"Trump will be a disaster for the US working class" - Interview with Zoltan Zigedy

On the occasion of the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency and the recent anti-Trump demonstrations throughout the United States, we asked from the US-based blogger and activist Zoltan Zigedy* to share his views. 

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: His revolutionary legacy remains alive and timely

By Nikos Mottas.

It was in the dawn of January 21, 1924, 93 years ago, when the heart of the greatest revolutionary in history, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, stopped beating. Lenin, the leader of the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution and architect of the first socialist state in the world, was 54 years old.

The name of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is identified with two dialectically connected issues. On the one hand, there is his revolutionary activity and practice as the leader of the 20^th century's most significant event- the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution. On the other hand, there is his theoretical work which is the development of the revolutionary theory of Marx and Engels in the era of Imperialism. That extraordinary combination of revolutionary theory and practice makes Lenin a unique personality in history who, 93 years after his death, remains “alive” in the collective memory and hearts of the working class people across the world.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- "Left Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder (1920) Part I

"Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published in 1920.

Source: 

V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

PART I.

IN WHAT SENSE CAN WE SPEAK 

OF THE INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION ?

    In the first months following the conquest of political power by the proletariat in Russia (October 25 [November 7], 1917), it might have seemed that the tremendous difference between backward Russia and the advanced countries of Western Europe would cause the proletarian revolution in these latter countries to have very little resemblance to ours. Now we already have very considerable international experience which most definitely shows that certain fundamental features of our revolution have a significance which is not local, not peculiarly national, not Russian only, but international. I speak here of international significance not in the broad sense of the term: not some, but all the fundamental and many of the secondary features of our revolution are of international significance in the sense that the revolution influences all countries. No, taking it in the narrowest sense, i.e., understanding international signifcance to mean the international validity or the historical inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of what has taken place in our country, it must be admitted that certain fundamental features of our revolution do possess such a significance.

KKE’s perception on socialism: Assessments and conclusions on socialist construction during the 20th century, focusing on the USSR

18^th Congress of the KKE: Resolution on Socialism.

The following is the Resolution of the 18th Congress of the KKE (held on February 2009), containing assessments and conclusions on socialist construction during the 20th century, focusing on the USSR.

The 18^th Congress of KKE, fulfilling the task set forward by the 17^th Congress four years ago, dwelled deeper into the causes of the victory of the counterrevolution and of capitalist restoration. This has been an imperative and timely obligation for our Party, as it is for every Communist Party. It was thus that we faced this task during all the years that have elapsed since the 14^th Congress and the National Conference of 1995. It is a task interlinked with the revival of consciousness and of faith in socialism.

For more than a century now, bourgeois polemics against the communist movement, often assuming the form of an intellectual elitism, concentrate their fire on the revolutionary core of the workers’ movement; they struggle, in general, against the necessity of revolution and its political offspring, the dictatorship of the proletariat that is the revolutionary working class power. In particular, they fight against the outcome of the first victorious revolution, of the October Revolution in Russia, fiercely opposing every phase where the Revolution exposed and repelled counterrevolutionary activities and opportunist barriers, which, in the final analysis, were weakening, directly or indirectly, the Revolution at a social and political level.

Fidel Castro — How I became a Communist

I was the son of a landowner—that was one reason for me to be a reactionary. I was educated in religious schools that were attended by the sons of the rich—another reason for being a reactionary. I lived in Cuba, where all the films, publications, and mass media were “Made in USA”—a third reason for being a reactionary. I studied in a university where out of fifteen thousand students, only thirty were anti-imperialists, and I was one of those thirty at the end. When I entered the university, it was as the son of a landowner—and to make matters worse, as a political illiterate!

European Communist Initiative- Statement for the 99th Anniversary of the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution

Statement of the Secretariat of the European Communist Initiative for the 99th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution- Socialism is necessary and timely.

99 years ago, 7 November 1917, the Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed. We honor the memory of the Paris Commune. We honor and we are inspired by Marx, Engels, Lenin who guided the workers´ struggle for the socialist future documenting scientifically how to reach that goal.

What does the Great October mean for us, living in the 21st century?

Joseph V. Stalin- The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (1924)

The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists.

By Joseph V. Stalin.

Source:Problems of Leninism, by J.V. Stalin, 

Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1976, p. 117.

Republished from Marxists Internet Archives.

Three circumstances of an external nature determined the comparative ease with which the proletarian revolution in Russia succeeded in breaking the chains of imperialism and thus overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

Firstly, the circumstance that the October Revolution began in a period of desperate struggle between the two principal imperialist groups, the Anglo-French and the Austro-German; at a time when, engaged in mortal struggle between themselves, these two groups had neither the time nor the means to devote serious attention to the struggle against the October Revolution. This circumstance was of tremendous importance for the October Revolution; for it enabled it to take advantage of the fierce conflicts within the imperialist world to strengthen and organize its own forces.

US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade

Behind the Socialist Masquerade.

By Zoltan Zigedy / Source: Marxism-Leninism Today.

Ashley Smith recently wrote an essay (Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution) ostensibly about Syria and imperialism but more properly understood as a rekindling and re-statement of anti-Communist “leftism.”

Smith, an ideologue of the International Socialist Organization, unveils his true target when he inveighs against the “Stalinists”: “Stalinist groups like the Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Freedom Road Socialist Organization…”

Not content with these examples, Smith, in McCarthy-like fashion, feels the necessity to name further names. He sees the UK’s Stop the War coalition as also duped by the Stalinists, along with the US United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). Jill Stein of the Green Party and her Vice Presidential partner, Ajamu Baraka, are similarly infected with the “Stalinist” virus.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- The State and Revolution (1917) Part VI "The Vulgarisation of Marxism by Opportunists"

The State and Revolution.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published: 1918.

Source: V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 25, p.381-492.

The question of the relation of the state to the social revolution, and of the social revolution to the state, like the question of revolution generally, was given very little attention by the leading theoreticians and publicists of the Second International (1889-1914). But the most characteristic thing about the process of the gradual growth of opportunism that led to the collapse of the Second International in 1914 is the fact that even when these people were squarely faced with this question they tried to evade it or ignored it.

In general, it may be said that evasiveness over the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state--an evasiveness which benefited and fostered opportunism--resulted in the distortion of Marxism and in its complete vulgarization.

To characterize this lamentable process, if only briefly, we shall take the most prominent theoreticians of Marxism: Plekhanov and Kautsky.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- The State and Revolution (1917) Part V "The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State"

The State and Revolution.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published: 1918.

Source: V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 25, p.381-492.

Marx explains this question most thoroughly in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (letter to Bracke, May 5, 1875, which was not published until 1891 when it was printed in Neue Zeit, vol. IX, 1, and which has appeared in Russian in a special edition). The polemical part of this remarkable work, which contains a criticism of Lassalleanism, has, so to speak, overshadowed its positive part, namely, the analysis of the connection between the development of communism and the withering away of the state.

1. Presentation of the Question by Marx

From a superficial comparison of Marx's letter to Bracke of May 5, 1875, with Engels' letter to Bebel of March 28, 1875, which we examined above, it might appear that Marx was much more of a "champion of the state" than Engels, and that the difference of opinion between the two writers on the question of the state was very considerable.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- The State and Revolution (1917) Part IV "Supplementary Explanations by Engels"

The State and Revolution.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published: 1918.

Source: V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 25, p.381-492.

IV. SUPPLEMENTARY EXPLANATIONS BY ENGELS.

Marx gave the fundamentals concerning the significance of the experience of the Commune. Engels returned to the same subject time and again, and explained Marx's analysis and conclusions, sometimes elucidating other aspects of the question with such power and vividness that it is necessary to deal with his explanations specially.

1. The Housing Question

In his work, The Housing Question (1872), Engels already took into account the experience of the Commune, and dealt several times with the tasks of the revolution in relation to the state. It is interesting to note that the treatment of this specific subject clearly revealed, on the one hand, points of similarity between the proletarian state and the present state--points that warrant speaking of the state in both cases--and, on the other hand, points of difference between them, or the transition to the destruction of the state.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- The State and Revolution (1917) Part III "Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871: Marx's Analysis"

The State and Revolution.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published: 1918.

Source: V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 25, p.381-492.

III. EXPERIENCE OF THE PARIS COMMUNE OF 1871: MARX'S ANALYSIS.

1. What Made the Communards' Attempt Heroic?

It is well known that in the autumn of 1870, a few months before the Commune, Marx warned the Paris workers that any attempt to overthrow the government would be the folly of despair. But when, in March 1871, a decisive battle was forced upon the workers and they accepted it, when the uprising had become a fact, Marx greeted the proletarian revolution with the greatest enthusiasm, in spite of unfavorable auguries. Marx did not persist in the pedantic attitude of condemning an “untimely” movement as did the ill-famed Russian renegade from marxism, Plekhanov, who in November 1905 wrote encouragingly about the workers' and peasants' struggle, but after December 1905 cried, liberal fashion: "They should not have taken up arms."

G. Marinos- The Leninist Theory on Imperialism, Guide for the struggle of the Communists

The Leninist Theory on Imperialism, Guide for the struggle of the Communists.

Certain issues related to Lenin's work "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" on the occasion of its 100th anniversary this year.

By Giorgos Marinos*.

The complexity of the economic and political developments at an international and national level is borne out on a daily basis and requires a more serious, systematic effort to develop the theoretical work on the part of every communist party and to form a robust infrastructure that will have the capacity to support the independent ideological-political struggle of the communists, the struggle inside the trade unions, inside the labour-people's movement.

A permanent task for communists is the study of the development of the imperialist-capitalist system and its components, the capitalist states, the precise assessment of the position each state has in the imperialist system so that the formation of a revolutionary strategy and tactics is based on the real objective data that highlight that our era is the era of the passage from capitalism to socialism.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- The State and Revolution (1917) Part I "Class Society and the State"

The State and Revolution.

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

First Published: 1918.

Source: V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 25, p.381-492.

Preface to the First Edition.

The question of the state is now acquiring particular importance both in theory and in practical politics. The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism. The monstrous oppression of the working people by the state, which is merging more and more with the all-powerful capitalist associations, is becoming increasingly monstrous. The advanced countries - we mean their hinterland - are becoming military convict prisons for the workers.

The unprecedented horrors and miseries of the protracted war are making the people's position unbearable and increasing their anger. The world proletarian revolution is clearly maturing. The question of its relation to the state is acquiring practical importance.

The elements of opportunism that accumulated over the decades of comparatively peaceful development have given rise to the trend of social-chauvinism which dominated the official socialist parties throughout the world. This trend - socialism in words and chauvinism in deeds (Plekhanov, Potresov, Breshkovskaya, Rubanovich, and, in a slightly veiled form, Tsereteli, Chernov and Co. in Russia; Scheidemann. Legien, David and others in Germany; Renaudel, Guesde and Vandervelde in France and Belgium; Hyndman and the Fabians[1] in England, etc., etc.) - is conspicuous for the base, servile adaptation of the "leaders of socialism" to the interests not only of "their" national bourgeoisie, but of "their" state, for the majority of the so-called Great Powers have long been exploiting and enslaving a whole number of small and weak nations. And the imperialist war is a war for the division and redivision of this kind of booty. The struggle to free the working people from the influence of the bourgeoisie in general, and of the imperialist bourgeoisie in particular, is impossible without a struggle against opportunist prejudices concerning the "state".

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part IV "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

IV. POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES.

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America. 

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats# against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. 

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part III "Socialist and Communist Literature"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

III. SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE.

1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM.

A. Feudal Socialism.

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.*

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part II "Proletarians and Communists"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

II. PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. 

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. 

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. 

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. 

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels- Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) Part I "Bourgeois and Proletarians"

Manifesto of the Communist Party.

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

First Published: February 1848.

Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137.

Preface to The 1872 German Edition.

The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February [French] Revolution [in 1848]. First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the Red Republican, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The French version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in Le Socialiste of New York. A new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the sixties#. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance. 

Social-democracy at the service of the ruling classes. The struggle of the Communist Party

Social-democracy at the service of the ruling classes. 

The struggle of the Communist Party.

By Raúl Martínez & Ramón López*.

Source: International Communist Review, Issue 3, 2014.

Revisionism, a historical phenomenon hostile to Marxism.

Since the birth of the labour movement to this day, an intense struggle between two tendencies has been waged within the movement: the revolutionary one and the opportunist one. Over the history, opportunism has adopted different and numerous expressions, diguised under forms of "left wing" and right wing. This article deals with the right wing opportunism or revisionism, initial source of the political current that is nowadays known as social-democracy, whose nature mutated along the twentieth century, from being a current of the labour movement to a political movement which is an uncompromising defender and the essential pillar of monopoly capitalism.

Revisionism emerged in the late nineteenth century when, after the passing away of Frederick Engels, open warfare broke out within the socialist movement led by the German Eduard Bernstein whose maxim “the movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing [1” became the banner of the followers of the revisionist theory and its political practice, reformism. Lenin would argue about it:

V.I.Lenin- Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin- 

Imperialism and the Split in Socialism.

Published in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata No. 2, December 1916. Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to the Sbornik text. 

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 105-120 / Web source: https://www.marxists.org.

Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?

This is the fundamental question of modern socialism. And having in our Party literature fully established, first, the imperialist character of our era and of the present war [1] , and, second, the inseparable historical connection between social-chauvinism and opportunism, as well as the intrinsic similarity of their political ideology, we can and must proceed to analyse this fundamental question.

We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command   the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves—until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.