“Rally around the proletariat, the real gravedigger of the tsarist government”-Joseph Stalin

“Citizens! The revolutionary proletarian movement is growing-and national barriers are collapsing! The proletarians of the different nationalities in Russia are uniting in a single international army, the individual streams of the proletarian movement are merging in one general revolutionary flood. The waves of this flood are rising higher and higher and dashing against the tsarist throne with increasing force-and the decrepit tsarist government is tottering. Neither prisons nor penal servitude, nor gallows-nothing can stop the proletarian movement: it is continuously growing!

And so, to bolster up its throne the tsarist government is inventing ‘new’ methods. It is sowing enmity among the nationalities of Russia, it is inciting them against one another; it is trying to break up the general proletarian movement into petty movements and to incite them against one another; it is organizing pogroms against the Jews, Armenians, etc. And the purpose of all this is to separate the nationalities of Russia from one another by means of fratricidal war and, by enfeebling them, to vanquish them one by one without difficulty!

Divide and rule-such is the policy of the tsarist government. That is what it is doing in the cities of Russia (remember the pogroms in Gomel, Kishinev and other towns), and it is doing the same in the Caucasus. What infamy! It is buttressing its despicable throne with the blood and the corpses of citizens! The groans of the dying Armenians and Tatars in Baku; the tears of wives, mothers and children; the blood, the innocent blood of honest but unenlightened citizens; the frightened faces of fugitive, defenseless people fleeing from death; wrecked homes, looted shops and the frightful, unceasing whizz of bullets-that is what the tsar-the murderer of honest citizens-is bolstering up his throne with.

Yes, Citizens! It is they, the agents of the tsarist government, who incited the politically unenlightened among the Tatars against the peaceful Armenians! it is they, the flunkeys of the tsarist government, who distributed arms and ammunition among them, disguised policemen and Cossacks in Tatar clothing and hurled them against the Armenians! For two months, they-the servants of the tsar-prepared this fratricidal war-and at last they achieved their barbarous object. Curses and death on the head of the tsarist government!

Now these miserable slaves of the miserable tsar are trying to foment a fratricidal war against us, here in Tiflis! They are demanding your blood, they want to divide and rule over you! But be vigilant, you Armenians, Tatars, Georgians and Russians! Stretch out your hands to one another, unite more closely, and to the attempts of the government to divide you answer unanimously: Down with the tsarist government!

Long live the fraternity of the peoples!

Stretch out your hands to one another and, having united, rally around the proletariat, the real gravedigger of the tsarist government which is the sole culprit in the Baku massacres.

Let your cry be:

Down with National Strife!
Long Live the Fraternity of the Peoples!
Long Live the Democratic Republic!”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1905/02/13.htm)


“In the conditions prevailing today, imperialism prefers to intervene in a dependent country by organising civil war there”- Joseph Stalin

“A study of these theses might lead ont to think that the present moment there is, properly speaking, no imperialist intervention in China, that there is only a struggle between Northerners and Southerners, or between one group of generals and another group of generals. Furthermore, there is a tendency to understand by intervention a state of affairs marked by the incursion of foreign troops into Chinese territory, and that if that is not the case, then there is no intervention.

That is a profound mistake, comrades. Intervention is by no means confined to the incursion of troops and the incursion of troops by no means constitutes the principal feature of intervention. In the present-day conditions of the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries, when the direct incursion of foreign troops may give rise to protests and conflicts, intervention assumes more flexible and more camouflaged forms. In the conditions prevailing today, imperialism prefers to intervene in a dependent country by organising civil war there, by financing counter-revolutinary forces against the revolution, by giving moral and financial support to its Chinese agents against the revolution. The imperialists were inclined to depict the struggle of Denikin and Kolchak, Yudenich and Wrangel against the revolution in Russia as an exclusively internal struggle. But we all knew-and not only we, but the whole world-that behind these counter-revolutionary Russian generals stood the imperialists of Britain and America, France and Japan, without whose support a serious civil war in Russia would have been quite impossible. The same must be said of China. The struggle of Wu Pei-fu, Sun Chuan-fang, Chang Tso-lin and Chang Tsung-chang against the revolution in China would be simply impossible if these counter-revolutionary generals were not instigated by the imperialists of all countries, if the latter did not supply them with money, arms, instructors, ‘advisers’, etc.

Wherein lies the strength of the Canton troops? In the fact that there are inspired by an ideal, by enthusiasm, in the struggle for liberation from imperialism; in the fact that they are bringing China liberation. Wherein lies the strength of the counter-revolutionary generals in China? In the fact that they are backed by the imperialists of all countries, by the owners of all the railways, concessions, mills and factories, banks and commercial houses in China.

Hence, it is not only, or even not so much, a matter of the incursion of foreign troops, as of the support which the imperialists of all countries are rendering the counter revolutionaries in China. Intervention through the hands of others-that is where he root of imperialist intervention now lies.

Therefore, imperialist intervention in China is an indubitable fact, and it is against this that the Chinese revolution is spearheaded.

Therefore, whoever ignores or underestimates the fact of imperialist intervention in China, ignores or underestimates the chief and most fundamental thing in China.

It is said that the Japanese imperialists are showing certain symptoms of ‘good will’ towards the Cantonese and the Chinese revolution in general. It is said that the American imperialists are not lagging behind the Japanese in this regard. That is self-deception, comrades. One must know how to distinguish between the essence of the policy of the imperialists, including that of the Japanese and American imperialists, and its disguises. Lenin often said that it is hard to impose upon revolutionaries with the club or the first, but it is sometimes very easy to take them in with blandishments. That truth of Lenin’s should never be forgotten, comrades. At all events, it is clear that the Japanese and American imperialists have pretty well realised its value. And it is therefore necessary to draw a strict distinction between blandishments and praise bestowed on the Cantonese and the fact that the imperialists who are most generous with blandishments are those who cling most tightly to ‘their’ concessions and railways in China, and they will not consent to relinquish them at any price.”


“No sensible person can disagree that the Saudi government is a cover for the colonialists. Colonialism is manifested in the economy, in the military bases in the country, in political decision-making, and in international relations. “- Abu Raudha

“The past century was the century of the direct colonization of the Muslim countries, under which they languished for many years. This was a time when the Islamic World had reached the highest degree of ideological deviation, polytheism, and disregard for jihad. Colonialism could not find any significant resistance in most countries, particularly at the beginning.

Toward the end of the colonialist era, the colonialist countries were no longer able to bear the painful blows they received from the mujaheddin in the colonized countries. They clearly realized that the new generations were moving towards resisting colonialism. They found themselves struggling between the strong desire not to give up their colonies and the painful deterrent posed by the jihad, which they saw growing day after day.

At this stage, Zionism intervened and put its touches on a colonialism that would ensure the interests of the colonialists and save them from the predicament that they faced. It masked colonialism in a very naive way-a way that only can fool the gullible. The colonialist plans did not change. The colonialists changed the face of their policies. Why could they not respond to the wishes of the resistance men and remove their men with the blue eyes and the blond hair from their midst and replaced them with people of their kind who spoke their language and wore lambskin over wolf hearts?

What is wrong with replacing the name of John and Napoleon with Muhammad, Anwar and Abd-al-Aziz?

Because that period had gone and today’s generations have forgotten it, the colonialists decided to repeat the process of masking colonialism before their eyes so they can imagine what happened in the past. This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan when the United States occupied that country and installed an Afghan agent, Hamid Karzai. As everyone can see, this agent has been more eager to promote the interests of the United States than the United States itself, although he has been less successful because of the mujaheddin attacks that Allah ordained against his government.

The Karzai system is the system officially in use in all the Muslim countries. The Karzai method is the same method by which all the rulers were installed, with some difference in details. The legitimacy of every such Karzai is no different from the other. There is no difference between the Karzai of Yemen, the Karzai of Pakistan, the Karzai of Jordan, the Karzai of Qatar, the Karzai of Kuwait, the Karzai of Egypt, and the long list of Karzai traitors ruling the Muslim countries.

The rulers of the land of the Two Holy Mosques [Saudi Arabia] are no different in the above details from others, although the masks the colonialists put on them are so good that they fooled many people. However, the accelerated events and the successive pressures made the situation become clearer. The taghut rulers started to say what they used to deny before and make public what they kept secret before.

In the past, Sultan denied the presence of foreign forces on Saudi territory, and some people believed him.

Today, the admitted this openly when attention started focusing on the Crusader bases in Al-Kharj and other places, which commanded the Crusader war against Afghanistan and more recently against Iraq. They no longer could make the same mistake of denying the American presence.

In the past, they strongly denied their subserviency to the United States and stressed that their alliance with it was an alliance of mutual interests, and nothing more. When the American pressures increased, Bandar Bin-Sultan and Al-Faysal rushed to admit some of the shameful deeds that had no precedent in history.

If one talked about the United States exploitation of the land and its resources, the other announced that the government removed the education of girls from the religious department to satisfy the United States. If one mocked everyone who engaged in the Jihad for the sake of Allah, the other boasted of the secular trend in the Saudi leadership.

This is as far as words are concerned. As for deeds, there is much to say. The aircraft of the Crusader campaign took off from Saudi Arabia. They were supplied with fuel from bases in Saudi Arabia. The supreme command of the war was in the Sultan Base in Saudi Arabia.

There is also much to say about their absolute support for John Garang in southern Sudan in killing the Muslims, their support for communism in southern Yemen before it fell, their support for the agent Algerian government against the mujaheddin when that government was about to fall, and their support for the Russian government when it was killing the Muslims in Chechnya.

The latest episode in their subservience was their broad cooperation with the United States in pursing the mujaheddin in the world, collecting intelligence information about the mujaheddin, and helping the United States arrest them. Because of the information collected by the Saudi intelligence agencies, many mujaheddin were arrested and many operations in the world and in the United States itself were foiled.

Because of this despicable cooperation, the prisons in Saudi Arabia have become full of prisoners, held on charges of fighting with al-Qaidah and Taliban against the United States or fighting with Khattab, and recently on charges of attempting to infiltrated into Iraq to fight there. The Shariah duty imposed on the entire Ummah (i.e. Jihad fi Sabilillah) has become a punishable crime. They are doing all this to please the United States.

No one reviewing ancient or modern history can find an example of agentry or treachery greater than this.

This brings us back to the issue of the veiled colonization of the Islamic countries. No sensible person can disagree that the Saudi government is a cover for the colonialists. Colonialism is manifested in the economy, in the military bases in the country, in political decision-making, and in international relations. Veiled colonialism has reached a point unmatched by direct colonialism. It reached the point of violating honors and removing the education of girls from the authority of the religious department at the orders of the United States, as Al-Faysal said. The 11 September events were not the reason for the Americanization of the system; it only accelerated it, as Bandar Bin-Sultan said.

Could the United States have obtained 1 percent of these interests if it had tried to occupy Saudi Arabia militarily and rallied the Muslims in the entire world?

Was it not better for it to install someone in its place to achieve all its interests?

This was a brief review of the situation in Saudi Arabia. The same-if not worse-is taking place in the other Muslim countries. Look at what is happening in Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait, and other Muslim countries. You can see various pictures of subserviency and treachery that have one thing in common: finding different ways to fight Allah and his prophet.

One of the important principles observed by veiled colonialism was establishing states combining the largest possible number of Islamic contradictions. They govern by taghut laws, pay allegiance to the United States and the Crusader countries, turn for hukm to the international body in all their cases, embrace the infidels and help them against the Muslims, turn against the religion, pursue the mujahidin, spread evil and atheism and defend them with troops and law, and participate with the United States and the Crusader countries in their war against the honors, religion, people, and country.

The ruler of a country is the one that has the authority in it. Unless he is a murtad, he can rule even if he lacked the Shariah conditions, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn-Taymiyah maintained in the Minhaj al-Sunnah and elsewhere. A ruler who represents lack of sovereignty, pays primary attention to the interests of the enemy of the nation, disregards the Shariah intentions and the interests of his people when they contradict the desires of the enemy of Allah, his apostle, and his believers-is an agent without authority, according to jurisprudence. The real ruler is the Crusader United States. The subserviency of such rulers is no different from the subserviency of the amirs or governors of  provinces to the king or the president. The rule of the agent is the rule of the one who made him his agent. Fighters really will be fighting those who put them in this position and made them rulers over the Muslims.”

(Source: The East Riyadh Operation and our War with the United States and its Agents by Abu Raudha)

The basics of Maoism-Third Worldism by the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement

” 1.) Maoism (Third Worldism) reaffirms historical materialism, i.e. that the struggle between groups over their relationship to the means of producing and distributing wealth is the chief factor which shapes history

2.) All economic wealth is the product of labor. Under capitalism, wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands to the detriment of producers. This contradiction between the proletariat, the class for which the struggle against capitalism represents ‘nothing to lose but chains and a world to win,’ on one hand and exploiters on the other is irresolvable under capitalism.

3.) All things, including the social order, are in a process of development. The question of what direction the world will develop depends on class struggle. The basic choice facing humanity today is between socialism and communism or widespread ruin.

4.) Substantive progressive change to the capitalist system can not come from poltical reforms. Rather, the proletariat must organize to seize the instruments of production and construct their own state-forms to suppress reactionaries and carry through the revolution.

5.) The struggle against capitalism and for socialism is representative of the immediate necessity of an entire class and exemplifies an even larger range of interests. Yet this is not always demonstrated in the direct struggles waged by particular groups of the proletariat. Proletariat political consciousness is that which recognizes and organizes around the long-term strategic and tactical interests of the proletariat as a class, is bore from wider experiences of class struggle, and it is often brought to the proletariat masses by its most conscios elements or from without.

6.) Everything reflects in some manner extant social relations. The state, culture, art, and day-to-day interactions are field of struggle in which different lines of understanding based on either proletarian class consciousness or reactionary ideology play out. Maoism (Third Worldism) promotes the revolutionary struggle to seize power both over the means of production and every aspect of the superstructure as well.

7.) Socialism is transitional period between the formal overthrow of capitalism under the leadership of the proletariat to the restructuring of society based on the democratic and rational control over the production and allocation of use values, without oppresson, classes, or a state.

8.) The growth of productive forces combinded with historically-enshrined and militarily-enforced monopoly/imperialist advantages renders the contradiction between the proletariat and capital as one between exploiter and exploited nations. Hence, the principle contradiction today is between the masses of peripheral and semi-perhipheral countries on one hand and exploiter classes tied to capitalist-imperialism on the other. A revolution on the part of the world’s Third World masses would in fact be a world revolution, as much of the value captured by the First World today is produced in the vast Third World.

9.) Imperialism renders entire local, national, and regional economies of the core as primarily parasitic and dependent on the exploitation of the wider peripheral and semi-peripheral zones; and this necessarily alters the terrain of class struggle. Specifically, imperialism pays a qualitatively higher wages to a minority of workers. This has both an economic function in maintaining capital accumulation in the core at the expense of the masses of the Third World and an ideological function by ‘bribing’ these workers into supporting imperialism. First World and ‘middle class’ workers who receive wages above the abstract valuye of labor, i.e. above the value of the goods and services exchanged throughout the world-economy in a given period divided be the quantity of labor through which it is produced, are not part of the proletariat because the magnitude of their wages are dependent on imperialist exploitation and could not be maintained without it. Hence, Maoism (Third Worldism) opposes all economism on behalf of workers in imperialist countries.

10.) Protracted people’s war complimented by the mass line, as demonstrated in the Chinese Revolution and creatively applied to particular situations is the best suited means of revolutionary struggle in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries. The notion of waging class struggle must be considered globally as well. Lin Biao noted that the imperialist First World represented the ‘cities of the world’ and that the exploited Third World the ‘countryside of the world.’ Given the vast underdevelopment of the Third World at the hands of the First World, the struggle of the world’s masses is not immediately one for socialism but for global new democracy: the hemming in and wide-ranging defeat of imperialism by an international proletariat-led coalition of progressive classes and the building of the requisite productive forces, class alliances, and consciousness to continue the struggle for socialism and communism.

11.) Socialism is not a straight line towards communism. Rather, due to leftover attitudes and oppressions, privileges which accompany positions of authority, and the existence of capitalist blocs, the structural possibility remains for the generation of a ‘new bourgeoisie’ under socialism which will attempt to seize power, halt class struggle, and unite to make accommodations with remaining reactionaries. The only solution is the continuation of class struggle under socialism to the end of countering and routing these efforts at the restoration of capitalism. This is the only means to continue towards communism.

12.) The participation of women is paramount for the successof the struggles for people’s war, global new democracy, socialism, and communism. Women make up over half of the proletariat and form the backbone of our ability to reach and transform the day to day lives of the masses through struggle.

13.) As a paradigmatic shift, the struggle for socialism and communism must take a totally different approach to humanity’s relationship the natural environment. Under socialism and communism, the preservation and enhancement of natural abundance for the common good will take precedence over the profit-seeking interest of the few. Moreover, people’s relationship with non-human life must more closely resemble the relationship that we strive to achieve between ourselves.

14.) The struggle for proletarian revolution must support and find common cause with the struggle for liberation and self-determination of oppressed nations. Within imperialist cores, the struggle for national liberation should be promoted as a detachment of the wider struggle for global new democracy, socialism, and communism.”

(Source: http://www.markfoster.net/struc/the_weapon_of_theory.pdf)


What is People’s War? The Communist Party of the Philippines provides an example.

“Our country is semi-colonial and semi-feudal. It is under the indirect rule of U.S. imperialism whose most reliable agents and puppets are the big comprador-landlords and big bureaucrats. The cities are ruled by the comprador big bourgeoisie and the countryside is ruled by the landlord class.

The overwhelming majority of our 41 million people, more than ninety percent of them, are severely exploited and oppressed by the big compradors and big landlords who together with their closet and best paid political and technical subalterns compose a tiny minority that is no more than two percent of the population. The most oppressed and exploited are the toiling masses of workers and peasants. The urban petty bourgeoisie and the middle or national bourgeoisie also suffer from the semi-colonial and semi-feudal situation, with the former stratum suffering more than the latter.

It is obvious why we interchangeably speak of people’s war and revolutionary war. We are fighting for the revolutionary interests of the broad masses of people. We are fighting specifically for their national-democratic interests. Ours is a national-democratic revolution aimed at completing our struggle for national independence and giving substance to the democratic aspirations of our people. We have no course but to fight for national emancipation and social liberation against U.S. imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism.”

“In carrying out a people’s war, the Party builds the people’s army as its main form of organization. It is not only an organization where the Party membership is most concentrated. It is also an organization for uniting the proletarian revolutionaries and the peasant masses both within the army and in the localities. In this way, the basic alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry so necessary in a national united front takes the most effective concrete form.

The basic alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry is the foundation of the national united front. The stronger this alliance is in the course of people’s war, the stronger is the desire of the urban petty bourgeoisie to join the national united front and take active part in revolutionary work. Likewise the national bourgeoisie is encouraged to bring its support to such basic forces of the revolution as the proletariat, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie. At this stage of the revolution, the leadership of the Party and the proletariat is best proven by its ability to build a people’s army and realize the basic alliance of the toiling masses.”

“Eighty-five percent of the national population is in the countryside. Of this rural population, the poor peasants together with the farm workers comprise about seventy-five percent; the middle peasants, about fifteen percent; the rich peasants, about five percent. The landlords may be only one or two percent. About three or four percent is taken up by non-agricultural wage-earners, artisans, small peddlers, merchants, students, teachers and other professionals. There are drastic deviations from these percentages only in particular places where there are mines, logging, modern plantations and some industries. Fishermen along the seacoasts are mainly peasants.

On the basis of these facts, the peasant population and the countryside have a special significance to us in waging people’s war. The main social problem, the single problem affecting the greatest number of people, lies in the countryside. It is the land problem. Feudalism and semi-feudalism oppresses and exploits the poor peasants, the farm workers and the lower-middle peasants. Without focusing attention on this problem and avoiding it with a solution, we cannot draw into the ranks of the revolution the most formidable force that can overwhelm the enemy.

Agrarian revolution is the solution. The peasant masses are aroused and mobilized to overthrow landlord authority and carry out land reform step by step. Depending on the concrete circumstances, particularly the strength achieved by the revolutionary forces, rent reduction and elimination of usury or outright confiscation of landlord property may be effected. In frontier areas, the poor indigenous people and poor settlers are to be assured of ownership of their fair-sized lands. The party maintains that the main content of the national-democratic revolution is the satisfaction of the peasant cry for land.

Only by carrying out agrarian revolution can the revolutionary leadership activate the peasant masses as the main force of the revolution and realize the basic alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry. From the ranks of the downtrodden peasantry can then be drawn the greatest number of armed contingents. As it now stands, the New People’s Army is composed mainly of peasant recruits. The growth of our people’s army depends on the support of the peasant masses.

In general terms, we state that the most reliable ally of the proletariat is the peasantry. In more specific terms, let us relate the revolutionary proletariat with the various strata of the peasantry. Our policy as proletarian revolutionaries is to rely mainly on the poor peasants together with the farm workers, win over the middle peasants and neutralize the rich peasants. In the course of the national-democratic revolution, we make it a point not to hurt unduly the interests of the rich peasants even as we are alert to their reactionary tendencies.”

“Our country is grossly underdeveloped due to imperialist domination and retains a relatively wide countryside where feudalism and semifeudalism reign. This backward countryside of our small country is not as large as that of China but it is certainly large in comparison to our own cities. This is the basic setting for our people’s war. The bulk of our national population is here.”

(Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/1970s/SpecificCharacteristicsPW-Riple-1974.pdf)

“China is now a country without debts. This great achievement illustrates that China’s socialist economy is daily growing in strength and its financial position is ever more consolidated”- Tsai Cheng

“Adhering to the consistent teachings of our great leader Chairman Mao, China obtains its funds for socialist construction mainly through its socialist economy’s internal accumulation. The income from state-owned enterprises makes up more than 90 percent of the country’s total revenue. In the course of building the country through self-reliance China in a certain period issued national bonds in order to utilize the idle money in the hands of the people to expand socialist reproduction. This was a supplementary measure used by China at that time to raise capital funds. From 1950 to 1958 China floated six national bond issueds with a total value of 3,840 million yuan. Together with 980 million yuan payable in interest, the indebetedness totalled 4,820 million yuan and was paid off by the end of 1968.

In the early days of the Chinese People’s Republic, particularly during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the Soviet Union, which was then led by Stalin, extended some loans to China, the principal and interest of which totalled 1,406 million new rubles. China consistently discharged its obligation by repaying these foreign debts on time and, moreover, redeemed the last of them in 1965 before they were due.

China is now a country without debts. This great achievement illustrates that China’s socialist economy is daily growing in strength and its financial position is ever more consolidated. It fully proves that Chairman Mao’s principle of maintaing independence and keeping the initiative in our own hands and relying on our own efforts is the only correct principle for building socialism. It also eloquently demonstrates that a country such as ours, so long as it holds high the great red banner of Mao Tsetung Thought, can with its own efforts gradually change its look of poverty and backwardness and step by step build itself into a powerful socialist state.

Guided by invinciple Mao Tsetung Thought the revolutionary people of all nationalities in China, through arduous efforts in the past twenty years, have brought about earth-shaking changes in China’s national economy. Compared with the early days of the People’s Republic of China, increases ranging from one hundred to several hundred per cent have been registered in the production of grain, cotton, oilseeds and other agricultural crops and in the number of hogs, sheep, goats and other animals. The total output value of the country’s industrial production has gone up more than tenfold. China has set up new branches of industry such as aircraft, motor vehicles, tractors, electronics, petroleum and chemicals. An independent, fairly comprehensive, modern industrial system is taking shape in China. The country’s scientific research, education and health work have made considerable advances. China successfully exploaded its first atom bomb in 1964 and set off a new hydrogen bomb in 1968. On the basis of increased production, the material and cultural life of the Chinese people has improved enormously, markets are thriving and prices are stable.

While expanding its national economy rapidly, China, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, has done what is within its power to actively support the revolutionary people of the world in their struggles and to assist some newly independent Asian and African countries to develop their economy and apply the principle of regeneration through their own efforts. It is precisely on the basis of the speedy development of our country’s socialist economy that our financial and monetary position is becoming more and more consolidated. Thus not only was the need for funds for large-scale socialist construction met, but all its home and foreign debts were paid off in a short time and China has now become a socialist country without internal or external debts.”

(Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/Socialism/China’sRenminbi-StableCurrency-1969.pdf)

Mao Tse-Tung talks about the classes that were in China: A reponse to Queer Kids Stuff

“-A landlord is a person who owns land, does not engage in labor himself, or does so only to a very small extent, and lives by exploiting the peasants. The collection of land rent is his main form of exploitation; in addition, he may lend money, hire labour or engage in industry or commerce. But his exaction of land rent from the peasants is his principle form of exploitation. The administration of communal land and the collection of rent from school land are included in the category of exploitation through land rent.

A bankrupt landlord shall still be classified as a landlord if he does not engage in labor but lives by swindling or robbing others or by receiving assistance from relatives or friends, and is better off than the average middle peasant.

Warlords, officials, local tyrants and evil gentry are political representatives and exceptionally ruthess members of the landlord class. Minor local tyrants and evil gentry are also very often to be found among the rich peasants.

Persons who assist landlords in collecting rent and managing property, who depend on landlord exploitation of the peasants as their main source of income and are better off than the average middle peasant shall be put in the same category as landlords.

Usurers are persons who rely on exploitation by usury as their main source of income, are better off than the average middle peasant, and shall be put in the same category as landlords.

-The rich peasant, as a rule owns land. But some rich peasants own only part of their land and rent the remainder. Others have no land of their own at all and rent all their land. The rich peasant generally has rather more and better instruments of production and more liquid capital than the average and engages in labor himself, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income. His main form of exploitation is the hiring of labor (long-term laborers). In addition, he may let part of his land and practise exploitation through land rent, or may lend money or engage in industry and commerce. Most rich peasants also engage in the administration of communal land. A person who owns a fair amount of good land, farms some of it himself without hiring labor, but exploits other peasants by means of land rent, loan interest or in other ways shall be treated as a rich peasant. Rich peasants regularly practise exploitation and many derive most of their income from this source.

-Many middle peasants own land. Some own only part of their land and rent the rest. Others own no land of their own at all and rent all their land. All of them have a fair number of farm implaments. A middle peasant derives his income wholly or mainly from his own labor. As a rule he does not exploit others and in many cases he himself is exploited by others, having to pay a small amount in land rent and in interest on loans. But generally he does not sell his labor power. Some middle peasants (the well-to-do middle peasants) do practise exploitation to a small extent, but this is not their regular or their main source of income.

-Among the poor peasants some own part of their land and have a few odd farm implements, others own no land at all but only a few odd farm implements. As a rule poor peasants have to rent the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to pay land rent and interests on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent.
In general, a middle peasant does not need to sell his labor power, while the poor peasant has to sell part of his labor power. This is the principle criterion for distinguishing between a middle and poor peasant.

-The worker (including the farm laborer) as a rule owns no land or farm implements, though some do own a very small amount of land and very few farm implements. Workers make their living wholly or mainly by selling their labor power.”- Mao Tse-Tung (Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/Individuals/MaoZedong/Books/SelectedWorksOfMao-V1.pdf)


The Communist Party of the Philippines and Lenin explains what classes are

“In consonance with the topic of your conference, ‘Class analysis in the modern communist movement’, allow us to state our views. We appreciate the position that the definition of the class concept of the proletariat as a revolutionary class is crucial to the formation of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party, in the face of the unceasing attempts of the Brezhnevites and the neo-Brezhnevites to revise the concept.

It is our view that the definition first put forward by Marx and further developed by Lenin in ‘A Great Beginning’ remains valid, historically and currently. It is a definition that is grounded on the mode of production in accordance with historical materialism. Upon the material conditions of large-scale industrial production, the working class arises and grows in contradictions with the dominant capitalist class in capitalist society. Consequently, it becomes the dominant class in socialist society after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and continues to wage class struggle until classes are abolished.

Lenin taught us; ‘Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.’ He said further that classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.

He pointed out, ‘Clearly, in order to abolish classes completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary also to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the distinction between manual and mental workers. This requires a very long period of time.’

He added, ‘In order to achieve this, an enormous step must be taken in developing the productive forces; it is necessary to overcome the resistance (frequently passive, which is particularly stubborn and particularly difficult to overcome) of the numerous survivals of small scale production; it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of habit and conservatism which are connected with these survivals.’

As a dialectical materialist, Lenin recognized first that the classes and class struggle arise in the mode of production and he proceeded to look at the interaction of the superstructure and the mode of production in the course of class struggle. He did not confine classes and class struggle to the mode of production and the development of the productive forces.

He combated the attempts to expand and vulgarize the meaning of proletariat as to include all toilers and the petty bourgeoisie. He also combated the confabulations of the petty bourgeoisie (Kautsky, Martov and the like) about liberty, equality, democracy in general, equality of labor democracy, etc., as the supposed way to solve the problems in the transition from capitalism to socialism. At the same time, he called for the alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry and other revolutionary forces.

The proletariat cannot build socialism by confining itself to economic struggle in the mode of production and without developing its revolutionary theory as guide to its revolutionary movement, without smashing the bourgeois class dictatorship and replacing it with the proletarian class dictatorship and without supplanting the bourgeoise and other antiquated culture with the proletarian-socialist culture.

In the course of socialist revolution and construction, the exploiting classes can be abolished in the economic and legal spheres. Although basically required, socialist economic construction alone cannot automatically create a proletarian-socialist superstructure that can extirpate the vestiges or new shoots of the bourgeoisie in the superstructure. The revolutionary proletariat must make a conscious and deliberate effort to extend and win the class struggle in the superstructure.

In the historical experience of both the Soviet Union and China, the old bourgeoisie and the landlord class took their last line of resistance in the superstructure under many pretenses and eventually a new petty bourgeoisie arose from the new intelligentsia and bureaucracy as a result of uneven development and the errors and shortcomings of the revolutionary party of the proletariat in the conduct of the two-line struggle with the bourgeoisie. Mao observed and fought the new petty bourgeoisie and won against it in his lifetime but his line would still be defeated after his death. ”

(Source: http://bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/Rebolusyon/1997/N1-Jan-Mar/Rebolusyon-1997-1-LongLiveLeninStalin.pdf)


The founding values of the Ba’ath Party

“When the Arab Baath Party emerged and when its ideology began to spread and become complete through interaction with events and struggle, its most important idea from the outset, evolutionism, and the most important thing in evolutionism, as has known the Baath Party since the first years and since the first writings, is truthfulness, frankness and morality.

With this quality the Baath Party was able to find its way to the hearts of the people until it spread throughout most of the Arab regions, from a beginning of extreme simplicity and modesty through a long history that has become an integral part of the history of our nation. How did this party have degenerate and how did it come to present an image which so sharply contrasts with those distinctive qualities, the image of artifice, and methods based on manoeuvring and distorition of facts, through fabrication, lying deceit and the use of everything except truthfulness, frankness, the respect of principles, and the respect of the people? The people will never accept such methods even though they were subjected by force to them for a short period of time”- Michel Aflaq

(Source: http://albaath.online.fr/English/Aflaq-06-The%20Radical%20changes%20and%20the%20Revolution.htm)

“A genuine communist party provides an infrastructure and framework in which the bourgeois can begin to betray their class privilege.”- The Rural People’s Party

“When the labor aristocrat, petite bourgeois or bourgeois enters into the synthesis of communism, only then do they join with the internationalist proletariat- not as an oppressor, but as a newly working-classized member of the internationalist proletariat itself. A people’s dictatorship apparatus allows for this liberation from oppressor class background to occur and it is not obtained even with the help of the most authoritarian infrastructure and correct ideological guidance without a severe self-confrontation on behalf of the oppressor class traitor. A genuine communist party provides an infrastructure and framework in which the bourgeois can begin to betray their class privilege and fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was done and practiced in the context of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project of Cde. Jim Jones during the 1970’s- how much do we need the opportunity today for the bourgeois to change their privilege into the kindled flames that will aid in stoking the prairie fire of internationalist revolution?

We do not stand for the revisionist abandonment of class analysis and acceptance of First World workers without correction, First World workers who, in their natural state in this society, are a backbone for U.S. Hegemonic imperialism. Indulgent error in regard to class analysis on behalf of the revisionists means death for the revolution if they (the proponents of revisionism) poison it with their ideological error, because the only product of right-wing revisionism in accepting the capitalists of the labor aristocracy, petite bourgeois and bourgeois as revolutionary is the rapid descent of a movement and force into the filth of reaction and turning the revolution into a capitalist-roader farce. Current society- ruled by bourgeois mores and lapped up by the petite bourgeois and labor aristocracy alike- capitalism in toto- and all hotbeds of reaction whatsoever- these must be ruthlessly uprooted, like the plow striking the soil and overturning the weeds of parasitism. There is no other option if we seek liberation from capitalism and entrance into the future human condition- glorious communism- a future which has been seeded by the blood of many martyrs who fell in pursuit of it’s establishment, the preservation of it’s workers states and some who still do to this day.

Furthermore, the discerning cadre realizes- and imparts this fact to the people- that there can be no genuine self-liberation and self-realization until there is liberation of the world from the shackles of capitalism itself. No religion or philosophy will accomplish this, nor will the social democratic agenda nor idealism of pseudo-revolutionaries who lack a scientific revolutionary approach. Every minute that is spend on individualism is wasted forced that should properly be spent struggling for the obtainment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ushering in of communism on this soil. It is the responsibility of the rising vanguard to bear the burden for global survival, for the clock of time is ticking and as the hand moves around it is marked with more and more deaths of the oppressed at the hands of the imperialists- their deaths and the continuation of an intolerable system at the cost of our laziness. We have to get serious and realize that this imperialist filth must be routed! Therefore, communists of the party must realize and propagate, following a scientific strategy for revolution, that the Dictatorship of the proletarian and lumpenproletarian over the labor aristocracy, petite bourgeois and bourgeois inside North America is a prerequisite for the flowering of communism and harmonious existence of humankind- free from all exploitations and divisions- in this land. We must set our stance in granite, comrades, for the realization of these aims.

Capitalism is not a tame opponent and the prudent revolutionary does not treat it as such- only the naive fight the class oppressors and entrenched privilege with flowers and platitudes- we must be willing to point the bayonet when the necessity arises and we need to be willing to ‘vulcanize ourselves’ as Cde. Jim Jones once said to his son, Jim Jones Jr., meaning that we must base our revolutionary path firmly upon rational thought and scientific conclusion of utilizing that which is advantageous to revolution in reality, as opposed to basing our decisions upon sentimentality and emotions- as does this forces of bourgeois and reaction. It takes grim and incessant struggle to begin building communism and only from building communism can come the vanguard revolutionary force because communism is both the beginning of the revolution and the aim of the revolution. It is folly to believe that, encircled within the mother of all imperialisms, that we can strike here and strike there and then believe that after the demise of current society that communism will ‘fall upon us’ like a rain from heaven. We must begin communism now and it begins with the struggle for democratic centralism, the struggle for the establishment of a vanguard party as set forward by the scientific Marxist advancements of Leninism and the establishment of socialist relations in the fight for communism and against imperialism, just as in the days of Kim Il Sung and his guerrillas and applied to our time and our place in unfolding history.”

(Source: http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/fight_for_dictatorship.htm)