Party of Communists USA

http://youtu.be/iNx2DvY3qaw

No Russian Troops in Ukraine-(Eng subs)- Obama still wants War Thursday, January 29, 2015 Ukraine General Viktor Muzhenko admits there are no Russian troops. "You’ve heard how the US mainstream media kept saying over and...

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/OSHA20150263.htm

OSHA News Release: Culture of retaliation: Union Pacific Railroad disciplines locomotive... OSHA News Release: [03/17/2015] Contact Name: Scott Allen or Rhonda Burke Phone Number: (312) 353-6976 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Release Number: 15-0263-KAN

http://wp.me/pKlsL-1oO

TELESUR: Venezuelans March against Obama Threats 15 March 2015 The march coincided with a vote in the Venezuelan Parliament on dealing with Obama's claims that the South American nation posed a security threat. Venezuelans took the streets ...

http://fightfor15.org/

Third-degree burn. McDonald's response? MUSTARD. Watch the video exposé the fast food industry doesn't want you to see.

A Brief Guide to the Ideological Differences Between Marxism-Leninism and Revisionism
by Tony Clark
INTRODUCTION.

EVER since Lenin died in 1924, Trotskyism has challenged Marxism-Leninism for the ideological leadership of the international communist movement. J.V. Stalin, 1879-1953, was able to meet and saw off this challenge, to the extent that Trotskyism became a marginal, exterior tendency in relation to the communist movement. However, the attacks on Stalin by the Khrushchevite leadership in the Soviet Union, and the consequent rise of revisionism in some of the most influential parties of the communist movement, served to breathe new life into the project inspired by Trotsky.

This creed, Trotskyism, gained a substantial intellectual following in all the main imperialist countries due to its attacks on what they and the bourgeoisie call ‘Stalinism’. In attacking Stalin, and in fact, every country of socialist orientation, and regarding themselves as representing authentic Marxism, the activities of these pseudo-left sectarians promoted the propaganda interest of the imperialist bourgeoisie. However, the claims of Trotskyism rest not only on attacking Stalin and the countries of socialist orientation. These claims rest also on convincing certain intellectuals that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. This is why it may be considered useful for us to present a synoptic exposition of the main ideological differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as a guide for those who seek to examine this matter more deeply.

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

Trotskyites argue that the October, Russian revolution of 1917 was the realisation of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. The Marxist-Leninist position is that the revolution was made possible by the peculiar circumstances created by the 1914-1918 war and that without these conditions the transition to the socialist revolution would not have been possible.

LABOUR POLICY.

Following the revolution and civil war, Trotskyites argued for the militarisation of the trade unions, that is a policy of coercion towards the unions. Marxist-Leninists around Lenin, including Stalin, opposed the Trotskyite militarisation policy, arguing instead that emphasis must be placed on persuasion rather than coercion. This led to a serious factional dispute in the communist party between the Marxist-Leninists and the Trotskyites between 1920-1921. Lenin himself regarded Trotsky’s policy on the trade unions as representing a ‘reactionary movement’.(See: Lenin: Collected Works, Vol.32)

THE WORLD REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN REGARD TO SOCIALISM.

For Marxist-Leninists, socialism in one or several countries is a stage in the world revolution. Trotskyites argued that the policy of building socialism in one country was opposed to Marxism. The Marxist-Leninists argued building socialism in one country was an integral part of world revolution and, in fact would serve this process, in aiding the development of the latter. Since Trotsky did not raise the issue with Lenin, Marxist-Leninists can only assume that Trotsky’s real motives were of a factional nature. Or, with Lenin out of the way, following his death in 1924, Trotsky sought to impose his Permanent Revolution theory on the party.

INDUSTRIALISATION POLICY.

The Trotskyites sought to impose an industrialisation and collectivisation policy on the communist party at a time when the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat were in a weak position. Marxist-Leninists around Stalin wanted to wait until the party and the state had gathered enough strength to oversee such a policy. This meant defending the mixed economy of the NEP period until the party had strengthened itself in the working class and in the countryside.

THE QUESTION OF FIGHTING BUREAUCRACY

Trotskyites argue that after the death of Lenin a “Stalinist bureaucracy” emerged in the Soviet Union. This bureaucracy would undermine the revolution and to forestall this a political revolution would be necessary to remove the bureaucracy from power. Marxist-Leninists argue that the Soviet bureaucracy was more anti-Stalinist than ‘Stalinist’, a fact underlined by the frequent purges directed against it. In addition, Marxist-Leninists rejected the Trotskyite theory of a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy as completely one-sided, and argued that what was needed was not a political revolution to overthrow a supposedly counterrevolutionary bureaucracy, but rather there was a need to expose and purge the counterrevolutionary elements from the bureaucracy. The Trotskyite talk about a 'political' revolution to overthrow bureauracy represented a break from Marxism to Anarchism.

THE POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.

Soon after coming to power the Bolshevik communists, led by Lenin pursued a policy of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist states. The thinking behind this was to force the capitalist States, particularly the imperialists States, to live in peace with socialism, as far as foreign relations were concerned. This was not only based on the recognition that combined the imperialists States were by far stronger than the Socialist State, it was also because socialism, unlike capitalism, is not a warlike system. It is capitalism which needs war to increase profits for the monopolists, not socialism. While it is true that, on the one hand, the Khrushchevite revisionists distorted the communist policy of peaceful coexistence, it is also true, on the other hand, that the Trotskyites, and other pseudo-leftists rejected Lenin’s policy, wanting the socialist countries to act like capitalists and embroil the world into war.

THE COUNTERREVOLUTION IN THE SOVIET UNION.

Trotskyites claim that the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union was the work of a supposedly “Stalinist bureaucracy”. Such a claim made no sense because not only was there no entity which could be called the “Stalinist bureaucracy”, but the Stalinists, i.e., supporters of Stalin, had been purged by the Khrushchevites in the 1950s. Marxist-Leninists maintain that the Soviet counterrevolution was led by the revisionists who had come to power after Stalin’s death. This counterrevolution was begun by Khrushchev and completed by Gorbachev.

COMMUNIST HISTORY.

Trotskyites blame the defeat of revolutions in China, Germany, France and Spain on Stalin’s leadership of the Communist International. Marxist-Leninists have long argued that Stalin was in a minority in the Comintern. Therefore, the defeats experienced by the communist movement cannot simply be dumped at Stalin’s door. Only a concrete analysis, based on Marxism-Leninism, can throw light on how individual defeats came about.

REVISIONISM.

One of the slanders aimed at Stalin by the open and concealed Trotskyites is that he led the international communist movement into the camp of revisionism. However, neither now or in the past, have they been able to provide any documentary evidence to support these claims based on Marxism-Leninism. The truth is, that any study of the writings of Stalin shows, without any shadow of doubt that he remained a committed Marxist-Leninist all his life.

EVALUATION OF STALIN.

Trotskyites argue that Stalin betrayed the 1917 socialist revolution. However, in 1936, stunned by the gains that the Soviet Union had made under Stalin’s leadership, Trotsky had to pretend that this had nothing to do with Stalin. Marxist-Leninists argue that Stalin was a defender of the socialist revolution in the most inauspicious of circumstances. Furthermore, in his time Stalin successfully defended the socialist orientation of the Soviet Union against revisionists and other two-faced elements posing as communists in the party and State. When these concealed enemies of socialism were found out they were unfailingly purged by Stalin.

CONCLUSION.

Trotsky and his followers joined the bourgeoisie and their henchmen, the Mensheviks, in a campaign to convince the workers, peasants and communists that socialism was impossible in the Soviet Union. They tried to undermine the confidence of the working people using an argument opposed to Lenin’s standpoint. The only conclusion is that Trotskyism played a counterrevolutionary role, hiding behind pseudo-left rhetoric. Promoting defeatism was the essential role of Trotskyism in regard to the Soviet Union.

http://wp.me/pKlsL-1om

Response to "Venezuela Conducts 10 Days of Military Exercises" by A. Shaw Venezuela prepares for an aggression from the be***al bourgeois and imperialist regime in Washington under Obama. On Monday, March 9, a huge pack of imperialist dogs and running dogs thr...

Joint Statement of the American Party of Labor and the Party of Communists USA

One of the great paradoxes in the communist movement of the mid-to-late 20th century is the frequency with which individuals and organizations expressed a desire for unity, but experienced a widespread failure to attain it.

The reasons for these failures require a more detailed analysis. For the purposes of this statement, it will suffice to say that there were objective and subjective weaknesses, and that often minor differences in strategy or emphasis were magnified out of all proportion to their true significance.

The American Party of Labor and the Party of Communists USA are relative organizational newcomers to the communist movement in the United States. Yet, each organization includes women and men who are movement veterans who have not taken the revisionist approach of turning their backs on a commitment to the working class and to the vision of a revolutionary socialism that continues to be the best hope for the genuine liberation of humankind.

These veterans have joined with the next generation of communists in seeking to rebuild the communist movement both within the US and internationally. We are aware of the massive tasks before us but, undaunted, approach them with optimism, energy, creativity, and a firm commitment to Marxist-Leninist principles.

Both the American Party of Labor and the Party of Communists USA embrace the militant and anti-revisionist perspective. We have different approaches to certain questions, on which we agree to disagree. More importantly, however, these differences in approach or emphasis are far outweighed by our shared commitment to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. And as revolutionary socialists, we have drawn lessons from the organizations we regard as representing our common heritage.

For this reason, and others, the American Party of Labor and Party of Communists USA are issuing this statement to announce the fraternal relationship that has been established between us. A fraternal relationship is defined as two or more organizations, having separate and independent structures, who recognize an identity of purpose and work in cooperation with each other to the fullest extent possible. It is our intention to work for full unity between the organizations.

Toward that end, the American Party of Labor and the Party of Communists USA will be holding discussions and seek to even further deepen their unity at the upcoming PCUSA First Congress. We invite all communists and revolutionary-minded people of all ages to join with us in these discussions and build a revitalized movement for socialism and communism. The future is bright. Workers of all countries unite!

For the Central Committee, Party of Communists, USA,
Angelo D’Angelo, First Secretary Pro tempore

For the Central Committee, American Party of Labor,
Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson

http://www.usw.org/act/oilsafety

Safe Refineries Save Lives Safe workplaces don't just protect workers, but also the communities where we live and work. Please support the USW Oil Workers in their efforts to secure a fair contract that will protect the health and safety of workers and communities!

The Fast Track Fight is On
Next Up: Mobilize in D.C. During the
Rapid Response and Legislative Conference in April


Last week, over 90 Steelworkers made a quick but powerful, one-day trip to Washington, D.C. to join in a union lobby day to stop Fast Track. Fast Track is a set of rules that speeds massive trade deals through Congress without changes. No deal – no matter how bad – has ever been stopped under Fast Track rules.

As Steelworkers, we know the impacts of bad trade. Trade deals have consistently made it easier for companies to move jobs overseas where they can abuse workers and the environment. In some of these countries, workers can be arrested and subjected to violence for simply advocating for a union. We’re often left fighting for our jobs in a broken system that fails workers here and around the globe.

We’re mobilizing again on April 15 as part of the Rapid Response and Legislative Conference. This time we need hundreds and hundreds of Steelworkers walking the Halls of Congress. We’ve been successful in pushing off Fast Track last year and so far this year, but now our opposition is mobilizing and harnessing resources like we haven’t yet seen in this fight. Fast Track supporters want legislation introduced in April, just as we get to D.C.