Who ran the German Democratic Republic?

“Just as in all socialist states, power has been vested in the working class, and this for more than twenty years now. Led by its party, the SED, it has created a socialist state of workers and farmers. It determines government policy. It holds the key positions in the state apparatus. This provides the guarantee that all organs of the socialist state are guided by the interests of the working people, the working class, the cooperative farmers, the intelligentsia and all other sections of the community.

Recruited from the ranks of the working class are 60 percent of all officers of state in the various government departments, 70 per cent of all employees of county and district councils and 75 per cent of all mayors in towns and villages.

Since the working class gives the lead in this state and ideas and proposals, interests and needs of workers are given close attention in our community. No one will find himself at a disadvantage before any institution- whether an authority, housing commission or court of law- because he is ‘only’ a worker. On the contrary, the word of the working man carries special weight at all levels of the state and society.

The Influence of the Trade Unions 

    With a membership of 7.3 million the FDGB is the biggest public organization in the GDR. The working class exerts much of its influence on public affairs through the trade unions. Their sweeping rights concerning large-scale participation in the building of an advanced socialist society in all fields of national life are stipulated in the Constitution.

The trade unions have a group of their own in Parliament. They have the right to initiate legislation and to exercise public control over the observance of the working people’s legally guaranteed rights.

The Government closely cooperates with the trade unions. All important Bills related to working and living conditions are jointly discussed and adopted only in agreement with them. The big social and welfare programme launched in July 1972 was based on a joint decision by the workers’ party, the trade unions and the Government. Suggestions and proposals submitted by the trade unions for the annual economic plans are carefully studied by the Council of Ministers and incorporated in the plan.

Especially after the Eighth Congress of the SED a new and higher quality has been attained in the cooperation of the socialist organs of government and the trade unions. Full consensus on the objective in mind- the growing satisfaction of people’s material and cultural needs- does not exclude discussions on the methods to be employed and a different approach to individual problems.

Who makes the laws and for whom? 

    In whose interests laws are drafted and enacted in a country greatly depends on the social composition of Parliament.

In the People’s Chamber, the GDR’s supreme law-making body, workers make up 43.8 percent of all P.P’s cooperative farmers 15.4 percent, salaried employees 20.4 percent and members of the intelligentsia 20.2 percent. It is easy to imagine that such a Parliament does not adopt legislation ultimately directed against the working population. There are neither lobbyism and corruption nor agreements concluded by companies with individual M.P’s to secure influence in Parliament.

Represented in the People’s Chamber are all political and public organizations united in the National Front of the GDR with the aim of building a socialist society and made up of people from all working sections of the population. The SED, the party of the working class, comes first with 127 deputies. Next comes from the Confederation of Free German Trade Unions (FDGB) with 68. The four other parties in the Democratic Bloc, the Democratic Farmers’ Party (DBD), the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPD) and the National Democratic Party (NDPD) each have 53 M.P.s. The youth organization (FDJ), the women’s organization (DFD) and the League of Culture are represented by 40, 35 and 22 deputies, respectively.

In the GDR it is now the standard practice to submit important Bills to the whole population for public discussion. Cases in point were the Labor Code, the Family Code, the Socialist Constitution and the Local Government Act. In each instance many thousand constructive ideas and proposals for amendment were made, which were then reconsidered, examined and incorporated into the final version of the Bill. The same was true of the new Youth Act whose draft was discussed in the course of seven months with more than 5. million citizens of all age groups taking part. 4,821 proposals were submitted with the result that about 200 revisions were made before the Bill was passed into law. In this way workers, farmers and intellectuals help shape socialist legal conditions in a very direct manner. Their influence on public affairs is not confined to the election of deputies.

Every individual law is in the interests of the working people and of social progress whether it relates to the introduction of 10-year general polytechnical schooling, the termination of unwanted pregnancy, large-scale social and welfare measures or a modern socialist criminal law doing away with provisions inherited from the age of Prussianism.”

(Source: https://ia800405.us.archive.org/11/items/HowDoPeopleLiveInTheGDR/How%20do%20people%20live%20in%20the%20GDR.pdf )

Comrade Kim Il Sung talks about trade unions and quotes Stalin

“Leading Party bodies pay little attention to the guidance of the trade unions. As a result, the trade unions fail to mobilize workers, technicians and office employees fully for the work of rehabilitating and putting factories and enterprises back into operation, raising labor productivity and strengthening labor discipline.

Provincial and city Party committees have underestimated their guidance of the trade unions, which has resulted in many non-Party people coming to hold leading posts in these unions and Communists making up but a small portion of the trade union membership.

Some trade union committees, far from helping the management in its work, offer obstacles to its running of the enterprise. For example, workers in a certain production enterprise in Sadong (which has a trade union) raise an unlawful demand under the “guidance” of a Party member, organized something like a strike and went so far as to beat up the manager and engineers. The workers, though their wages were higher than they had ever been in the years of Japanese imperialist rule, came out with a strong demand for a wage increase. It should be realized that the economic situation in the country does not allow us to grant large wage increases. In order to effect a large wage raise, a quick readjustment and operation of all the productive enterprises and am increase in labor productivity are needed.

In guiding the trade unions, we should not focus attention merely on the question of improving the immediate living conditions of the working class without taking into consideration the long-range interests of the development of the national economy. It is important to make the trade unions enlist the patriotic zeal and creative activity of the working people in the struggle for the rehabilitation and construction of the national economy. Only by so doing can we steadily improve the living standards of the working people.

The Party is not an ordinary organization; it is the highest form of organization of the working class, and an organization that leads all other organizations of the working class. As regards the leadership of the Communist Party over the trade unions and other social organizations, Comrade Stalin said as follows: ‘It only means that the members of the Parth who belong to these organizations and are doubtlessly influential in them should do all they can to persuade these non-Party organizations to draw them nearer to the Party of the proletariat in their work and voluntarily accept their leadership’ (J.Stalin, works, Korean ed., Vol 6, pg. 244-45). This leadership of Comrade Stalin should be the basis of our Party’s work on the trade unions.

Some comrades asser that the direction of the trade unions is none of the Communist Party’s business and that the trade unions need not function under the leadership of the Party. This is a view quite contradictory to Marxism-Leninism. We should relentlessly combat these wrong tendencies.

(Source: On the Work of the Organizations of the C.P.N.K) 


Joseph Stalin talks about Socialism in One Country in a simple way

“The first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between classes in our country. This concerns the sphere of internal relations.

Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them?

Can the working class of our country, in alliance – with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society?

Such are the problems that are connected with the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the affirmative.

Lenin teaches us that “we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society.”

Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist society.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and those other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied that it was possible to build Socialism in our country unless the victory of the Socialist revolution was first achieved in other countries, in capitalist countries. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen wanted to turn our country back to the path of bourgeois development and they concealed their apostasy by hypocritically talking about the “victory of the revolution” in other countries.

This was precisely the point of controversy between our Party and these gentlemen.

Our country’s subsequent course of development proved that the Party was right and that Trotsky and company were wrong.

For, during this period, we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie, in establishing fraternal collaboration with our peasantry and in building, in the main, Socialist society, notwithstanding the fact that the Socialist revolution has not yet been victorious in other countries.

This is the position in regard to the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

I think, Comrade Ivanov, that this is not the side of the question that is the point of controversy between you and Comrades Urozhenko and Kazelkov.

The second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, capitalist countries; the problem of the mutual relations between the working class of our country and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This concerns the sphere of external, international relations.

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that “the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale” (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

“We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization.” (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

“We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair’s breadth from invasion.” (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in “Problems of Leninism” that :

“The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

“Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism,” (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?

Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but “in a system of States,” a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost.

The whole of our people must be kept in a state of mobilisation and preparedness in the face of the danger of a military attack, so that no “accident” and no tricks on the part of our external enemies may take us by surprise . . .

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that “we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism.”

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Comrade Urozhenko’s assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat.

If it is true that “we have full guarantee against intervention and restoration of capitalism,” then why do we need a strong Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, a strong Chemical and Air Defence Society, more and stronger ties with the international proletariat?

Would it not be better to spend the milliards that now go for the purpose of strengthening the Red Army on other needs and to reduce the Red Army to the utmost, or even to dissolve it altogether?

People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if subjectively they are loyal to our cause, are objectively dangerous to it because by their boastfulness they – willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference!) – lull the vigilance of our people, demobilise the workers and peasants and help the enemies to take us by surprise in the event of international complications.

As for the fact that, as it appears, you, Comrade Ivanov, have been “removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the Y.C.L.,” you have nothing to fear.

If the people in the Regional Committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekov’s Sergeant Prishibeyev, you can be quite sure that they will lose on this game.

Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book “Problems of Leninism” on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not.

I myself would very much like it to be out of date.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm )

Joseph Stalin talks about the contradictions within the capitalist system

“It is said that the law of the average rate of profit is the basic economic law of modern capitalism. That is not true. Modern capitalism, monopoly capitalism, cannot content it-self with the average profit, which moreover has a tendency to decline, in view of the increasing organic composition of capital. It is not the average profit, but the maximum profit that modern monopoly capitalism demands, which it needs for more or less regular extended reproduction.

Most appropriate to the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism is the law of surplus value, the law of the origin and growth of capitalist profit. It really does determine the basic features of capitalist production. But the law of surplus value is too general a law; it does not cover the problem of the highest rate of profit, the securing of which is a condition for the development of monopoly capitalism. In order to fill this hiatus, the law of surplus value must be made more concrete and developed further in adaptation to the conditions of monopoly capitalism, at the same time bearing in mind that monopoly capitalism demands not any sort of profit, but precisely the maximum profit. That will be the basic economic law of modern capitalism.

The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism might be formulated roughly, in this way: the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and, lastly, through wars and militarization of the national economy, which are utilized for the obtaining of the highest profits.

It is said that the average profit might nevertheless be regarded as quite sufficient for capitalist development under modern conditions. That is not true. The average profit is the lowest point of profitableness, below which capitalist production becomes impossible. But it would be absurd to think that, in seizing colonies, subjugating peoples and engineering wars, the magnates of modern monopoly capital-ism are striving to secure only the average profit. No, it is not the average profit, nor yet super-profit – which, as a rule, represents only a slight addition to the average profit – but precisely the maximum profit that is the motor of monopoly capitalism. It is precisely the necessity of securing the maximum profits that drives monopoly capital-ism to such risky undertakings as the enslavement and systematic plunder of colonies and other backward countries, the conversion of a number of independent countries into dependent countries, the organization of new wars – which to the magnates of modern capitalism is the “business” best adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit – and, lastly, attempts to win world economic supremacy.

The importance of the basic economic law of capitalism consists, among other things, in the circumstance that, since it determines all the major phenomena in the development of the capitalist mode of production, its booms and crises, its victories and defeats, its merits and demerits – the whole process of its contradictory development – it enables us to understand and explain them.”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch08.htm )

What is Fascism? The beginning of a discussion about what it means to be a Fascist.

“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality- thus it may be called the ‘ethnic’ State.”

(Source- What is Fascism by Benito Mussolini)

“There’s nothing more hypocritical than a well-fed citizen protesting against the working class idea of class struggle. You made it through the winter all snug and comfortable. Your very person is provocative of class struggle. What gives you the right to puff yourself up, all swelled with the pride of national responsibility, against the struggle of the working class? For almost 60 years, has the middle-class State really been anything other than an organized one-class State which out of compelling historical necessity, itself gave rise to the working class concept of class struggle? Didn’t you pay the price of this one-class State on November 9, 1918? And aren’t you at this very moment busily exploiting the people’s despair of the insanity of Marxism in order to re-establish the same old reactionary middle-class nonsense as before?”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“Are you monarchists or republicans?

Neither one nor the other. Because:

1.) The question of the organizational structure of a State is a very minor one today. A people wasting away under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles has other things to worry about than the question of monarchy versus republic.

2.) The people will be able to settle this question once and for all only when they have their liberty.

But in principle we say:

A good republic is better than a bad monarchy, and a good monarchy is better than a bad republic. Both forms of government have their merits and their disadvantages. Weighing them against each other is the concern of a people facing the rest of the world in liberty.”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“It is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor, we must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.

We permit no one to try raising on Romanian soil another flag, save that of our national history. No matter how the workers’ class may be, we do not tolerate that it rise up against the country or that it make common cause with foreign movements outside our borders. No one will admit that for your bread you lay waste and band over into the bands of a foreign people of bankers and usurers, everything that for two millennia the sweat of a people of workers and brave ones has saved. Your rights, yes- but within the rights of your people.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“I believe in the one and undivided Romanian State, from Dniester to the Tisa,. the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God, concerned about the country and its people; giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and to women; protector of the family, paying its public servants. At that time we had not heard of Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism and workers on the basis of the number of children and the work performed, quality and quantity; and in a State, supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences; and in addition to salaries, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“The Zionists declare interest in the Orient, yet energetically safeguard themselves against going to Palestine as pioneers of Europe. A leading writer even openly said that the Zionists would Fight alongside the ranks of the wakening Asiatic peoples. From the fire of all burning thorn bushes and from the nights of solitude only one cry resounds to them: Asia. Zionism, it is asserted, is only a partial idea of pan Asiaticism. At the same time a spiritual and political link passes over to the idea of Red Bolshevism. The Zionist, Holitscher, discovered the inner parallels between Moscow and Zion, while the Zionist, F. Kohn, declared that- from the patriarchs- a single line extends up to Karl Marx, to Rosa Luxembourg, and to all Jewish Bolsheviks who have served the cause of freedom.

This Zionism proclaims its wish to found a Jewish state. A desire may quite honorably exist among a few leaders for some final redemption to build a pyramid of life on the soil of the Jewish nation. Building such a state results in a vertical structure in deference and contrast to the horizontal layering of former existence. Regarded from the primordial aspect, this Jewish infection is alien to our national feeling and to the ideas of state of the European peoples.”

(Source- Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg)

MGTOW on an international and national stage as seen by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad

“We know we have to enter politics somewhere, but we don’t want the kind of politics which the whiteman has set up for you. We don’t want to follow that way. I am now looking at an example of clean politics from the nation of Asia and portion of Africa. This type of politics will make you a better man. They don’t have robbery and deceitful politics which you are born under, here in America’s way of politics. We don’t what no thieves in our nation. As it is written, Jesus said, and I say the same, ‘all before me were thieves and robbers.’ Jesus could not have said that, because that would have meant that all prophets before him were thieves and robbers, but I can say it absolutely and prove it.

We don’t want to build a nation on the basis of who can rob the other the quickest and get the most. We want to build up a nation with a clean heart and hands, to deal with the their people in the way of justice and righteous. We do t want any robbers. We can’t use a robber; especially after being robbed to death by our enemy, the slave master’s children.

We want to build a world for the black man. The white world is moving off the scene. If you don’t know it, I’ll show it to you. You’ve got to do something for yourself or else. I’m not saying this just to be talking, I’m talking to hear from you. We’ve got to do something for self. I have the key to doing for self. If you will come get yours, I will have it.

At the present time, as you probably know, many countries are, for the first time, uniting themselves. Here we are, the poor forgotten people in Americs, singing old glory to Allah, glory to the Lord, glory to Jesus and doing nothing about making that glory. Make your glory for yourself. Stop laying around the other fellow’s gate, begging him to make you a glorious place.”- The Honorable Elijah Muhammad

(Source: The Theology of Time: Secret of time, p.294)

American unionists ask Joseph Stalin a question

“QUESTION IX: American labor leaders justify their struggle against the Communists on two grounds: (1) The Communists are disrupting and destroying the labor movement by their factional fights inside the unions and their attacks on all union officials who are not radicals, and (2) American Communists take their orders from Moscow and hence cannot be good trade unionists since their loyalty to an outside foreign body is placed above their loyalty to the union. How can this difficulty to adjusted so that American communists can work jointly with other sections of the American labor movement?

REPLY: I think that the attempts of the American labor leaders to justify their struggle against the Communists do not stand examination. No one has yet proved nor can it be proved that the Communists disrupt the labor movement. But it can be taken as fully proved that the Communists are the most loyal and boldest champions of the labor movement all over the world, including America. Is it not a fact that during strikes and demonstrations the Communist workingmen take their place in the front ranks of the working class and receive the first blows of the capitalists, whereas the reformist labor leaders take shelter in the backyards of the capitalists?

How can Communists refrain from criticizing the cowardice and the reactionary policies of the reformist labor leaders? Is it not clear that such criticism can serve only to stimulate and strengthen the labor movement? True, such criticism destroys the authority of the reactionary labor leaders, but what about that? Let the reactionary labor leaders answer the criticism, not expel the Communists from the unions. I think that if the labor movement in America desires to live on and develop, it cannot avoid a conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the trade unions. I think that the conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the trade unions, criticism of the reactionary labor leaders, etc., will continue to grow notwithstanding the efforts of the reformist labor leaders to prevent it. The working class of America stands in absolute need of such conflict of opinion and of such criticism in order that it may be able to choose between the various tendencies and finally to take up its stand as an independent organized force within American society. The complaints made by American reformist leaders against the Communists merely indicate that they are not sure of the correctness of their case and do not feel strong in their position. That is why they fight criticism like a plague. It is a remarkable fact that the American labor leaders are more determined opponents of elementary democracy than many capitalists in America.

The assertion that the American Communists work under “orders from Moscow” is absolutely untrue. There are no such Communists in the world who would agree to work “under orders” from outside against their own convictions and will and contrary to the requirements of the situation. Even if there were such Communists they would not be worth a cent. Communists bravely fight against a host of enemies. The value of a Communist, among other things, lies in that he is able to defend his convictions. Therefore, it is strange to speak of American Communists as not having their own convictions and capable only of working according to “orders” from outside. The only part of the labor leaders’ assertion that has any truth in it at all is that the American Communists are affiliated to an international Communist organization and from time to time consult with the Central body of this organization on one question or another.

But what is there bad in this? Are the American labor leaders opposed to an international workers’ center? It is true they are not affiliated to Amsterdam, not because they are opposed to an international workers’ center as such however, but because they regard Amsterdam as being too radical (laughter). Why may the capitalists organize internationally and the working class, or part of it, not have its international organization? Is it not clear that Green and his friends in the American Federation of Labor slander the American Communists when they slavishly repeat the capitalist legends about “orders from Moscow?” Some people believe that the members of the Communist International in Moscow do nothing else but sit and write instructions to all countries. As there are more than 60 countries affiliated to the Comintern, one can imagine the position of the members of the Comintern who never sleep or eat, in fact do nothing but sit day and night and write instructions to all countries. (laughter). And the American labor leaders believe that with this ridiculous legend they can cover up their fear of the Communists and conceal the fact that Communists are the bravest and most loyal workers in the labor movement in America.

The delegation asks for a way out of this situation. I think there is only one way out: leave room for conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the American trade unions, give up the reactionary policy of expelling the Communists from the trade unions, and give the working class of America an opportunity of making a free choice of these tendencies; for America has not yet had its November Revolution and the workers there have not yet had the opportunity of making their final selection from among the various tendencies in the trade unions. “

Stalin on “Forced ‘Democracy'”

“Some think that talk about democracy in the trade unions is mere declamation, a fashion, called forth by certain phenomena in internal Party life, that, in time, people will get tired of ‘chatter’ about democracy and everything will go on in the ‘old way.’

Others believe that democracy in the trade unions is, essentially, a concession, a forced concession, to the workers’ demands, that it is diplomacy rather than real, serious business.

Needless to say, both groups of comrades are profoundly mistaken. Democracy in the trade unions, i.e., what is usually called ‘normal methods of proletarian democracy in the unions,’ is the conscious democracy characteristics of mass working-class organizations, which presupposes consciousness of the necessity and utility of systematically employing methods of persuasion among the millions of workers organized in the trade unions. If that consciousness is absent, democracy becomes an empty sound.

While war was raging and danger stood at the gates, the appeals to ‘aid the front’ that were issued by our organizations met with a ready response from the workers, for the mortal danger we were in was only too palpable, for that danger had assumed a very concrete form evident to everyone in the shape of the armies of Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, Pilsudski and Wrangel, which were advancing and restoring the power of the landlords and capitalists. It was not difficult to rouse the masses at that time. But today, when the war danger has been overcome and the new, economic danger (economic ruin) is far from being so palpable to the masses, the broad masses cannot be roused merely by appeals. Of course, everybody feels the shortage of bread and textiles; but firstly, people do contrive to obtain both bread and textiles in one way or another and, consequently, the danger of a food and goods famine does not spur the masses to the same extent as the war danger did; secondly, nobody will assert that the masses are as conscious of the reality of the economic danger (shortage of locomotives and of machines for agriculture, for textile mills and iron and steel plants, shortage of equipment for electric power stations, and so forth) as they were of the war danger in the recent past.

To rouse the millions of the working class for the struggle against economic ruin it is necessary to heighten their initiative, conscienceless and independent activity; it is necessary by means of concrete facts to convince them that economic ruin is just as real and mortal a danger as the war danger was yesterday; it is necessary to draw millions of workers into the work of reviving industry through the medium of trade unions built on democratic lines. Only in this way is it possible to make the entire working class vitally interested in the struggle which the economic organizations are waging against economic ruin. If this is not gone, victory on the economic front cannot be achieved.

In short, conscious democracy, the method of proletarian democracy in the unions, is the only correct method for the industrial unions.

Forced ‘democracy’ has nothing in common with this democracy.”

(Source: http://ciml.250x.com/archive/5classics/english/stalin_trade_unions/stalin_trade_unions.html )

The personality of Karl Marx

“Marx represents a whole world of ideas and images; he is unsurpassed as a theoretician, statesman, strategist and tactician of the class struggle. His brain was like a tremendous laboratory, which analytically and synthetically worked over facts and events, beginning with revolutions, wars, colonial revolts, pronuncimamentos, peasant rebellions and parliamentary debates, and ending with strikes, demonstrations and even the smallest spontaneous economic and political actions.

Marx was not merely a person of encyclopedic education, he was an independent dialectic thinker. He was not a scientist in the narrow, professorial sense of the word. He was an innovator, bold to the extreme, who fearlessly carried his thoughts to their logical conclusion. He was one of those thinkers (and there have been very few of them in the history of mankind) who with the minds of great geniuses looked into the future, and with the daring hands of revolutionaries and artists (‘my work represents one artistic whole,’ he wrote to Engels in 1865) pointed out the path of development from capitalism to communism.

Marx did not guess nor did he prophesy. He argued, analyzed, dissected facts, exposed their inner connections and placed them in such a way that they themselves compelled definite conclusions. He placed Hegelian dialectics on its feet, he was never lost in the face of facts; always remaining firm, he knew exactly what he wanted in theory, in politics and in tactics.

Marx devoured an enormous number of books, deeply analysed facts and moulded them with his masterful mind, which to the very last days of his life continued to pour forth ever-new treasures for the international proletariat.

Marx was not a dry bookworm; he seethed with the great passion and ardour of a fighter. He disliked unnecessary words, glib but empty phrases, and fought against those who roamed in the ‘misty realm of philosophical phantasy’ (Communist Manifesto, p.32). Every phrase written by Marx, every one of his words lives to-day- so much life and passion is there in the works of this great scientist, the tireless destroyer of all pseudo-scientific authorities, the exposer of petty-bourgeois babblers, the merciless enemy of all pseudo-socialist schools, sects and groupings.

Marx possessed the special ability of clothing his rich thought in scant but vivid language. This is why even to-day when one immerses oneself in the works of Marx one is bound to feel deeply moved. It is not only his major works that have retained their importance up to the present time; even his separate articles on vital questions, his notes and letters going far back to the nineteenth century, throw light on the path of the development of the labour movement in the twentieth century. The more one peruses the rich inheriticane of Marx, the more vital it becomes, the more pronounced become the features of this great theoretician and organizer of the working class, the nearer and more comprehensible does he grow- he who gave his life for the purpose of converting the working class ‘from a class of others into a class for itself.’

Marx is multiform, but uniform and consistent in all that he said and did. Not in vain did he succinctly describe the distinguishing feature of his character as singleness of purpose. Only conditionally is it possible to separate some one question or group of questions from the whole of Marx’s work. However, it must be borne in mind at the outset that the inheritance that Marx left is the richest that any person ever left to his descendants, that it is monolithic and it is difficult to divide into separate parts.

It is especially difficult to separate from the depository of ideas and thoughts that Marx left that part which deals with the trade union movement and the economic struggle. Marx did not write any special books or pamphlet or textbook on this subject. His ideas on problems of the economic struggle and the role of the trade unions in the past, present and future can be found all through his works, especially in his practical work as leader of the International Workingmen’s Association.

Is it worth while to collect the opinions and ideas of Marx on questions of the trade unions? Has he, admirers of textbooks and thick reference works might ask, a definite opinion on these problems? To this we can reply- indeed, it is worth while. The slightest, if serious, acquaintance with the works of Marx shows that although Marx did not write any thick books on the trade unions and although he did not frequently deal with this question, still the separate opinions expressed by him constitute a definite system, map out a definite line and give an absolute definite understanding of the role and tasks of the trade unions in the general class struggle of the proletariat. It must be borne in mind that in these questions Marx also laid out new roads. The three sources of Marxism mentioned by Lenin (classical German philosophy, classical English political economy and French socialism) had to be mastered by Marx.”

(Source: http://ciml.250x.com/rilu/archive/lozovsky_1935_marx_and_the_trade_unions.pdf )

‘Freedom’ by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri

” The freedom that we want is not the freedom of lowly rascal America. It is not the freedom of the usurious banks and the giant companies and the misleading Mass Media Organizations. It is not the freedom to ruin others fot the sake of one’s own material interests. It is not the freedom of AIDS and the industry of atrocities and same-sex marriage. It is not the freedom of gambling and wine and the breakdown of the family, and the freedom for women to be used as a commodity for bringing in customers and signing deals, and attacking passengers, and selling goods. It is not the freedom of two-faces principles and the division of the people into looters and looted. It is not the freedom of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is not the freedom trading torture systems, and of supporting the system used to defeat and suppress others at the hands of America’s friends. It is not the freedom of Israel in the extermination of the Muslims and the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Judaization of Palestine.

It is not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghareb. It is not the freedom of the bombing of Al Sagadi, with seven ton bombs and cluster bombs, and dropping leaflets and depleted uranium, and destroying villages of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not the blood suckers or the freedom that comes from the monopoly of weapons of mass destruction, and prohibiting others from developing them. It is not the freedom of decision of those in the monopoly of the International Community, where four of the five senior members of Crusaders.

Our freedom is the freedom of unity and manners and chastity and fairness and justice.

And therefore, any reform that seeks that freedom depends on three things:

– Rule of the Qu’ran

– Liberation of the homelands

– Liberation of the people

They will be come about except through jihad, and struggle, and more struggle, and martyrdom. They will not come about unless we eject the enemies from our homes, and seize our rights with the power of jihad. The enemies will not leave our homes if we show kindness of ask them.

And in this greatest battle the role of our young men has become clear taking into consideration that their leadership in battle has spoiled- thank God- the plans of the Crusaders and the Jews in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine and Chechnya.

The Muslim young men must spread this battle against the Jews and the Crusaders as far as possible on the earth, and they must threaten their interests everywhere, and not allow them rest or stability.

In this, the greatest battle, the role of money is confirmed as the nerve center of the war, and as its fuel. ”

(Source: His Own Words; The Writings of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Pg.240-242)