Denver, CO – On March 21, more than 150 people gathered at the Berkeley Community Church on Denver’s north side to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Romero Theater Troupe, a radical community theater group that elevates people’s history through plays, poetry and song.

Jim Walsh, a political science professor at CU Denver and founder of the Romero Theater Troupe described the ensemble, saying, “We’re an all-volunteer, organic, radical theater, and we do everything we do without a budget, without a director, and we use a consensus-based collaborative model that no one else has pulled off except for us – and tonight we’re celebrating 20 years of success in that.”

True to their principle of solidarity, the Romero Troupe used this opportunity to raise money for their fellow player Jeanette Vizguerra. Vizguerra, a community organizer and 13-year member of the Romero Troupe was recently kidnapped by ICE after finishing a shift at work at Target.

Vizguerra’s comrades in the Romero Troupe spoke about their memories of her, her tenacity in the struggle, and the community fight to see her freed from her unlawful detention at the GEO Detention Facility in Aurora.

Regarding Vizguerra’s detention, Walsh said, “She was targeted because she holds ICE accountable, and I think ICE has no idea the mistake they made, because they’ve just provided this country with someone to rally and galvanize around. A federal judge ruled today that ICE cannot deport Jeannette without a hearing. This is a huge victory for Jeannette.”

Walsh continued, “She’s likely to win that hearing and be able to remain here, and the entire immigrant rights movement looks to Jeannette for strength, so we’re going to raise money for her and her family tonight.”

Among the performers is Alexander Landau, a member of 13 years with the Troupe and a leader in police accountability activism in Denver ever since he was brutally beaten by Denver police in 2009.

Speaking on the recent developments in Vizguerra’s fight, Landau said , “I believe that it is a demonstration of what community looks like, and has the influence and power to do, especially in these instances where systemic racism has captured one of our sisters.” He continued, “Had this case fallen on deaf ears – had the community not spoken up – I believe she would be in a very different place right now.”

The evening featured several performances that retold episodes of the history of people’s struggle. Members of the Troupe re-enacted Landau’s brutalization and fight-back for justice. They honored the Auraria Encampment for Palestine with a performance of the Battle for Auraria of April 26th, 2024 -showing how the protesters united to drive off an army of police. Other performances featured individual accounts of immigration rights struggles by those who had survived them, and the story of the Flint sit down strike of 1936.

“This is the essence of what the Romero Troupe is. We are storytellers,” remarked Merrill “Arnie” Carter.

The evening ended in a folk sing-along featuring lively renditions of Saint Patrick’s Battalion, Union Maid, De Colores, and We Shall Not Be Moved, many of the songs sung in a mix of English and Spanish.

#DenverCO #CO #Culture #Theatre

As the struggle for national liberation continues, we experience attacks and opposition from various angles in our society. The state weaponizes law enforcement and the justice system in order to threaten, subdue and eradicate those in our movements. The mainstream media sits at the opposite arm of this imperial body, disseminating propaganda to dull and warp the minds of millions through half-truths and obfuscation. To effect the reinforcing chauvinist fervor and trust in the system of capitalistic exploitation, we are constantly bombarded with stories and roundtable discussions syndicated by media conglomerates. These figures are financially incentivized to keep the masses from adopting any semblance of class consciousness.

Perhaps one of the more observable forms of this process is the constant stream of lies and false narratives reported around the Palestinian genocide by politicians and political pundits.

However, I’ve observed a less obvious form of media programming that has been significantly more effective in its goals of reproducing individualistic ideals and enforcing systems of oppression that collectively harm our communities. I’m talking about rap music. More specifically, I’m speaking about the productions by artists financed by industrial powerhouses to create vapid and heavily corporatized messaging.

Media that contains materialistic glamorization provides one side of the myth of Black capitalism to a catchy 808. A genre that at one point featured a plethora of young Black artists creating art that called upon criticisms of the various mechanisms of this society built on white hegemony, has largely been replaced them by those who will, at best, make shallow references to Black radical political ideas while eschewing any calls for changing our society to better meet our material conditions.

A Brand Nubian or Public Enemy of the early 90s, two groups who followed the Black radical tradition of utilizing media to raise political consciousness, simply could not and do not exist with any mainstream presence in the present day. That isn’t to say that these artists no longer exist, but they are not at the forefront of the media circuit. This has not stopped the rap industry from becoming a global enterprise, with artists selling out millions in stadium venues across the world and headlining major sports events to crowds that would otherwise have disapproved of their preponderance. Rap is bigger than it’s ever been in the history of the genre, and along with it the media programming is at an all-time high.

As a person who has been a fan of the genre for over two decades, I’ve watched an industry become more and more co-opted into vectors of mass compliance for capitalist exploitation – from brand deals and corporate sponsorships to globalization through every major social media platform on the internet. Rap is everywhere, and as much love I have for the genre it is primarily not positioned for the betterment of our communities.

Concretely, what we have today is an ever expanding list of artists who serve the interests of those who most profit off the U.S. propaganda machine. Take Kendrick Lamar, who is widely regarded in both numerical and cultural values (ticket sales, music awards and pop cultural relevance) as one of the most highly successful rap artists of the last few decades. His discography includes a mix of upbeat and party music to more introspective and culturally relatable works exploring themes of financial exploitation and interpersonal relationship struggles (To Pimp a Butterfly, Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers). What his artistry lacks, however, is any attempt at providing a sober analysis of the systems that churn profit off of our oppression and raise the question of the legitimacy of capitalism.

When he says, “But remember, you ain't pass economics in school. And everything you buy, taxes will deny. I'll Wesley Snipe your ass before thirty-five,” he speaks to one of the ways that the tax system works in tandem with scholastic institutions to produce talented Black artists ignorant of financial exploitation. At the same time, there is no call to divorce young Black artists from engaging in this industry in the first place. An exploitative practice in the system is pointed out, but the legitimacy of the system and those benefiting from it remain relatively untouched. In fact, in this same song he features media mogul and CEO of Aftermath Entertainment Dr. Dre, who not only mentored Kendrick in his rise to success but is directly responsible for signing him onto the record label which produced most of his albums.

Aftermath Entertainment is but one of many subsidiaries of the media powerhouse Universal Music Group, which has managed the albums of some of the most commercially successful pop artists of the last few decades, from Justin Beiber to Taylor Swift. It’s also worth noting that the CEO of this company, Lucian Grainge, is a staunch Zionist who has maintained an imperialist stance on the genocide of Palestinians for years. Music produced under such a global conglomerate simply cannot be allowed to question monopoly capitalism in any substantive form, and yet it is this music that is widely distributed through all manner of media outlets. Clearly it represents no threat to any wing of the establishment, and the artists who are absorbed into the system are used to expand the profits of the CEOs and their constituents through brand endorsements and commercial advertising.

Seeing an artist heralded by the masses appear in a TV commercial for a multinational financial corporation like American Express, which Kendrick did alongside Shaq in 2016, only one year after To Pimp a Butterfly, sends a dangerous message to those communities – a message exacerbated by the fact that Kendrick was put on tour by that same financial corporation in the same year. And, to bring it to recent events, was the featured artist for one of the most televised sporting events in the world. This message is antithetical to the movement we are trying to build, and one that we cannot allow to foster amongst the people unabated.

Growing up in the Black Belt South, I’ve experienced the effects that rap and hip-hop cultures largely have had on myself and my peers. There was a time when I would have championed a Kendrick Lamar Superbowl show, without considering the implications of showcasing dozens of corporations before, during and after the performance. The same performance had one of the backup dancers, Zul-Qarnain Nantambu, arrested for independently showing international solidarity for those suffering imperial-backed genocide in Palestine. But I wasn’t a communist who believed in the science of Marxism-Leninism then, and now that I am I see another great need in our working class struggles against the state.

As we move forward in our struggles of liberation against the forces committed to our repression, we simply cannot understate the significance of mass media and the celebrity class in manufacturing consent for this system of greed and exploitation. When Malcolm X said, “The media is the most powerful entity on earth.” he was speaking to the power of the media to fool the working-class into believing in false narratives and to keep from correctly identifying and mobilizing against those in power.

In all our organizing grounds, we seek to correct these ideas through political education of the people. However, we need to go a step further and cultivate a culture of media analysis that identifies the vectors of these pacifying ideas and address their sources of influence. When internationally recognized artists such as Meg the Stallion and Will.i.am are brought onto Kamala Harris’ campaign trail, we must be able to recognize the role they are playing in the imperial core and treat them as such. It’s the same position that Malcolm X correctly identified in 1963, and that role has only intensified in the digital age.

Furthermore, our struggle against this arm of monopoly capitalism must be waged within and amongst ourselves. Our media consumption and engagement should be filtered through a materialist analysis of the artists and the messaging they are distributing amongst the masses. That means being expressly critical of the music and supporting industries we engage in, even more so given where we situate ourselves in these national liberation struggles. This is not a call to destroy your copy of Late Registration because of Kanye West’ most recent trend towards nazi apologia and his professed allegiance to the most reactionary elements of the U.S. political landscape. Rather, it is a reminder of the many forces we are up against as we continue to advance the struggle towards collective liberation from imperialism. We wish to transform society into one that is free from class exploitation, and we must be ready and willing to engage in that struggle in every aspect it manifests in. Even if that manifestation is set to a dope bass line.

#Culture #Opinion #Commentary #AfricanAmerican #Rap

Grand Rapids, MI – On December 7, 30 people gathered at Scorpion Hearts Club, a coffee shop near downtown Grand Rapids, to listen and sing along to folk and bluegrass performed by Carsten Forester and the Grand Industrial String Band.

Hosted by Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and the Grand Rapids chapter of the Industrial Workers of The World (IWW), the event honored music from the labor movement.

The five-piece band which includes Carsten Forester on mandolin, Ben Kolk on guitar, Keala Venema on fiddle, Kyle Pitcher on upright bass, and Hannah Meixner on banjo played songs such as Dirty Old Town by Ewan MacColl, Union Man by Blue Highway, and the traditional fiddle tune Squirrel Hunters.

“My goal with The Grand Industrial String Band is to bring together various types of working-class music in a way that moves people towards a greater sense of solidarity,” Carsten Forester replied when asked what his goals are for the group moving forward. “I would say my biggest inspiration in that regard is Hazel Dickens, who is well regarded both as a bluegrass trailblazer and a working-class feminist icon.”

Earlier in the day, the anti-war group Palestine Solidarity Grand Rapids protested outside the entrance of General Dynamics Land Systems, a war profiteer directly complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Afterwards, folks from Palestine Solidary Grand Rapids, FRSO, IWW, the Grand Rapids Tenants Union, and the Grand Rapids Alliance Against Racist Political Repression all converged at the show to unwind. Trade unionists from IATSE Local 26, the Grand Rapids Educators Association, and American Federation of Musicians Local 56 were also in attendance.

Rather than having a standard merch table, FRSO sold copies of the Communist Manifesto, as well J. Sykes’ The Revolutionary Science of Marxism Leninism, alongside the Political Program of FRSO to interested showgoers.

Tom Burke, the president of IATSE 26, sees a lot of shows at his job, and he and ranked the performance among the top three he’d seen that year, listing it alongside Hozier and Billy Strings. “What’s not to like about a room full of movement builders and revolutionaries singing along to an American string band?” adding it was “a real hootenanny!”

The quintet played for just under two hours. Towards the end of the performance, the crowd stood up and sang along to Solidarity Forever, originally written by Ralph Chaplin. Afterwards, the band played They’ll Never Keep Us Down by Hazel Dickens. “We always finish our sets with [that] anthem of working class resistance,” Carsten Forester stated. “I have always found that song to be particularly powerful when you have just been singing about how bad the conditions people have faced and continue to face. We are committed to making music that brings joy, hope and solidarity, while also fearlessly facing the reality that we live in and the history we have inherited.”

In January, Carsten Forester begins his elected term to the executive board of American Federation of Musicians Local 56; a big win for working musicians in West Michigan.

#GrandRapidsMI #MI #Culture #Music #Labor #AFM #IATSE

Los Angeles, CA – A full auditorium at East LA Garfield High School (GHS) greeted Los Lobos for their 50th anniversary concert celebration. The legendary East LA band gave a tremendous concert to the packed auditorium in the new auditorium. Band members include David Hidalgo on accordion and lead guitar, Cesar Rosas vocals and guitar, Louie Perez guitar and Conrado Terrazas on bass. Los Lobos are GHS alumni.

Los Lobos played a wide variety from a long list of albums, from traditional Mexican, to rockabilly, blues and pure rock and roll, all with a Chicano urban flavor.

Songs included Will the Wolf Survive, Evangeline, Come On Let's Go, Don’t Worry Baby, La Bamba and many more in the two hour set. After a shout out to revolutionaries they played Con Mi Carabina 30-30 (With My 30-30 Carbine), the Mexican revolutionary song with a tribute to Francisco Pancho Villa.

They invited other well-known singers to join them on stage like Martha Gonzalez of Quetzal, Lil Willie G of Thee Midniters and Mark Guerrero, son of Lalo Guerrero, the godfather of Chicano music.

Los Lobos top albums include Kiko, How Will The Wolf Survive?, By the Light of the Moon and Good Morning Aztlan. They have won four Grammys.

GHS is well known for its music and academic programs, along with a high graduation and college entrance rate. GHS remained a public school in LAUSD as a result of a fight that stopped privatization and defeat a Green Dot charter school takeover in 2009.

The concert was attended by many GHS alumni and Chicano movement activists for a show of solidarity to a Chicano band from East LA that has made our community proud.

Carlos Montes is a member of the Garfield High School class of summer 1966.

#LosAngelesCA #Culture #OppressedNationalities #ChicanoLatino #Feature

Capitalism on a Ventilator: The Impact of COVID-19 in China & the U.S. - originally published last year and penned by dozens of writers from the U.S. and around the world – will now be translated and distributed in China. It will be available for sale by late September.

The book’s secondary title – An anthology of social justice activists discussing a global choice: cooperation vs. competition - describes the stark choice facing humanity.

“It’s been an honor for our book to be published in China,” said Lee Siu Hin, national coordinator of the China-U.S. Solidarity Network and the National Immigrant Solidarity Network, as well as a writer and editor of the book, “and a great opportunity for U.S. activists to meet and build solidarity with Chinese academia and activists. We hope to continue this work for peace and friendship.”

The authors detail the decisive, comprehensive steps taken by the Chinese government to break the chain of infection, as opposed to the chaotic U.S. response which ranged from outright denial to chaotic bungling, to racist blame games.

Events have borne out the message of the book, published in July 2020 when the U.S. COVID-19 death toll was 150,000. That number has since quadrupled, reaching well over 600,000 in a country of 350 million. By contrast, since that time the number of deaths in China, a country of 1.4 billion, has remained below 5000.

Capitalism on a Ventilator also puts into perspective the ridiculous campaign to use the “lab-leak theory” to blame China for the coronavirus. It was China which, in January 2020, tried to warn the U.S. about the virus, through phone calls, public announcements and early sequencing of the virus, mounting the world’s most comprehensive and successful campaign against the novel disease.

“Despite China’s many accomplishments, a dangerous war drive against China is gaining momentum in the U.S.,” said Sara Flounders, director of the International Action Center and co-editor of the book. “Hopefully this book will introduce voices who are resisting this pull and urging science, cooperation and solidarity as the only alternative.”

Fight Back! editor Mick Kelly states, “This important book includes a chapter from one of our writers, Robert Hayes, that shows the superiority of socialism in combating COVID-19. Every activist should get this book and read it.”

In September of last year, union-busting Amazon tried to ban Capitalism on a Ventilator from its all-powerful platform, claiming the book did not “comply with [Amazon’s] guidelines” and falsely listing it as “out of print.”

While an outcry forced Amazon to carry the title on its megasite, even now it cannot be found on Kindle, the publishing giant’s e-book format.

The chapters include articles by many authors including: Ajamu Baraka, Monica Moorehead, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Margaret Kimberley, Margaret Flowers, Vijay Prashad, Max Blumenthal, Lee Siu Hin, Sara Flounders, Carlos Martinez, Kevin Zeese, Deirdre Griswold and more.

The book can be found online at these locations:

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/capitalism-on-a-ventilator https://world-view-forum.myshopify.com/products/capitalism-on-a-ventilator https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ventilator-Impact-COVID-19-China/dp/0895671964

#NewYorkNY #CapitalismAndEconomy #Culture #Asia #Healthcare #PeoplesStruggles #BookReviews #China #Socialism #COVID19

To mark the April 22, 1870 birthday of Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, Fight Back News Service is circulating the following excerpt from his 1918 book, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.

Can There Be Equality Between the Exploited and the Exploiter?

Kautsky argues as follows:

(1) “The exploiters have always formed only a small minority of the population” (p. 14 of Kautsky’s pamphlet).

This is indisputably true. Taking this as the starting point, what should be the argument? One may argue in a Marxist, a socialist way. In which case one would proceed from the relation between the exploited and the exploiters. Or one may argue in a liberal, a bourgeois-democratic way. And in that case one would proceed from the relation between the majority and the minority.

If we argue in a Marxist way, we must say: the exploiters inevitably transform the state (and we are speaking of democracy, i.e., one of the forms of the state) into an instrument of the rule of their class, the exploiters, over the exploited. Hence, as long as there are exploiters who rule the majority, the exploited, the democratic state must inevitably be a democracy for the exploiters. A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, “and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”.

If we argue in a liberal way, we must say: the majority decides, the minority submits. Those who do not submit are punished. That is all. Nothing need be said about the class character of the state in general, or of “pure democracy” in particular, because it is irrelevant; for a majority is a majority and a minority is a minority. A pound of flesh is a pound of flesh, and that is all there is to it.

And this is exactly how Kautsky argues.

(2) “Why should the rule of the proletariat assume, and necessarily assume, a form which is incompatible with democracy?” (P. 21). Then follows a very detailed and a very verbose explanation, backed by a quotation from Marx and the election figures of the Paris Commune, to the effect that the proletariat is in the majority. The conclusion is: “A regime which is so strongly rooted in the people has not the slightest reason for encroaching upon democracy. It cannot always dispense with violence in cases when violence is employed to suppress democracy. Violence can only be met with violence. But a regime which knows that it has popular backing will employ violence only to protect democracy and not to destroy it. It would be simply suicidal if it attempted to do away with its most reliable basis—universal suffrage, that deep source of mighty moral authority” (p. 22).

As you see, the relation between the exploited and the exploiters has vanished in Kautsky’s argument. All that remains is majority in general, minority in general, democracy in general, the “pure democracy” with which we are already familiar.

And all this, mark you, is said apropos of the Paris Commune! To make things clearer I shall quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship apropos of the Paris Commune:

Marx: “. . . When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship . . . to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie . . . the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form . . .”

Engels: “. . . And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? . . .”]

Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. . . .”

Kautsky is as far removed from Marx and Engels as heaven is from earth, as a liberal from a proletarian revolutionary. The pure democracy and simple “democracy” that Kautsky talks about is merely a paraphrase of the “free people’s state”, i.e., sheer nonsense. Kautsky, with the learned air of a most learned armchair fool, or with the innocent air of a ten-year-old schoolgirl, asks: Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain:

—to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie;

—to inspire the reactionaries with fear;

—to maintain the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie;

—that the proletariat may forcibly hold down its adversaries.

Kautsky does not understand these explanations. Infatuated with the “purity” of democracy, blind to its bourgeois character, he “consistently” urges that the majority, since it is the majority, need not “break down the resistance” of the minority, nor “forcibly hold it down”—it is sufficient to suppress cases of infringement of democracy. Infatuated with the “purity” of democracy, Kautsky inadvertently commits the same little error that all bourgeois democrats always commit, namely, he takes formal equality (which is nothing but a fraud and hypocrisy under capitalism) for actual equality! Quite a trifle!

The exploiter and the exploited cannot be equal.

This truth, however unpleasant it may be to Kautsky, nevertheless forms the essence of socialism.

Another truth: there can be no real, actual equality until all possibility of the exploitation of one class by another has been totally destroyed.

The exploiters can be defeated at one stroke in the event of a successful uprising at the centre, or of a revolt in the army. But except in very rare and special cases, the exploiters cannot be destroyed at one stroke. It is impossible to expropriate all the landowners and capitalists of any big country at one stroke. Furthermore, expropriation alone, as a legal or political act, does not settle the matter by a long chalk, because it is necessary to depose the landowners and capitalists in actual fact, to replace their management of the factories and estates by a different management, workers’ management, in actual fact. There can be no equality between the exploiters—who for many generations have been better off because of their education, conditions of wealthy life, and habits—and the exploited, the majority of whom even in the most advanced and most democratic bourgeois republics are downtrodden, backward, ignorant, intimidated and disunited. For a long time after the revolution the exploiters inevitably continue to retain a number of great practical advantages: they still have money (since it is impossible to abolish money all at once); some movable property—often fairly considerable; they still have various connections, habits of organisation and management; knowledge of all the “secrets” (customs, methods, means and possibilities) of management; superior education; close connections with the higher technical personnel (who live and think like the bourgeoisie); incomparably greater experience in the art of war (this is very important), and so on and so forth.

If the exploiters are defeated in one country only—and this, of course, is typical, since a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception—they still remain stronger than the exploited, for the international connections of the exploiters are enormous. That a section of the exploited from the least advanced middle-peasant, artisan and similar groups of the population may, and indeed does, follow the exploiters has been proved by all revolutions, including the Commune (for there were also proletarians among the Versailles troops, which the most learned Kautsky has “forgotten”).

In these circumstances, to assume that in a revolution which is at all profound and serious the issue is decided simply by the relation between the majority and the minority is the acme of stupidity, the silliest prejudice of a common liberal, an attempt to deceive the people by concealing from them a well-established historical truth. This historical truth is that in every profound revolution, the prolonged, stubborn and desperate resistance of the exploiters, who for a number of years retain important practical advantages over the exploited, is the rule. Never—except in the sentimental fantasies of the sentimental fool Kautsky—will the exploiters submit to the decision of the exploited majority without trying to make use of their advantages in a last desperate battle, or series of battles.

The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration. After their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploiters—who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it—throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle for the recovery of the “paradise”, of which they were deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the “common herd” is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to “common” labour . . .). In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic-stricken at the first defeat or semi defeat of the workers, grow nervous, run about aimlessly, snivel, and rush from one camp into the other—just like our Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.

In these circumstances, in an epoch of desperately acute war, when history presents the question of whether age-old and thousand-year-old privileges are to be or not to be–at such a time to talk about majority and minority, about pure democracy, about dictatorship being unnecessary and about equality between the exploiter and the exploited! What infinite stupidity and abysmal philistinism are needed for this!

However, during the decades of comparatively “peaceful” capitalism between 1871 and 1914, the Augean stables of philistinism, imbecility, and apostasy accumulated in the socialist parties which were adapting themselves to opportunism. . . .

\* *

*

The reader will probably have noticed that Kautsky, in the passage from his pamphlet quoted above, speaks of an attempt to encroach upon universal suffrage (calling it, by the way, a deep source of mighty moral authority, whereas Engels, apropos of the same Paris Commune and the same question of dictatorship, spoke of the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie—a very characteristic difference between the philistine’s and the revolutionary’s views on “authority” . . .).

It should be observed that the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Had Kautsky, casting aside hypocrisy, entitled his pamphlet Against the Bolsheviks, the title would have corresponded to the contents of the pamphlet, and Kautsky would have been justified in speaking bluntly about the franchise. But Kautsky wanted to come out primarily as a “theoretician”. He called his pamphlet The Dictatorship of the Proletariat—in general. He speaks about the Soviets and about Russia specifically only in the second part of the pamphlet, beginning with the sixth paragraph. The subject dealt with in the first part (from which I took the quotation) is democracy and dictatorship in general. In speaking about the franchise, Kautsky betrayed himself as an opponent of the Bolsheviks, who does not care a brass farthing for theory. For theory, i.e., the reasoning about the general (and not the nationally specific) class foundations of democracy and dictatorship, ought to deal not with a special question, such as the franchise, but with the general question of whether democracy can be preserved for the rich, for the exploiters in the historical period of the overthrow of the exploiters and the replacement of their state by the state of the exploited.

That is the way, the only way, a theoretician can present the question.

We know the example of the Paris Commune, we know all that was said by the founders of Marxism in connection with it and in reference to it. On the basis of this material I examined, for instance, the question of democracy and dictatorship in my pamphlet, The State and Revolution, written before the October Revolution. I did not say anything at all about restricting the franchise. And it must be said now that the question of restricting the franchise is a nationally specific and not a general question of the dictatorship. One must approach the question of restricting the franchise by studying the specific conditions of the Russian revolution and the specific path of its development. This will be done later on in this pamphlet. It would be a mistake, however, to guarantee in advance that the impending proletarian revolutions in Europe will all, or the majority of them, be necessarily accompanied by restriction of the franchise for the bourgeoisie. It may be so. After the war and the experience of the Russian revolution it probably will be so; but it is not absolutely necessary for the exercise of the dictatorship, it is not an indispensable characteristic of the logical concept “dictatorship”, it does not enter as an indispensable condition in the historical and class concept “dictatorship”.

The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class, and, consequently, the infringement of “pure democracy”, i.e., of equality and freedom, in regard to that class.

This is the way, the only way, the question can be put theoretically. And by failing to put the question thus, Kautsky has shown that he opposes the Bolsheviks not as a theoretician, but as a sycophant of the opportunists and the bourgeoisie.

In which countries, and given what national features of capitalism, democracy for the exploiters will be in one or another form restricted (wholly or in part), infringed upon, is a question of the specific national features of this or that capitalism, of this or that revolution. The theoretical question is different: Is the dictatorship of the proletariat possible without infringing democracy in relation to the exploiting class?

It is precisely this question, the only theoretically important and essential one, that Kautsky has evaded. He has quoted all sorts of passages from Marx and Engels, except those which bear on this question, and which I quoted above.

Kautsky talks about anything you like, about everything that is acceptable to liberals and bourgeois democrats and does not go beyond their circle of ideas, but he does not talk about the main thing, namely, the fact that the proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its adversaries, and that, where there is “forcible suppression”, where there is no “freedom”, there is, of course, no democracy.

This Kautsky has not understood.

#UnitedStates #Culture #Editorials #PeoplesStruggles #Lenin #Socialism #Birthday #Kautsky

To mark the anniversary of the publication of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, on Feb. 21, 1848, Fight Back! is reprinting the book’s first chapter. This anniversary comes in the context of a growing rejection of capitalism and a renewed interest in the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism. Enjoy. Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborer’s.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexons everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

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. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of laborer’s, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborer’s, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborer’s, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooked, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

#Germany #CapitalismAndEconomy #Culture #Editorials #PeoplesStruggles #Socialism #KarlMarx #FriedrichEngels #TheCommunistManifesto

The delegation of anti-war activists from the U.S. have been staying at a fancy, old hotel right by Red Square in Moscow. The Metropol is over 100 years old.

In 1917, the October Revolution, led by the Bolsheviks, overthrew the capitalist government in Saint Petersburg. The country's capital was moved to Moscow because the imperialist countries on all sides of the Soviet Union were invading to try to crush the revolution, and Saint Petersburg was closer to the border. When the revolutionaries took power in Moscow, the Metropol, which had been a headquarters for the counter revolutionaries, was appropriated to become the Second House of the Soviets.

We have breakfast each morning at a dining room in an enormous hall. There’s a plaque that states that in 1918 and 1919, that room held Bolshevik party congresses, and Lenin gave many speeches there.

Tiles on the exterior of the Hotel Metropol contain a quote from Lenin. It reads, “Only the dictatorship of proletariat can free mankind from the oppression of capitalism.” On the plaque about the history of the building, it’s also written that Lenin met there with members of the “prodotryad” – revolutionary brigades that compelled the rich people to share their food with the starving workers of the city. Perhaps he had the prodotryad in mind when he wrote that slogan.

#MoscowRussia #Moscow #International #AntiwarMovement #Culture #Socialism #Russia #history

Both President Obama and the Dalai Lama are scheduled to attend the Feb. 5 U.S National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC.

Hong Lei stated, “Tibet-related issues bear on China's core interest and national feelings. We are against any country's interference in China's domestic affairs under the pretext of Tibet-related issues, and are opposed to any foreign leader's meeting with the Dalai Lama in any form.”

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959, where he had ruled over an oppressive social system that kept most Tibetans in serfdom and poverty. He has a long association with the U.S. CIA and has been at the center of efforts to carve up China for the benefit of Western elites.

#WashingtonDC #Culture #Asia #AsianNationalities #China #DalaiLama

Milwaukee, WI – Nearly 50 Palestine solidarity activists disrupted a speech hosted by the Israel Center of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation on Jan. 30. The event featured Ron Leshem, the original producer of the Israeli television series Hatufim, which was adapted for U.S. television as the series Homeland.

The event “TV: An Israeli Success Story” was designed to laud Israel's cultural achievements in arts and entertainment while using those talking points to ignore or whitewash Israel’s illegal existence on stolen land. During the lecture, Leshem described his use of writing to humanize his subjects, who are often members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and showed a clip of an Israeli prisoner displaying his scars. Leshem spoke of shaping global public opinion, telling the “other side of the story,” and of making Israeli media more “cosmopolitan.”

20 minutes into the presentation, an activist stood in front of Leshem and loudly announced “Occupation is not cosmopolitan, it’s genocide! If you want to understand the other side, listen to the 2002 Palestinian call for academic and cultural boycott of Israel. Stop filming on occupied territory, stop touring with the IDF, stop advocating for Israel. Occupation is not entertainment!”

During the interruption, about 50 activists in the front of the room wearing t-shirts that read “Occupation is not education” and “Boycott Israel” stood up and slowly filed out of the event. About 30 people remained in the room, many hurling insults as the activists walked out.

Israel funding campus propaganda

With Palestine solidarity activism growing on U.S. campuses, Israel has poured millions of dollars into public relations to counter the success of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. A 2013 move by the Jewish Agency for Israel will allocate $300 million a year to fund pro-Israel events, most of which will fund events on U.S. campuses, according to watchdogs.

Campus activist groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine have found success in neutralizing pro-Israel events with walk-outs, disruptions, mock checkpoints and other direct actions.

Ihsan Atta, member of the Milwaukee Palestine Solidarity Coalition states, “As Zionist groups continue to invite speakers who promote hatred and discrimination, we will continue to be there to remind them that oppressing the civilian population of Palestine is not acceptable nor will it be tolerated.”

#MilwaukeeWI #Culture #Palestine #MilwaukeePalestineSolidarityCoalition #Homeland #Hatufim #RonLeshem #MiddleEast

Milwaukee, WI – Nearly 50 Palestine solidarity activists disrupted a speech hosted by the Israel Center of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation on Jan. 30. The event featured Ron Leshem, the original producer of the Israeli television series Hatufim, which was adapted for U.S. television as the series Homeland.

The event “TV: An Israeli Success Story” was designed to laud Israel's cultural achievements in arts and entertainment while using those talking points to ignore or whitewash Israel’s illegal existence on stolen land. During the lecture, Leshem described his use of writing to humanize his subjects, who are often members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and showed a clip of an Israeli prisoner displaying his scars. Leshem spoke of shaping global public opinion, telling the “other side of the story,” and of making Israeli media more “cosmopolitan.”

20 minutes into the presentation, an activist stood in front of Leshem and loudly announced “Occupation is not cosmopolitan, it’s genocide! If you want to understand the other side, listen to the 2002 Palestinian call for academic and cultural boycott of Israel. Stop filming on occupied territory, stop touring with the IDF, stop advocating for Israel. Occupation is not entertainment!”

During the interruption, about 50 activists in the front of the room wearing t-shirts that read “Occupation is not education” and “Boycott Israel” stood up and slowly filed out of the event. About 30 people remained in the room, many hurling insults as the activists walked out.

Israel funding campus propaganda

With Palestine solidarity activism growing on U.S. campuses, Israel has poured millions of dollars into public relations to counter the success of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. A 2013 move by the Jewish Agency for Israel will allocate $300 million a year to fund pro-Israel events, most of which will fund events on U.S. campuses, according to watchdogs.

Campus activist groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine have found success in neutralizing pro-Israel events with walk-outs, disruptions, mock checkpoints and other direct actions.

Ihsan Atta, member of the Milwaukee Palestine Solidarity Coalition states, “As Zionist groups continue to invite speakers who promote hatred and discrimination, we will continue to be there to remind them that oppressing the civilian population of Palestine is not acceptable nor will it be tolerated.”

#MilwaukeeWI #Culture #Palestine #MilwaukeePalestineSolidarityCoalition #Homeland #Hatufim #RonLeshem #MiddleEast

Pete Seeger was more than a folk musician. He dedicated his life to ending oppression and exploitation. When the going got tough, Seeger appeared to lift people’s spirits and strengthen their resolve.

Seeger joined the Young Communist League in 1936 at the age of 17. He advocated and sang for the U.S. to join the fight against Hitler once the Soviet Union was invaded. He joined the Communist Party in 1942, the same year he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he continued singing for the troops. The next year he recorded Songs of the Lincoln Battalion in honor of the American revolutionaries who fought fascism in Spain before World War II. After the army, Seeger helped create People’s Songs, an organization that promoted music and songs about workers and the people’s struggles.

In the face of McCarthyism and Cold War political repression, Seeger refused to back down. He was blacklisted from performing with the hugely popular Weavers on radio and television. With the Hollywood Ten already convicted and imprisoned for refusing to testify and being ruled in contempt of Congress, Seeger took a principled stand at the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings. He was eventually convicted of contempt in 1961 and sentenced to ten years, but the sentence was later overturned on appeal in 1962.

During the African-American Civil Rights movement, Seeger played an important role reaching white audiences, thus changing hearts and minds. He also appeared at countless rallies against the U.S. war in Vietnam and visited Vietnam with his family in 1972, before the final defeat of the U.S. and its puppets.

From If I Had a Hammer to Where Have All the Flowers Gone? to Turn! Turn! Turn! Pete Seeger is remembered today and for years to come.

In Seeger’s words, “A good song reminds us what we’re fighting for.”

#GrandRapidsMI #Culture #Remembrances #Music #PeteSeeger #folkMusic

I was at her last Los Angeles area concert, which was filled to capacity, at the Gibson Amphitheater with hundreds of decked-out 18 to 70-year old women and some men – including her soon-to-be ex-husband – where she sang about love, sadness, diva-ness and living your life how you want, without apologies. The mujeres (women) in the audience (including me) were always left inspired, stronger and with a little less pain to carry back home. This wasn’t exactly what we think of as ‘feminism’ but it was something that each of us felt as empowerment, and probably even therapy.

I have been a fan of Jenni Rivera since about 2000, when she was on her father’s disquera (record company) and just starting out. Her brother, Lupillo Rivera, was much more famous than her for a while but has since dropped out of the limelight. Still, the family, including her other two singing brothers, Gustavo and Juan, and father Pedro Rivera have all been involved in music and for many years have performed in ‘Mexican music’ clubs across Los Angeles, the Southwest and Mexico. While working for the United Farm Workers, Pedro and Lupillo even came to the Cesar Chavez Walk I organized in Los Angeles. Lupillo shared about the importance of supporting Raza and how their father was once a campesino (farmworker). Of course I was excited to have them, but still secretly wanted to have Jenni there too.

Jenni was truly like no other. So many didn’t know about her until her death but she was truly “INOLVIDABLE” (unforgettable), which is also the title of one of her singles. She was like the homegirl that you grew up with, the loca (crazy) who always had an opinion, the traviesa (troubled one) always having problems, and the one who knew your life – really, for many mujeres MeXicanas (Mexican women), her experiences were practically identical to ours and they WERE our life. Early on she struggled as a single mom and student and often did not fit in. Even in the music industry she was in a state of neither here nor there. Many would criticize her for singing in English or not being ‘Mexican’ enough. In her personal life or interviews she was too loca (crazy), too proud, etc. Still through all that she owned it and was just herself – in all of her contradictions and that is what us, her publico (public), got to see, know, and love.

There have been comparisons to Selena – and though they have some key similarities, mainly both being bicultural Chicana singers, they are also very different. Let’s keep it real, Jenni was gangsta…not only because she was and represented the hood until her dying day, but because she always stood up for herself, her family and her cultura – to anyone from Spanish language news celebrities like “El Gordo y La Flaca” to people on the streets. In her early days she sang narco-corrido style, and even through that I loved to see a woman with power, however misguided that style was. She mostly performed BOTH banda and norteña music…I know many don’t know the difference and lump it all together…but that’s like saying all hip hop or punk music is the same – it just isn’t. There are various genres and styles even within musica norteña and banda! Jenni, like her fans, crossed musical genres by recording a song with the banda rap duo Akwid. My hope was to one day record a similar banda hip hop song with her, but more on the Xicanista (Xicana feminista) tip and with more banda/norteña music sounds. I even Tweeted her about it once (I didn’t get a response amongst the hundreds she gets daily). But that mix is something I had been working on for a few years and knew she would understand perfectly.

Access is something she gave and shared freely, almost always making herself available to the press, her fans, and those who reached out. She was accessible to her fans on many levels – always visiting and sending notes to people across the U.S. and Mexico who were sick (my friend’s friend who is waiting for a kidney transplant) but also responding to people’s Tweets on a regular basis and frequenting places where all the Raza was at.

She did charity work but also used her name/fame for the cause – for example, singing after the Arizona march against SB 1070. Having herself experienced domestic violence and her family dealing with sexual abuse she worked to bring these issues to light so much so that in 2010 she was named spokeswoman for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and honored by the Los Angeles City Council for her charity work and community involvement with their “Jenni Rivera Day.”

As a woman, she had been through so much and as she said recently in an interview, “The number of times I have fallen down is the number of times I have gotten up.” With her own reality shows, makeup, plus-size clothing line and decade or more of chingon(a) recordings in Spanish and English, she will be loved, missed and remembered for years to come.

#LosAngelesCA #Culture #Remembrances #ChicanoLatino #JenniRivera

Fight Back!: Josh, can you tell us about the “Free Ricardo Palmera” group?

Josh Sykes: The “Free Ricardo Palmera” group was a facebook group administered by three activists with the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera. Professor Palmera is a political prisoner in the United States. He was a leading peace negotiator with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People's Army (FARC-EP). Since he was first arrested on a mission to meet with a United Nations representative in Ecuador and then extradited to the U.S., the National Committee has worked for his freedom. The extradition and imprisonment of Palmera, a true freedom fighter, goes against Colombian sovereignty and is a slap in the face to the Colombian people. Palmera is a good man who was railroaded in an attempt by the U.S. to criminalize the national liberation struggle in Colombia. The facebook group was one of many ways the National Committee got out information about the struggle to free Ricardo Palmera. When facebook shut it down it had more than 700 members from around the world, with many from the U.S. and Latin America. It was a good resource for us and we are working to get it back.

Fight Back!: Why was the group shut down?

Sykes: Facebook's reason was that it violated the ‘terms of use’ so they shut it down on June 30. They said that it was obscene, that it attacked people, or was hateful. Nothing could be further from the truth. They also threatened the administrators of the group with having their profiles disabled if we continued to “abuse” facebook features – which we never did. Of course it wasn't really about any of those things. We are a group advocating justice. Ricardo Palmera’s human rights are being violated. He is in solitary confinement [at the SuperMax prison in Colorado] with no human contact. He is held under ‘special administrative measures’ where the U.S. government says journalists cannot interview him, we are not allowed to visit him and when American supporters write letters they are returned saying Palmera is not permitted to read them. Palmera is currently on ‘trial by video’ in Colombia and he is shackled from head to ankle and threatened with electric shock if he moves too quickly. He cannot possibly get a fair trial this way. We continue to demand, “Free Ricardo Palmera!”

One possibility is that facebook is censoring views they don't like. They've shut down a number of groups operating in solidarity with the Palestinian people, for instance. Another possibility is that the U.S. State Department put pressure on the bosses at facebook to shut us down, just like they put pressure on the U.S. judges during the trials and sentencing of Professor Palmera. In any case, facebook is acting like the Colombian government’s death squads trying to shut people up for speaking out against the rich and powerful.

Fight Back!: What are the latest developments?

Sykes: There is what facebook calls an appeals process, which is nothing more than a run-around. Today facebook disabled the accounts of myself and the two other administrators of the Free Ricardo Palmera group, Angela Denio and Tom Burke, with no warning and no reason given. We are appealing that too. Meanwhile, we are asking that people stand up and oppose this blatant censorship on the part of facebook.

Call facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg at (650) 543-4800 and demand that the Free Ricardo Palmera group, and the accounts of the three administrators, be reinstated. Join the protest group, here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=136562699701718 Demand an end to facebook's censorship. Stop the attacks on progressive causes and activists.

#UnitedStates #Culture #Colombia #RicardoPalmera #facebook #censorship #PoliticalPrisoners

Most of us never learned in school that May Day was born in the U.S.A. We didn't learn it because it was never taught. On May 1, 1886 U.S. workers went on strike for the 8-hour day. The epicenter of this powerful movement was Chicago, where workers fought and died. In the aftermath of this battle, the ruling class extracted revenge. Leaders of the gigantic strike were jailed and executed by the government of Illinois. But for the employers, it was already too late. The heroism and determination of the Chicago working class, and those that led them, would resonate around the world. The idea of celebrating May Day as International Workers Day quickly took root. From then on, May Day became the day for our class to celebrate our victories, and to stand up to those who would rob and oppress us.

This year's May Day comes amid war and crisis. Our class, the working class, faces serious challenges. The rich, the capitalists and corporations who run this country, are “restructuring” the economy to better serve themselves. They want us working at long hours for low pay. For those of us who are unemployed, they are systematically destroying the social safety net. The government is in hands of the wealthy, so it cuts taxes for the rich, and gives the corporations one handout after another.

Our country has become one big jailhouse for the oppressed nationalities with in U.S. borders. According to our rulers, racial profiling is fine – in the airports or on the New Jersey Turnpike. Racist discrimination is a fact of life. Death rows, packed with people of color, give lie to talk of “justice for all.”

The rich have built an empire that extends across the globe. What is called “globalization” is, in fact, imperialism. The corporations are looting the land, labor, and natural resources of others. This robbery is enforced by military means. U.S. war ships sail every sea. American military bases are scattered throughout the world. None of this is for our peace and security. It's all about money for those that already have it.

What Bush calls a “war on terror,” is really a war on poor and working people abroad and right here at home. Bush calls the Palestinian freedom fighters “criminals,” and turns reality upside down.

In Colombia, U.S. troops are on the ground trying to hold back a revolution. “Former” U.S. generals are working in the Defense Ministry of Colombia's death squad government. They want to keep Colombia safe for the profits of oil companies. And they hate the idea of the Colombian rebels coming to power. Colombian revolutionaries want a just and decent society, where the people come first. Corporations that covet Latin America's resources and enrich themselves by paying workers next to nothing are panicked by the prospect of a New Colombia. So the White House sends troops, guns and dollars, while the corrupt president of Colombia struts around with U.S. Special Forces as bodyguards.

Working and oppressed people here are right to stand with our brothers and sisters in other countries. We are ripped off by the same corporations, and face the same Axis of Evil – the White House, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. We do not owe the rich and powerful our love, loyalty or respect. We don't owe them a thing.

On May 1 we look forward to the day working people – those of us who make society run – take political power in our own hands and run all of society! We can take our dreams of peace, equality and freedom and make them a reality. Our future is bright, and great struggles, with great outcomes. are before us.

#UnitedStates #CapitalismAndEconomy #Editorial #Culture #Editorials #PeoplesStruggles #CommunistHoliday #internationalWorkersDay #Haymarket