measures against police cases of ‘blackmail, criminalization and labor prosecution’ some of whom become candidates for the government and are finally elected. According to the letter, these were taken up by the spokesman of the PSUV and the government, but were eventually not solved.
The letter said, ‘That is why, compatriot President, we come to you and, in addition to reiterating the request for a meeting with our Political Bureau, we call upon you to guide the full and concrete compliance with the recent electoral politics and socio-political agreements established between the PCV and the PSUV, for the good of the trust and mutual respect that must exist between allied forces and in order to strengthen the struggle for the defense of national sovereignty and for the interests of the working people of Venezuela.
The PCV reiterated the set of proposals given to the National Constituent Assembly;
  • to dismantle the power of private monopolies,
  • to expropriate and imprison the speculative capitalists,
  • to nationalize the banking sector,
  • to develop production with national sovereignty and the leading role of the working class,
  • to establish worker-peasant and common-popular control over the most important economic and social processes.
It was stated in the letter that the proposals had not received any response. The PCV finally outlined its call ‘to abandon the paths of class collaboration’ and to produce a revolutionary solution to the crisis ‘with a leading role of the working class and the working people of the cities and the countryside’.

January 01, 2018

“Gulag Archipelago”: Exposing the anticommunist fabrications of Solzhenitsyn By Nikos Mottas, Jan 01 2018

Monday, January 1, 2018

“Gulag Archipelago”: Exposing the anticommunist fabrications of Solzenitsyn

 By Nikos Mottas*.
Originally published in atexnos.gr.
Translated from Greek.

One of the most famous and celebrated works of Alexandr Solzenitsyn, the “Gulag Archipelago”, has been for a long time a kind of “holy bible” for every anticommunist. Firstly published in 1973, it- supposedly- consists an analytical record of the conditions existed in the so-called “labour camps” of the Soviet Union. Within the framework of the slanderous anticommunist campaign, bourgeois historiography has extensively promoted Solzenitsyn's work as a source of arguments about the so-called “Stalinist dictatorship” and “communist crimes” in the Soviet Union.

However, there is a fundamental problem in the work of the deeply reactionary Solzenitsyn: Gulag Archipelago is a completely antiscientific book, based almost entirely in rumors, speculations, third party opinions as well as interpretations of opinions by Solzenitsyn himself! In other words, the reader of this book becomes “hostage” of a novel type, unverifiable, recording to alleged events by Solzenitsyn and others who supposedly “saw”, “heard” or “learned” something.

Even people who have nothing friendly to say about Stalin admit that Solzenitsyn's work is nothing but fairy tales. Let's see what trotskyite historian and writer Vadim Z. Rogovin writes: Solzhenitsyn’s work, much like the more objective works of R. Medvedev, belong to the genre which the West calls "oral history," i.e., research which is based almost exclusively on eyewitness accounts of participants in the events being described. Moreover, using the circumstance that the memoirs from prisoners in Stalin’s camps which had been given to him to read had never been published, Solzhenitsyn took plenty of license in outlining their contents and interpreting them” [1]. In fact, Solzenitsyn edited and cited, according to his own reactionary views, third parties' testimonials in which he added anticommunist fabrications thus creating the “Archipelago” fairy tale.

Solzenitsyn's first wife, Natalya Reshetovskaya, seems to confirm the fact that “Gulag Archipelago” consists a fictional and completely non-scientific book. In her autobiography published in 1974 under the title “Sanya: My Life with Alexandr Solzenitsyn”, Reshetovskaya actually challenges the validity of what Solzenitsyn writes in “Gulag Archipelago”. According to Reshetovskaya, she was “perplexed” by the fact that the the book was accepted by the western (capitalist) world as “the solemn, ultimate truth”, saying that the significance of his ex-husband's work had been “overestimated and wrongly appraised”. [2]. Furthermore, Reshetovskaya unveiled that Solzenitsyn himself did not regard the book as “historical research, or scientific research, but it was rather a “camp folklore” collection!

More or less, Reshetovskaya actually says that “Gulag Archipelago” isn't a work that should be taken seriously or accepted as a valid source. The fact that Solzenitsyn's book is full of lies and inaccuracies is something that can be confirmed by a comparison of the data presented in the “Gulag Archipelago” with the real numbers. There lies a significant problem for the credibility of the much celebrated “nobelist” and former Nazi collaborator Solzenitsyn: He presents fake numbers!

The following chart, published at the official journal of the Union of American Historians, includes the overall statistical data for the custodial population in the USSR from 1934 to 1953, during a period of Joseph Stalin's leadership. Let's now see how the numbers, researched and checked by bourgeois scientists and published at the American Historical Review, refute Solzhenitsyn's anticommunist fabrications.


1st : Alexander Solzhenitsyn's argument about 60 million deaths (!) at the Soviet labour camps consists a product of his deeply anticommunist fantasy and profound lie.

2st : Solzhenitsyn's argument about 25 million detained people at the labour camps (“gulags”) in 1953 is a vulgar lie. In 1953, the overall number of the imprisoned people was not over 2.5 millionTwo million were criminal prisoners, convicted for crimes or ordinary criminal law.

3st: In the peak of his anticommunist paranoia, Solzhenitsyn had claimed that the total number of victims during Stalin's period were... 110 million people! If this ridiculous claim was correct then, normally, the Soviet Union's population during Stalin's leadership (1924-1953) should have been decreased significantly. However, statistical data about the USSR's population prove exactly the opposite!

On January 1926, the population of the Soviet Union was 148.6 million people. Fifteen years later, onJune 1941 the population had been increased to 196.7 million. A decrease in USSR's population took place between 1941 and 1946 (170.5 million), which is explainable by the huge casualties of the country during the Second World War. After the War, during the period 1946-1951, the Soviet Union's population increased again, reaching 182.3 million people on January 1951 [4]. As for the annual birth rate in the USSR between 1920 and 1950, it is extremely insufficient in order to overlap (in terms of population) the number of the supposed “million deaths” of the Stalin era [5].

Solzhenitsyn is proved to be a blatant liar. Nonetheless, if someone isn't convinced yet about the anticommunist fabrications of Solzenitsyn and the other “stalinologists” (e.g. Robert Conquest), there is more to come.

After the victory of counterrevolution and the overthrow of socialism in the USSR, the bourgeois government of Boris Yeltsin decided to open the official soviet state archives, hoping that they would find evidence about the “million victims of the stalinist era”. But, what did the official soviet state archives reveal? They revealed that the actual number of those who were sentenced to death during the period of Stalin's leadership, from 1923 to 1952, is between 776,000 and 786,000 people [6]. The “million victims of stalinism” that Solzhenitsyn, Conquest and other pathetic anticommunists wrote about, consist propagandistic fairy tales.

Taking all the above into account, we can now ask a final question: How credible is an anticommunist fairy tale that is full of inaccuracies and monstrous lies? How serious must someone take the fabrications of Solzhenitsyn about Socialism, the USSR and Stalin? We leave on literature critics to evaluate “Gulag Archipelago” as a novel. But what is clear and beyond doubt is that Solzhenitsyn's book is a non-scientific, anticommunist fabrication full of lies and slanders. In a few words, nothing more or less than the spiritual product of a nazi collaborator, a reactionary and a fascist.

NOTES:

[1] Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror, Mehring Books, 1998.
[2] Reshetovskaya, Natalya. Sanya: My Life With Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Indianapolis/New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1974. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/world/natalya-reshetovskaya-84-is-dead-solzhenitsyn-s-wife-questioned-gulag.html.
[3] The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049.
[4] Andreev, E.M., et al.Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.
[5] BT.Urlanis, Trends in fertility level in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the years of Soviet rule, 1980.
[6] Getty J.A, Rittersporn G, Zemskov V. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Prewar Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence, American Historical Review, 98:4, Oct. 1993.

Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of 'In Defense of Communism'. 
Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror, Mehring Books, 1998.

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"...