The only distinction between this program and that of the liberal reformists lies in the name of the party which put it forth. This is exactly the program of the agrarian reformists. It lies even to the right of the program or their Russian counterpart, the Socialist Revolutionaries. They, at least, demanded the nationalization of the land which is only a bourgeois and not a Socialist demand.
THEY point out that the country is in a semi-feudal stage of development. Vast quantities of private capital, Chinese and foreign will be required to bring the country up to an advanced state of industrialisation. By the end of that period they hope the transition to a Socialist order may be accomplished painlessly. THE proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the fact that the Chinese Communists are in truth agrarian reformists and not proletarian revolutionists may be found in the composition of their party.
The Russian Bolsheviks who also operated in a predominantly peasant country and in a country where the bourgeois revolution had not yet conquered had the bulk of their membership among the proletariat and were weakest among the peasantry. The composition of the Chinese Communist Party, then, is not that of the Bolsheviks or of a proletarian party, but that of the Socialist Revolutionaries or a petty-bourgeois peasant party.
This is borne out too, by the fact that the Communist Party of China has very little strength in the industrial cities of China. The pattern of the fight against the feudal lord Chiang-Kai-chek is that the Communists generally held the countryside and Chiang the cities. There have not been, to my knowledge, any widespread strike movements in support of the Communists although this would certainly be expected. TO sum up: The Chinese Communist Party both in its program with its bourgeois democratic aims, its turning to the bourgeoisie for leadership and its, renunciation of Socialism at least in our time ; and its composition with its predominantly peasant membership and weak hold on the proletariat are truly Communists in name only.
Their program cannot lead and has not led to the victory of the proletarian revolution nor the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship which they renounce, but to the victory of the bourgeoisie. They are instead typical examples of the actions that are taken by every Communist Party and the line that they issue is daily repeated in every Communist Party. Those who are serious about building a Marxist movement must notice, at least, that these things are happening in the world. Here, too, space does not allow us a full review of all policy. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to only a few issues.
They are: One, the policy during the war; two, the policy in regard to relationship between the Soviet State and. In connection with the war, let us consider only the question of the agreements signed by the leaders of the Soviet Union with the two groups of capitalist states: The Nazi-Soviet relations and the Anglo-American-Soviet relations. For it surely would not be beyond the bourgeoisie to issue forgeries.
Let us therefore examine the evidence. We shall consider it in two ways: One, we shall reexamine the situation that existed during that period to see if there is any verification, and two, we shall examine the reply of the Soviet Union to the charges made. THE charges were, in essence, that the leadership of the Soviet Union had signed a secret agreement with Nazi-Germany under which they were to and actually did receive a share of the booty.
The general evidence as confirmation for this may be summed up as follows: The division of Poland, conquered by Germany with the Soviet Union marching up to a predefined position without even friction or a protest cannot be explained any other way. Two, the attitude of the Soviet and Comintern material issued at the time highlights this. This is, of course, a complete justification of the invasions of the Scandinavian countries by Germany and reflected the position taken by them.
At the last moment, however, cowed by the strength of the Soviet Union, Germany double crossed her sponsors and signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. IT does not take much to see that this is also an implied justification of the German imperialists. For, if Germany had seen the error of its ways, and if this war was started only by the desire of England and France to make the Nazis live up to their gangster agreement, then it is obvious that the cause of the war lay in the evil desires of France and England and that if they would have only left Germany alone, then there would have been no war.
OTHER verifications of the time lie in the complete surprise that the Nazi invasion was to all of us. For example, it took so long to get reoriented that two weeks after the fateful June 22nd, on July 4th at an American Youth Congress meeting, John Gates speaking for the YCL abstained on the question of sending convoys to Europe. In addition, there was the unpreparedness of the Soviet Union and a host of similar events. NOW let us examine the reply of the Soviet Union to these charges.
The first section of reply is devoted to an indignant protest at the unilateral publication of the documents. THERE are two things worthy of brief note here. One, normal diplomatic procedure means that the diplomats say one thing for the purpose of fooling the people and, behind closed doors they make the deals which cost the lives of millions of people. AFTER proving, at some length, that the capitalist powers were responsible for the arming of Hitler and the war, the Soviet Union states its version of the Nazi-Soviet pact:.
It is, however, a complete lie. The Nazi-Soviet Pact neither gave it was signed for a ten year period nor could it give any assurance to the Soviet Union of a period of peace. The Nazis had shown too well that the non-aggression pacts and the treaties which they signed freely were nothing more than lures to put the unwary to sleep. No serious person could believe that the mere holding of a promise from the Nazis would serve or could possible serve as a guarantee of peace. When the Nazis were ready to attack the Soviet Union, they were not deterred for a moment by either their current non-aggression pact nor by the negotiations which they were conducting with the Soviet Union for a permanent alliance.
It must be clear that since the signing of the non-aggression pact could not protect the Soviet Union from attack that the failure to sign this non-aggression pact could not have endangered her. WHAT is worthy of note here is that the Soviet Union has no principled objections to making such deals with the capitalists.
THE most important justification for this policy advanced by the Soviet Union is that it extended her borders and thus hastened the defeat of the German imperialists:. The Second World War would then have ended, not in , but in or somewhat later. THIS, too, overlooks the basic point. The defense of the Soviet Union has never lain in the extension of its borders but in the support which it had from the workers of the world. In the first world war, the Bolsheviki were able to defend the Soviet Union best by sacrificing territory. It is true, of course, from a purely military point of view that it is better to have your enemy as far from the centers of your state as possible.
The partnership between Germany and the Soviet Union cost the Soviet Union millions of lives and made impossible the overthrow of the German bourgeoisie. It was far to great a price to pay for any strip of land. There for the second time in one war the leaders of the Soviet Union made a secret agreement with the imperialist powers. This is openly admitted. The leaders of the Soviet Union made a secret agreement with the leaders of the imperialist states, U. In return for this they were to receive and actually did receive the following share of the booty of the imperialists: South Sakhalian Island, the Kuriles Islands, Port Arthur, and some smaller concessions.
HERE we have a situation where in one war the leaders of the Soviet Union made secret treaties for a share in the loot with both groups of imperialists at different times. CAN one not raise the question, Father, whether it might not have been these secret agreements which resulted in the destruction of the class consciousness of the workers in both Germany and the United States? LET us pass on to some aspects of Soviet Policy after the war. Since there can be no more than an indication of some of the problems here, we shall deal only with the cases of Greece and Indonesia.
LET us review the events in Greece. At the end of the war the country was liberated by the National Liberation Front EAM , which was composed of the proletariat and peasantry and led by the Communist Party. After this force, in agreement with the British, consented to let the thoroughly discredited Government-in-Exile return, the imperialist bourgeoisie of Britain and the United States proceeded to drive the Greek Communists and the liberation forces out of Athens by the open intervention of the British Army.
Since then the Greek fascist, Black Hundred, counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie has been armed and directed openly by the British and American imperialists who, as the bourgeoisie always does joined hands to crush the revolutionary movement. IN the face of this situation what was the action of the Soviet Union? While the unarmed Greek liberation forces were being mowed down by troops armed to the teeth by the imperialist powers what did the Soviet Union do? It will be a great consolation to the widows of the murdered unarmed proletariat to know that the Soviet Union has gone on record while withholding the arms which alone could have guaranteed victory.
Even the philistine NCP is forced to state that the proletariat does not want to end civil war, but to win it. Even this petty bourgeois journal calls for shipment of arms to the embattled movements. May we not inquire whether by this policy, the leaders of the Soviet Union are not standing idly by and, in deeds aiding the destruction of the national liberation movement? May we not inquire whether this rotten cowardly renunciation of even the most elementary solidarity did not, in fact, help the imperialists to prepare an effective base for the war against the Soviet Union?
In Indonesia the situation is so shocking that it is difficult to believe. I, therefore, quote from the New Times 31 of so that the picture given may be seen through the eyes of the Soviet Union. I will quote from two articles there: One, the eyewitness account of two delegates of the International Youth Festival who visited the islands and, two, the editorial which analyses the situation politically and gives the viewpoint of the Soviet Union.
There were tanks, with guns trained on republican territory, batteries of artillery, facing in the same direction, French mortars, soldiers armed with machine guns and automatic guns in the trenches. This was war. But only the soldiers were Dutch. All the rest, the tanks, cannon, small arms and even the uniforms, were of British and American origin. There we saw the republican soldiers. Some, but very few, were aimed with automatic guns a cherished prize!
At the hip, alongside of their coconut flasks, some of the men wore homemade hand grenades. But all of them wore the little white and red, flag of Indonesian on their fatigue caps. True, these weapons are hardly effective sic! These were boys with determined clean-cut features. They were all volunteers and ready to defend their Republic and people. They are learning the art of warfare and at the same time fashioning weapons. Made in Indonesia should have been inscribed on these weapons. They are more concerned with offering proof to the doubting world that the capitalist powers do not behave nobly and fairly to the oppressed colonial countries!!
They do offer the Indonesians something, however. They offer them the sympathy and the empty, false moralising at which they have become so proficient. Since then they have lived through a war of liberation and a revolution, and they are convinced that their cause is just. They have tasted liberty and learned that they are not alone in struggle how? All this has multiplied their strength in the difficult struggle. LET us now turn to the editorial in which these events are analysed. First, the editorial establishes that the war in Indonesia is the fault of the Dutch imperialist government.
Then it points out that the Dutch could only act with the backing of American and British imperialists. It then continues:. The United States, too, stinted no resources to equip the intervention force. The press reports that Japanese soldiers are serving in the ranks of the Dutch army operating against the Indonesian Republic. Then they point out that the people of Holland and the workers of other countries are struggling to support the Indonesian Republic:. From that country come reports of mass meetings and protest strikes.
Nor is the movement confined to Holland. Australian dockers have refused to load Dutch ships sailing for Indonesia. In this connection, it is worth while recalling that the delegation of the Soviet Ukraine to the first session of the General assembly proposed that the Security Council examine the position in Indonesia, which even at that time caused much concern to all sincere champions of peace and security. This examination did not yield results because of the irreconcilable stand of the colonial powers which were not prepared to forfeit their privileges.
Of course, now that the colonial powers have unleashed war against Indonesia, they are prepared to forfeit their privileges — BS. Where are the automatic weapons, tanks and planes which could guarantee victory for the Indonesian Republic? The Soviet Union has them, but when asked for aid they offer empty hopeless resolutions instead. CAN Marxists and proletarian internationalists not ask, Father, in what way this policy differs from desertion of the struggle, from surrender to the class enemy? Is it now, when the cowardly policy of neutrality of the Soviet Union has guaranteed the victory of the bourgeoisie broth against the national liberation movements in Asia and the working class in Europe, that the position of the Soviet Union is the stronger?
Or was it not far stronger when the countries in Europe were under the armed leadership of the Communists and the decisive sections of the Asiatic continent had liberated themselves from the rule of the imperialists? The bourgeoisie conciliated, agree and promised things to the Soviet Union only so long as the workers were strong and the capitalists weak. When through the stupid, cowardly, philistine policy of the leaders of the Soviet Union, the workers were defeated at the crucial points, then the bourgeoisie no longer had to mince words, no longer had to conceal its real objectives, but openly moves against the workers and their state.
We can see here not infallible, unquestionable policy, but rather one stupid treacherous blunder after another. The article is a report by Georgi M. Malenkov to the meeting of the Cominfrom in September and was reprinted from the Cominform Journal 2. If the struggles of the proletariat this is written over thirty years after the successful October revolution cannot win for a long time, then the policy of the Soviet Union of seeking alliances with the bourgeoisie against the workers is justified. After all, when the proletariat is foredoomed to failure who wants to risk all by betting on a losing horse?
If thirty years after the successful Russian Revolution there is not even the perspective of a successful proletarian revolution in the other countries, then perhaps the revolution was due to the fact that the Russians are special people. This, of course, justifies the glorification of Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, etc, as founders of this unusual race. There are two things worthy of special note in the statement given above. ONE, this position represents the class expression of the petty bourgeoisie.
They are likewise awed by the strength and the influence of the bourgeoisie. They, therefore, find the very idea of proletarian revolution a subject for ridicule. This is the position, therefore, of desertion to the bourgeoisie. TWO, this position hides the responsibility of the Soviet Union towards helping the working class to seize power. How can we help the development of the Proletarian revolution?
IT is the answer to this question that distinguishes the revolutionist from the traitor. Does not the Soviet Union, first proletarian dictatorship have anything to do with the promotion of the revolution; with the helping of the revolutionary movements, etc.? The entire stand of the Soviet Union on the proletarian revolution reminds one of; the position taken by the traitors, Zinoviev and Kamenev, just prior to the seizure of power.
They said:. HERE we see the same lack of faith in the ability of the Western proletarian to overthrow their bourgeoisie. We should reason like the Scheidemanns and the Renaudels, that it is most prudent not to revolt, for if we are shot, then the world will lose such excellent, reasonable, ideal Internationalists! THIS was written before the October Revolution; before the Bolsheviks had led the workers to the proletarian dictatorship; before the building up of a huge Socialist economy; before the workers dictatorship had become established over one-sixth of the earth.
Then, Lenin demanded that the Bolsheviks reject this cowardly action and start the uprising in order to support the German workers. ONE more question is involved here. This is the question of treaties with the bourgeoisie. Is it necessary that the Soviet Union must at times sign treaties with the bourgeois states?
Of course. What are these agreements, however? They are compromises that are forced by the relationship of forces at the time they are made, I will give two examples of such treaties: ONE, the best example is the treaty of Brest-Litovsk; — Let us see why the treaty was signed and how the Bolsheviks regarded it. The Brest-Litovsk treaty was signed because the Soviet Republic had no army and was, therefore, unable to resist the German imperialists.
They signed the peace treaty for a respite. Let us observe also how they "maintained loyal good neighborly relations. Not a single class conscious worker will accuse us of-having done that; we are rendering all the assistance we can. We have not taken a single good man out of the forces and will not do so. Of course, he can, I have no doubt about that, but many days it will take him to do it he does not know and nobody knows. They understood that these treaties merely represented the relationship of forces at the time the treaty was signed and that it was their duty to help make the relationship of forces change in favor to the workers.
In short, they never placed their international obligations with the bourgeoisie above their obligations to the proletarian revolution. NOW, however, when they have an agreement with the bourgeoisie that all disputes should be settled through the UNO, the Soviet -leaders adhere to this agreement even when it is apparent to all that the bourgeoisie never kept the agreement and is even now settling all important questions outside of the UNO.
The Bolsheviks, correctly, pledged loyalty to the Tsar. It was more important that they should give verbal concessions to the Tsar than to forego the advantages to the revolution that could be gained by using this most reactionary tribunal as a platform from which to expose the rottenness of the old regime. In giving this pledge they made a forced concession to absolutism. They did not, however, intend to nor did they ever carry out this pledge. THIS situation is understandable to every worker. When a trade union tries to organize an open shop, the workers whom it places in that shop are often almost always forced to deny their union affiliations and even condemn unions all together.
This pledge or treaty with the bourgeoisie, however, in no way ties the hands of these workers in organizing the shop. THE fact is that because the proletariat is never and will never, under the rule of capital, be strong enough to always openly state its aims and its program to the bourgeoisie. It will have, to hide from the bourgeoisie these aims and program on many occasions.
It is only when these forced pledges to the bourgeoisie are taken seriously and are used to hinder the proletarian revolution as they are by the Soviet Union that this policy becomes one of treachery and betrayal. The first is: What was the character of the last war? Was it a war for national liberation or an imperialist war? I will not go into the merits of the case other than to state that the capitalist government of the U.
What I wish to point out is that the position taken by these two representative bodies of the Communist movement and by the leaders of the Soviet Party are in direct contradiction. I give only one example:.
If this is true, then why did the leaders of the Comintern and the leaders of the Soviet Party state that the war was a war of national liberation? Why did they tell the proletariat to support the war within the framework of their present states? The fact that this analysis is put forth without either repudiating the old view or even explaining why their position changed only shows the contempt that the leaders of the Communist movement have for the workers and the people.
Are these not important questions? CAN we judge parties in any other way except by their actions and their line regarding the great events of the day. A movement which was unable to correctly estimate the nature of such a slaughter thereby proves its inability to lead the workers. This was the fact that the proletarian was unable to use the crisis caused by the war to overthrow the rule of capitalism. What "was even worse was that the capitalists emerged stronger and the proletariat totally disarmed. Take this country as an example. There exists no movement, no party, no organized group which even propagandized among the workers for the proletarian revolution.
No organized preparation has been made by any who hold to the revolutionary teachings of Marxism for illegal action although the illegalization of working class activity is on the order of the day. There is no group which preaches support of the Soviet Union as the vanguard of the proletarian revolution. In a word, the working class is totally disarmed for tile task of turning the imperialist war into a civil war.
THIS situation was the inevitable result of the policy which said one thing one day and the next analysed the identical situation as the opposite. The CPUSA which also holds to the credo: "Have faith" as regards the Soviet leadership has been reduced by these actions to being regarded by the workers not as revolutionists, but as Soviet agents. It made the supporters of war against the Soviet Union within the working class the Murrays, the Reuthers, the Greens and the Trotskyites very easy.
THE second point in the program of the Cominform is the emphasis on patriotism. WHAT is the Marxist position on nationalism, patriotism and chauvinism? Then I will explain why this is so. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and WHAT is the Marxist position on nationalism, patriotism and chauvinism?
In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the proletariat, independently of all nationality. Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, page Let us see not how Lenin handled this question. As such it is the opposite of nationalism and completely incompatible with it. Let us just take one more recent quotation:. IT is fitting that on the one hundredth anniversary of the Communist Manifesto, we should take the explanation of the international character of the Marxist movement from there.
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 civilised 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.
But the development of international exchange and of production for the world market has created so close a link between all the nations of the civilised world that today the working class movement had to be, and long ago became, an international movement. Russian Social-Democracy regards itself as a unity of the world army of the proletariat, as part of international Social-Democracy. THE materialist reason why the proletariat is international is that capitalism unites the world under the rule of the world market. Under the conditions of imperialism, this is accentuated.
IF we examine the five fundamental features of capitalism, then the situation becomes even clearer. The great trusts have branches in all the leading countries. They are constantly in the process of dividing the world with their competitors. Through the export of capital foreign investments their ownership is intertwined. It therefore becomes clear that capital has so many threads and connections on the international scale; that it joined so firmly and so diversely that it can be separated only by the stroke of the proletarian revolution.
THE emphasis on patriotism, therefore, put by both the Cominform and the leaders of the Soviet Party only serves to show how great is the desertion of Marxism and how great is the betrayal to the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Union can be protected only by the revolutionary proletariat of the world. They will protect it only to the extent that they have learned that their interests and the interests of their own capitalists are irreconcilably hostile.
They will only protect it as the first dictatorship of their class, the proletariat. The experience of both Germany and of the United States shows that the workers will never defend the Soviet Union on a patriotic basis. It has shown that the policy of appeasement of the bourgeoisie, of cowardly desertion, of deals with the capitalists is bankrupt not only as regards the world proletariat, but especially as regards the defense of the Soviet Union. WHILE this was clear to us from the very beginning we hesitated to make a central point of.
We were wrong in this connection. We actually reconciled ourselves with the reformists by not raising the question of the revisionism of the Soviet Union, for every Marxist knows that it is not enough to mouth phrases about combating revisionism in general and standing for the principles of Marxism in general. We live in a real world and if one is to escape phrase-mongering then one must be concrete.
It is not sufficient to renounce those who deny the dictatorship of the proletariat while at the same time "not noticing" and not denouncing those who are daily, in work and in deed denouncing it. Without attacking the Dimitrovs and the Stalins who renounce this basic principle of Marxism, it is impossible to carry out this fight for a Marxist revolutionary party.
SECOND, we were held back by our inability to criticise the leaders of the Soviet Union without giving aid and comfort to the bourgeoisie which was obviously in the process of launching a war against the first Socialist state. This was the crucial question. We understood and consequently, made our central point that no one can stand for Socialism and not defend the Soviet Union the only Socialist state.
We certainly did not want to help the enemies of the working class, the capitalists. It was only when we saw the way out of this dilemma that we were able to publicly discuss the international situation. THE solution lies in the fact that the leaders of the Soviet Union and of the international Communist movement are following a policy which is not only a betrayal of Marxism, but also in fact, for this very reason is a betrayal of the Soviet Union.
If the policy which they proclaim is accepted it will be completely impossible to defend the Soviet Union at all. The militant trade unionists, in attacking these agents of the enemy are not weakening, but, in fact, strengthening the unions. You destroy the union by your policy of surrender to the bosses, of abandonment of struggle, of fear of the rank and file of the workers. THE correctness of this position has been proven by every trade union struggle. Who does not know that the unions can only reach even their very limited objectives by driving out the conciliators and compromisers and not by uniting with them.
When the Soviets were first formed in February after the overthrow of the Tsar, they were under the overwhelming leadership of the reformists and the compromisers. Eighty-seven per cent of the membership of the first Soviet were either Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries or parties even to the right of them.
Gilbert Sorrentino | Poetry Foundation
Only thirteen per cent were Bolsheviks. The reformists advocated and carried out a policy of coalition with the bourgeoisie, continuance of the imperialist war, under the secret treaties concluded by the Tsar, continued suppression of the minorities of Russia, refused to grant land to the peasants, etc. Lenin and the Bolsheviks continually exposed their policy to the workers. They attacked this rotten class-collaborationist policy. They organized the workers against — this policy, concretely dealt with it and consequently because the workers had the opportunity to test the correct proletarian policy of the Bolsheviks against the incorrect petty-bourgeois policy of the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries they were able to see the correctness of the position of the Bolsheviks.
This was true even though the Soviets were under the control of the agents of the bourgeoisie among the workers. The revolutionary Marxists, always maintained that the organizations of the workers must be strengthened and defended against the bourgeoisie even when they are under bad leadership because the Marxists know that the correct proletarian policy will, in the long run, prove victorious within these organizations.
In the case of the Soviets-too, history proved that only by the defeat of the reformist, treacherous leadership of the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries could the Soviets be saved. Without this attack, the Soviets in Russia like the Soviets in Germany would have been demobilized and dissolved by their own leaders. YOU stated in your letter that my public retraction of the criticism of the Soviet Union is the prerequisite for any common work.
This actually is a way of stating that if I had not included the section criticising the policy of the leaders of the Soviet Union in my last article, then you would be ready and able to work with me. This policy reveals the utter lack of principle and of elementary political honesty on the part of the great theoretician. In the material which I issued earlier, I presented my outlook and my position regarding the tasks before the movement and the working class.
For example, I took the following position:. I stated that war is objectively inevitable, and that it is engendered by the very relationships inherent in imperialism, and that it occurred independently of the will of the people and the will of the capitalists. I devoted, considerable space to this position. You stated that you agreed with me. THE Soviet leaders publicly took an opposite position. It is necessary to make a distinction between the possibility of co-operating and the wish to co-operate. If one party does not wish to co-operate then the result will be conflict, war.
WHEN it became clear that our Marxist-materialist position was directly opposite to that of the leaders of the Soviet Party, there were two honest courses open: One, we could state that since we believe that the Soviet Party is always correct, by definition, and anyone who disagrees is a Trotskyite, therefore the Soviet leaders are right and we are wrong. This was the position taken by both the P. Club and the Communist Party.
Two, we could state that since we were correct, i. That was the course we took. The third course was to ignore the conflict between the two points of view. This was the course that the "theoreticians," Dowling and Mulligan took. WE shall now show that every proposition put forth by us is in conflict with the line of the Soviet Party and that you, therefore, Father Mulligan, who are willing to work with me on the basis of my line only provided that I do not criticise the Soviet Union by name, are an unprincipled idealist, incapable of fighting for a principled position.
I proclaimed as the basic task of the working class movement the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Every leader of the international Communist movement from Stalin. When we called this article to the attention of Dowling, he refused to discuss it on the grounds that you could not rely upon the translations made by the CPUSA leaders, although he quoted from the article himself later and in another connection. I stated that the capitalist encirclement of the Soviet Union still does exist. Stalin, in his interview with Werth, stated that it no longer exists.
I stated that peaceful collaboration between the Soviet Union and the capitalist states was a Utopian dream. WE attacked the support of Roosevelt. We stated that the task of the workers is to defeat the liberal bourgeoisie like Roosevelt and Wallace. Stalin, in the E.
- KISS OF DEATH.
- The Initiation.
- Learn more about History & Culture;
Roosevelt interview, explained that the desertion of the Democrats from the Roosevelt policy cost them the election. WE stated that any trade union movement which is limited to the struggle for the day-to-day interests of the workers without leading them to class consciousness is doomed to failure, and must end up by becoming a tool of the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Union through the WFTU and in the statements issued elsewhere approved the policy of day-to-day trade unionism. Communists at the CIO Convention. This both Dowling and you must know.
IN fact, since the official Communist movement has adopted an idealist, chauvinist position, there is not a single basic point we agree upon! Anyone who pretends to be a theoretician must have known this. Anyone who is honest must have taken note of this contradiction of line. It is left for the Centrists, Dowling and Mulligan, to gloss over this and to try and reconcile the differences between the reformist and the revolutionary position. This Dowling did when he placed the one condition for common work and unity as:. This you do in your letter to me. This reconciliation is impossible and dishonest.
LET me propose a simple test to the centrists so that every Marxist and every worker can see the truth in these charges. Then defend this point against all. If you can outline a program that has objective and international validity, then you can claim to be at least honest, and to at least have made the first attempt to be a theoretician. WE have taken the materialist revolutionary path and must continue to expose the desertion of all the idealists and reformists from Marxism. We must not hide criticism of the Soviet Party as the main center of the working class movement and as the place with the greatest influence.
It is rather that the Soviet Party should be made to accept the greatest share of the responsibility for the mess in which the working class finds itself. He who has been given much shall have to account for more. It is the role of you and Dowling in the opposition to conceal dishonestly the difference between the revolutionary position that you claim to hold and the position of the Soviet Union. It is your service to gloss over their desertion of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat with the most revolutionary phrases.
The situation, however, is such that your position is completely impossible. The gap between theory and practice; between the Marxist phrases that you utter and the policy of the Soviet Union which you support unquestioningly is so great that it cannot be reconciled any longer. FOR the real problems that face the working class, theoreticians who do not fear to re-examine critically the actions of the entire World working class movement and who do not fear to learn from the mistakes of the past are needed.
Our road is hard, but it is the only road that can possible lead to the liberation of the working class. Names are common, and our minds are open. If you are one you will attempt to remain concealed sic! Conscious or unconscious makes no real difference — the results of error are the same. If you are not a Trotskyite you will see the damaging results which spring from hasty and shallow thinking, especially where the Soviet Union is concerned.
THIS statement is worthy of considerable study. Let us see where it leaves me. This comrade has heard that I am a concealed Trotskyite. Further, it is not even necessary for me to know that I am a Trotskyite. It looks as though I am trapped. Is there no way out for me at all? Yes, our unaffiliated Comrade does leave a way out.
If I agree with his position then I am no longer a concealed Trotskyite, but instead become a true Marxist. HERE the charge of Trotskyism once again is revealed as nothing more or less than political blackmail. Like most blackmailers he cannot even claim originality. I had thought that they had revealed that the purpose of this method of political blackmail was to prevent any discussion of principle. How, comrade, are we going to hammer out a program for a new party? By politics blackmail? No, Comrade, we shall only be able to build a new party by fighting for a line and a program.
We can do this only if we do not allow ourselves, to be terrorized by filthy political blackmailers who try to conceal their inability to fight for principle under a cloak of intimidation and slander. A principled, Marxist investigation would have taken the following course: It would have investigated the line of the Trotskyites and my line; it would have compared our positions on the basic questions that face the working class. If he had done this, he would have found to his great surprise that the position of the Trotskyites, far from being identical with mine, is essentially the same as that of the Communist Party and the idealists in the opposition.
BOTH have the same idealist outlook and method of analysis. I will list the program of the Workers Party, one of the two Trotskyite groups Schactman , together with the position of the Communist Party on each point. For an immediate wage increase to meet the rising cost of living. For an escalator clause in every union contract to provide for automatic wage increases to cover any additional price rises.
This is the Trotskyites main slogan in the, trade unions. The above three points are so clearly the same as the program of the Communist Party that no comment is needed. For the right of all peoples and nations to decide their own future.
- Renoir (Annotated Masterpieces Book 6)!
- Loc Journey Basics: A Few Notes In Black & White?
- UCD School of History!
- Paddy Mulligan - Wikipedia.
- Owen Mulligan on THAT famous goal against the Dubs in 2005.
- William Mulligan Jr.;
For self determination of all. For self-determination of all nations. For freedom of the colonies. This could certainly be printed in the Daily Worker. For the withdrawal of all armies of occupation. Bring the American troops home. For an end to conscription, no difference here. For an independent Labor Party of the workers? Break with the Republican and Democratic Parties. For a government of and by labor. IN both programs the Communist and the Trotskyite only one little thing is missing: the need for revolutionary overthrow of the present system and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Both of these programs are full of all sorts of ways of making capitalism work better. Both are the programs of the reformist petty bourgeoisie. THERE is, however, supposed to be one great decisive difference between them. This is in regard to the Soviet Union. They have thus helped the bourgeoisie prepare for war against the Soviet Union. THE Trotskyites, by using these same obvious mistakes and contradictions on the part of Stalin and the Soviet Union, discredit Socialism and the Soviet Union among the working class.
The Trotskyites want to destroy the Soviet Union. The Communists do not want to destroy the Soviet Union. The fact is that they both help the bourgeoisie and they both discredit the Soviet Union. IF one tries to see political parties as representing classes, or at least sections of classes, the basic identity may be easily explained. Both parties represent the petty-bourgeoisie. Hence, both parties adopt the same positions on all the important questions facing society and the working class.
Both parties, as the petty-bourgeoisie always is, are awed by the power of the bourgeoisie. Hence, they both fear isolation from them. They both fear the revolution and they both ridicule it. Both are bureaucratic and incapable of serious self-criticism. It has been testified to by Dowling and Dunne among the left-opposition.
In fact, one issue of NCP was devoted to showing the similarity of the positions. The strongest proof of this identity, however, came during the war. As a result, when they were repudiated, the Communists were also repudiated. Similar situations existed in the shipyards of New York and probably in many other places. This happened in spite of the fact that both parties had different positions on the war. The workers were able to see through the differences that both parties represented the same class position. THIS too would not have been difficult for you, Comrade blackmailer, if you were interested in objectively determining what is true.
This charm works just about as well, too. It should be obvious to all who are capable of thinking that no Trotskyite, no stool pigeon, no police agent would have the slightest scruple in swearing, that they accept the leadership of Stalin and the Russian Party. Some of them are: Budenz, J. Mathews, investigator for the Dies Committee, Tim Holmes, etc. There was also the ease with which the N. Police Department placed its members into the Communist Party when it looked as though the Communist Party might be outlawed. It was this umbrella which shielded the stool-pigeon and Trotskyite, Budenz.
It has now been admitted that for years he made no contribution to the Daily Worker, of which he was the editor. Yet this was not important so long as he remembered to praise Browder, Foster and Stalin at the right time. We shall give two examples of this. The first is the case of the NCP. From the very first they published and distributed material representing the most different points of view. The history of their relations with me should serve to reveal how unprincipled the umbrella they built was. Not only did they praise it to the skies, but even gave me a copy for their mailing list.
Yet the fact is that the position taken in that article is completely consistent with the one taken in the earlier work, and, in fact, is an extension of the same position. Yet, the comrades of the SFCC found it possible to praise the first and even gave me their mailing list after they received it. This was so because the SFCC was never concerned with what I wrote; with what line I carried — they were concerned only with whom I attacked.
When I used the revolutionary position to attack their enemies, the Communists, they supported me, even though they had the same line as the Party. When I used the same line to attack their reformism and that of the Soviet. Party, then they rejected me. Could anything be more unprincipled? Only if we do this, will we have a standard for judging both the membership and the leadership of our movement. It will not be: How has he praised the leaders? For we shall demand, rather the greatest principled criticism of the leaders. No, the yardstick we shall use is: How has he advanced this program?
How has he helped make the workers class conscious? How has he advanced the Socialist Revolution? With such an objective standard we shall be able to weed out the Budenzes before they do too much harm. By such actions and such actions alone will it be possible to limit the number of adventurers who flock into the revolutionary movement. We, therefore, challenge the other groups: Tell us what do you believe in? Do you stand for anything? Will you fight for your position against all? After this we demand that there be open polemics before the eyes of the workers on all questions of policy.
We profess to be the vanguard of the workers, of the proletariat. It is, therefore, necessary that when we fight over the program and the tactics that we believe necessary for the working class that we let the workers in on these fights. The workers should understand fully the differences that arise, they should help the party to make its decisions and its policy.
And, most important, they should know how and why all policy is decided upon. They should be made aware of the alternatives for the working class that we let the workers in on these fights. They should be made aware of the alternatives to this policy. Howie Klein has suggested that Emanuel's congressional campaign strategy was short-sighted, as it "contributed to the massive G. After Emanuel's election as chairman of the Democratic Caucus see below , Chris Van Hollen became committee chair for the th Congress.
After his role in helping the Democrats win the elections, Emanuel was believed to be a leading candidate for the position of Majority Whip. Nancy Pelosi, who became the next Speaker of the House of Representatives , persuaded him not to challenge Jim Clyburn , but instead to succeed Clyburn in the role of Democratic Caucus Chairman.
In return, Pelosi agreed to assign the caucus chair more responsibilities, including "aspects of strategy and messaging, incumbent retention, policy development, and rapid-response communications". Caucus vice-chair John Larson remained in his role instead of running for the chairman position. Emanuel is generally liberal on social issues.
He has maintained a percent pro-choice voting record, supports LGBT rights including same-sex marriage , and is a strong supporter of gun control, rated "F" by the NRA in December During his original campaign, Emanuel spoke in support of the goal of "to help make health care affordable and available for all Americans". In his book, co-authored with Bruce Reed, The Plan: Big Ideas for America ,  Emanuel advocated a three-month compulsory universal service program for Americans between the ages of 18 and An expanded version was later proposed by Barack Obama during his campaign.
During his original campaign, Emanuel "indicated his support of President Bush 's position on Iraq , but said he believed the President needed to better articulate his position to the American people". In the congressional primaries, Emanuel, then head of the Democratic congressional campaign committee, helped organize a run by Tammy Duckworth , an Iraq war veteran with no political experience, against grassroots candidate Christine Cegelis in Illinois' 6th district.
Expedited withdrawal from Iraq was a central point of Cegelis' campaign and Duckworth opposed a withdrawal timetable. In June , Emanuel condemned an outbreak of Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip and criticized Arab countries for not applying the same kind of pressure on the Palestinians as they have on Israel. At a pro-Israel rally in Chicago, Emanuel told the marchers that Israel was "ready for peace" but would not get there until Palestinians "turn away from the path of terror".
Emanuel declared in April that he would support Hillary Clinton should she pursue the presidency in Emanuel remained close to Clinton since leaving the White House, talking strategy with her at least once a month as chairman of the DCCC. Asked in January , about his stance on the Democratic presidential nomination, he said: "I'm hiding under the desk. I'm very far under the desk, and I'm bringing my paper and my phone. Some Republican leaders criticized Emanuel's appointment because they believed it went against Obama's campaign promises of less divisive politics, given Emanuel's reputation as a partisan Democrat.
He's tough, but fair, honest, direct, and candid. Weeks after accepting the appointment, Emanuel participated on a panel of corporate chief executive officers sponsored by the Wall Street Journal , and said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. In a article in The New York Times , Emanuel was characterized as being "perhaps the most influential chief of staff of a generation".
He has a reputation for his no-holds-barred negotiation style that involves "his share of shouting and cursing". Ezekiel Emanuel has written, "The impatient, pushy Emanuel style is so well known that during a recent job interview I was asked, point-blank, whether I had the level-headed temperament the position required. After the remarks were quoted in a front-page story of the Wall Street Journal ,  and after he was criticized by Sarah Palin , Emanuel apologized to organizations for the mentally handicapped for using the word "retarded". Emanuel advocated a smaller plan because it could get bi-partisan support.
Emanuel wanted to expand coverage for children, and increase the number of single mothers eligible for Medicaid.
See a Problem?
For that reason, it was called "the Titanic plan". Emanuel has since apologized for his role, saying, "Thank God for the country, he didn't listen to me", after the Supreme Court upheld "ObamaCare" in As chief of staff, Emanuel would make his staff laugh. During a staff meeting, when Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra gave uniformly upbeat reports, Emanuel is said to have looked at him and said: "Whatever you're taking, I want some.
In , Emanuel was reported to have conflicts with other senior members of the president's team and ideological clashes over policy. He was also the focal point of criticism from left-leaning Democrats for the administration's perceived move to the center. By September , with the Democrats anticipating heavy losses in mid-term elections, this was said to precipitate Emanuel's departure as chief of staff. Emanuel's eligibility for office was challenged on the basis of his lack of residency in Chicago for one year prior to the election. A divided Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court, holding on January 24, , that residency for purposes of a candidate is different from residency for purposes of being a voter.
Emanuel's mayoral campaign was the inspiration for a satirical Twitter account called MayorEmanuel, which received more than 43, followers, more popular than Emanuel's actual Twitter account. At his inauguration were outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley , brother of the outgoing mayor and who would later serve as White House Chief of Staff. On the other hand, he was supported by the business community and most elements of the Democratic party. Emanuel announced in October that he was running for reelection in , despite low approval ratings and some potentially serious challengers.
Emanuel assembled a transition team from varied backgrounds. Despite most Aldermen opposing cuts to library workers and the closure of mental health clinics, they ultimately supported it, calling it "honest". In August , a federal lawsuit was filed by eleven Chicago police officers alleging they were removed from the mayoral security detail and replaced with officers who worked on Emanuel's mayoral campaign, in violation of the Shakman Decree, which bars city officials from making political considerations in the hiring process.
Rahm Emanuel faced a great deal of criticism for his handling of the October 20, , police shooting of Laquan McDonald. The dash-cam video of the shooting was initially withheld, and only was released after a judge ordered it on November 24, After the video release, Emanuel was condemned for covering up the incident and allowing Chicago police to use excessive force against minorities.
Protests erupted soon after the release of the video, and on Black Friday protesters shut down part of the city's Magnificent Mile. On December 26, , a police officer killed two people in another shooting, including a woman whom the officer had shot by mistake. On December 28, Emanuel announced that he was cutting short his vacation in Cuba to deal with the crisis. In , during the contract negotiations between the city and the Chicago Teachers Union CTU , compromise could not be reached over issues like health insurance increases, teacher evaluations, and seniority pay increases.
On September 17, , Emanuel's appointed Chicago Board of Education announced the closing of 50 Chicago public schools, 49 elementary schools and a high school — the largest school closure in Chicago history. The trends in dropout and graduation rates have shown considerable improvement in the last five years, but researchers point out the alternative school performance does not follow the general trend.
Preservationists supported historical landmark status. On November 15, a judge granted a temporary stay of the decision in order for a lawsuit filed by preservation coalitions against the landmark commission to be heard.
Emanuel rejected requests under Illinois' Freedom of Information Act from The Chicago Tribune for various communication and information logs for himself and his staff, labelling it "unduly burdensome". After a second request by the Tribune, they were informed that 90 percent of the e-mails had been deleted by Emanuel and his top aides.
Lollapalooza , an annual summer music festival in Grant Park , was exempt from taxation. In Rahm Emanuel asked the City Council to appoint an independent third party negotiator, to avoid having the negotiation seen as biased. Although the deal was reached before Emanuel took office, tax breaks must be negotiated every year. Emanuel has planned to arrange for a smooth transition between his mayoral administration and that of his elected successor Lori Lightfoot.
Reports are that he intends to model the transition between their administrations upon the U. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Emanuel had been part of that transition as Obama's Chief of Staff designate. Emanuel and his wife, Amy Merritt Rule, have a son and two daughters. The family lives in the Ravenswood neighborhood on Chicago's north side. Each year during the winter holidays , Emanuel takes a family trip where his children can be exposed to other cultures and parts of the world.
His holiday trip was scheduled for the island of Cuba. Emanuel trains for and participates in triathlons. A passionate cyclist , he rides a custom-built, state-of-the-art Parlee road bike. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Amy Merritt Rule m. See also: Chicago mayoral election, Play media. Emanuel, Rahm; Reed, Bruce August The Plan: Big Ideas for America.
Emanuel, Rahm May 10, Chicago Chicago Public Library. Retrieved March 24, Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 22, Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved July 12, The New Yorker. The Washington Post. ABC7 Chicago. The New York Times. November 30, The Washington Times. Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved January 30, Michigan Avenue. Retrieved November 29, Retrieved December 17, Retrieved November 6, Wall bar mitzva for Emanuel's son?
Jerusalem Post. Retrieved August 30, Vanity Fair. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. United States Congress. Retrieved April 26, Retrieved November 18, Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Sarah Lawrence College. June 2, United States Government Printing Office ; available for perusal partly at books. Archived from the original on November 10, Retrieved November 11, Huffington Post. Bio; Rahm Emanuel". Retrieved November 20, Congressman Rahm Emanuel. United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on July 31, Retrieved December 9, Jewish Virtual Library.
BBC News. November 7, February 24, Representative Makes Instant Impact". Archived from the original on December 1, Retrieved June 2, March 16, The Washington Examiner. Retrieved August 8, Associated Press. October 1, Retrieved October 18, The Baltimore Sun. January 15, November 19, Northwestern University. Business Week. December 5, The Guardian. November 10, Bloomberg News. November 13, Retrieved October 7, Retrieved December 2, Retrieved November 7, Like the president-elect, Emanuel is a Chicago native with a strong connection to the city's politicians.
New York Times. Retrieved November 8, Archived from the original on August 6, Retrieved July 10, The Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on October 22, ABC News. Retrieved January 26, The Nation. Retrieved February 2, June 4, Archived from the original on September 30, Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, Crooks and Liars. August 14, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. April 6, PublicAffairs Books. Archived from the original on November 14, Retrieved November 12, World News Network.
Fox News. Retrieved August 31, Retrieved January 21, Retrieved February 9, The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on November 17, The Atlantic. Foreign Policy. New York Daily News. Democracy Now! November 6, Archived from the original on November 11, November 21, Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 5, Retrieved April 12, Retrieved February 19, Archived from the original on February 19, Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved October 22, Community Media Workshop. Retrieved October 16, The Daily Telegraph. September 27, Retrieved July 17, Retrieved January 27, Archived from the original on February 18, Note the original has better formatting. Retrieved February 23, May 16, Archived from the original on May 18, USA Today. February 23, September 30, Retrieved December 3, Retrieved April 8, The Huffington Post.
Retrieved December 7, Retrieved December 11, November 16, Retrieved December 6, Galway Advertiser. Retrieved April 3, Connacht Tribune. August 16, La Shawn Ford introduces 'recall Rahm Emanuel' bill". NBC Chicago. Retrieved December 13, Retrieved December 27, Retrieved January 2, National Review Online. National Review. December 30, Chicago Tribune Exclusive. December 31, Archived from the original on January 1, CBS Chicago.