Prachanda proposes the Dengist path for Nepal, typical

Prachanda proposes the Dengist path for Nepal, typical


The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is a party that emerged out of the revisionist cesspool known as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM). The party waged a people’s war for many years and seized power in much of Nepal. Very abruptly, the leadership called off the people’s war and opted for the dead-end path of bourgeois reformism. They seized defeat from the jaws of victory around 2007. During the people’s war, the party had projected the image of a Maoist organization. However, shortly after the leadership dismantled the people’s war, they began abandoning almost every aspect of Maoism. This ideological turnaround accompanied their dismantling of the people’s institutions countrywide: they reversed much of their land reform, they dismantled many of their institutions of dual power, they disarmed and marched their people’s army into prison camps supervised by the UN. At one point, they even proposed dropping the Maoist label and merging with the mainstream revisionist parties of Nepal. The typical reaction by revisionists on the world scene was either to cower in silence as this betrayal went on or to cheer the betrayal on. Many continue to cheer the blatant revisionism in Nepal. Only the Leading Light movement consistently led the international communist movement in exposing the reversal of the revolution and abandonment of Maoism in Nepal.

Prachanda has made many pronouncements reassuring the imperialists that, despite occasional radical rhetoric for internal consumption, his party is not a threat to the imperialist order. Given Prachanda’s deals with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and other imperialists, it should be no surprise that Prachanda has proposed adopting a revisionist, Dengist road for Nepal’s development.

“We will build special economic zones like China.. The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.” (1)

Special economic zones (SEZs) are regions that have relaxed economic, environmental, and labor laws. SEZs are set up to give free reign to foreign capital to exploit local populations and plunder local resources. SEZs are a key part of the neo-liberal globalization and “shock therapy” forced on Third World countries. SEZs have been setup across the Third World in China, India, the Philippines, Korea, Cambodia, Peru, and other countries. SEZs were part of Deng Xiaoping’s program of reversing socialism in China during the 1980s. It is no wonder that the compradors who run India have recently proposed making Prachanda’s right-hand man and vice chairman of the UCPN(M) Baburam Bhattarai in the position of Prime Minister. (2)

Like Deng, Prachanda sees development, not class struggle, as the principal way forward in Nepal. In other words, the development of productive forces is the principal problem in Nepal, according to Prachanda. This revisionist outlook has a long history in the Communist movement. A version of the Theory of Productive Forces has been held by revisionists such as Trotsky, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. This theory was criticized as thoroughly revisionist by the Maoists during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This view was always the main view opposing the Maoist line that emphasized class struggle and opposition to imperialism versus the revisionist line of capitulation in the name of development. To embrace the Dengist road is a total rejection of Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. Labels mean nothing. Just because Prachanda’s party still attaches the Maoist suffix to their party name does not mean they are Maoist. Even the revisionist Deng claimed to be a follower of Mao. The fact that so few have come forward to expose this revisionism shows the ideological bankruptcy of the majority of those are who call themselves Maoist.

The opening words of Mao’s Selected Works raise the question of class: Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? Mao called the question of class analysis the question of first importance. If you can’t get the question of class right, then it is unlikely that you’ll get anything else right. Even today, the majority of First Worldist parties, that also claim to be Maoist, cheerlead Prachanda’s revisionism. This shows that organizations that get it wrong on global class are infected with all kinds of other forms of revisionism.


1. Nanfang Daily, June 30, 2008.[tt_news]=5029


Jose Maria Sison loves America

Jose Maria Sison loves America


In a recent statement entitled “Support coordinated actions to demand the bail out of the American People, not the bankers,” Jose Maria Sison kisses American ass. (1) The “Communist Party of the Philippines” demonstrates, once again, that it is led by a First Worldist revisionist, not a proletarian internationalist. Sison consistently advocates for First World populations at the expense of Third World populations. Sison consistently allies himself with social-fascist parties in the First World against the Third World.

Revolutionary Political Economy versus First Worldist Revisionism

In this statement, Sison laments that there was a bailout for the “finance oligarchy,” but “there is no bailout money for the American people who are the real creators of wealth and who have long fleeced by the monopoly bourgeoisie and its imperialist state.” Sison also states, “The bailout money poured into the financial banking sector does not flow into the money stream available to the working classes and the people nor to the real economy.”

1. American people are not the main creators of their wealth. In fact, very few are employed in the productive sector at all, “the real economy.” Americans are, in the main, employed in the white collar, service and distribution, and public sectors. Americans are employed realizing value that has been created elsewhere. The vast majority of American wealth has come to Americans through imperialist mechanisms. The very land that Americans build their houses on was plundered from hundreds of indigenous nations. The wealth that allows Americans to buy such luxurious homes originates in exploitation of the Third World. America is the most thoroughly bourgeoisified nation in the world. Virtually all sectors of American society benefit by aligning with the monopoly bourgeoisie and its imperialist state against the Third World. By obscuring this point, Sison promulgates the racist, settler, imperialist myth that Americans deserve the land that they occupy and the wealth that they stole.

In abandoning proletarian political economy, Sison implicitly embraces the Theory of Productive Forces. If wealth is not generated by human labor, then technology is the main factor as such an argument implies. Sison’s line directly contradicts the Maoist line of the Four Firsts policy that the human element is principal over the technological. Sison’s argument implies the wealth of Americans is a product of their technology, hence the enormous wealth of the First World belongs to First World populations, whereas Marxists recognize that wealth is created by productive labor.  Since Americans barely do any productive labor, the source of their wealth lies elsewhere, the Third World.  This wealth is stolen by imperialist mechanisms in order to maintain the American way of life. The Theory of Productive Forces was exposed by Maoists during the Cultural Revolution as the revisionist theory par excellence.

2. Sison complains that nothing will be done to “rescue or help the ordinary American people, including the American working class, and now the impoverished middle class, from the rigors of industrial decline, rising unemployment, unpaid debts, mortgage foreclosures and the aggravating conditions of recession which can no longer be hidden by debt financing.”

So, who are these “ordinary Americans” that Sison has chosen to advocate for? The median annual household income for 2006 was $48,201 (USD), or 2,371,007 Philippine pesos (PHP), according to the United States Census Bureau. (2) Per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) it was $26,036 (USD). (3) Sison has become the advocate for those who have incomes of 1,293,992 Philippine pesos (PHP) a year. Sison believes that Americans who make 1,054,000 Philippine pesos (PHP) a year deserve more than they currently have. About half of the Philippine population lives on less than 2$ a day, 98 Philippine pesos (PHP).

The majority of the world’s population in the Third World exists in a permanent state of crisis. The majority in the Third World exist in a state of catastrophic poverty created by imperialism. They exist  on the edge of annihilation.  Americans, even the poorest segments of the American “working class,” are some of the wealthiest people in the world; they fall around the richest 10-13%. In other words, the American “working class,” are richer than around 90% of the world’s population. There is no meaningful sense in which the American “working class” constitute an exploited class, a proletariat, a revolutionary class. They may earn a wage or be salaried, but that is where the commonality ends between American “workers” and Filipino workers. What kind of communist advocates for the richest people in the world? Sison sells out his own people in order to make the rich richer.

3. Sison says that he supports the mass movement against the bailout. What mass movement is Sison talking about? A mass movement against bankers does not exist in the United States, unless Sison is talking about Obama rallies. Sison’s politics, in the immediate term, tail the Democratic Party. In the long term,  Sison is  fanning the flames of fascism, social fascism in particular. Sison is greatly misleading his readers in the Philippines about the true status of the revolutionary movement of the First World. Those who talk about “mass line” in the First World are full of hot air. There is, generally, no mass line in the First World because there are no masses. Sison is serving up the Filipino people to the imperialists.

Contrary to Sison, Leading Light Communists hope that the financial crisis worsens for Americans. The American way of life that Sison defends not only results in millions and millions of deaths, it is also ecologically unsustainable. The American way of life puts our children’s  future in jeopardy.  Leading Light Communists seek to return all of the wealth that Americans have stolen back to the Third World . For the sake of humanity and the planet, Leading Light Communists want to bury the American way of life once in for all.

Exposing Sison.. revisionist globe-Trotter

Sison has a level of prestige because of his past involvement in people’s war. Today, Sison is a mover and shaker, a First Worldist, revisionist scenester. Sison makes himself available as a tool, as a mascot, to First Worldist organizations. Sison and his First-World allies are arch-opportunists. Sison’s main visible political activity, based in the First World, is directed against the revolutionary movement. Sison uses his prestige to betray the revolution by promulgating of the new, modern revisionism: First Worldism. He sells out the Third World to the First World.

The International Communist Movement is at a turning point. The impotent ripples of revisionism represented by First Worldist “umbrella” organizations like the RIM and ICMLPO has done nothing to restart the next wave of communist revolution, save to discredit the reputation of communism in the eyes of the masses.  The parties that have most closely been identified with “Maoism” globally have exposed themselves as thoroughly revisionist. These organizations are intellectually dead. As a brand, “Maoism” has been so sullied as to make it next to useless even by the revisionists who have created this situation. This is the kind turning point represented by Lenin’s confrontation with the social chauvinists of the Second International or Mao’s confrontation with the Soviet social-imperialists. Leading Light Communists are confronting the revisionists of our age.  Do you stand with the Leading Light Communists, the ideological vanguard, with the vast majority in the Third World?  Or, do you stand with Sison, the Americans, the First World?

Get off the fence!


1. Sison, Jose Maria.
2. *numbers adjusted using current exchange rate
3. *numbers adjusted using current exchange rate


Gandhi, Non-Violence and the Liberation of the Proletariat from Imperialism

Gandhi, Non-Violence and the Liberation of the Proletariat from Imperialism

By End Imperialism and Serve The People


Norman Finkelstein is a person whom we have a lot of respect for. Finkelstein has courageously and consistently combined impeccable scholarship with committed pro-Palestine activism. We have previously been pleased to see him support the right of armed resistance against Israel and state the benefits the military defeat of Israel would bring. However, we were surprised to learn that he has recently turned toward Gandhian solutions to the Palestinian national question. Finkelstein writes:

“A massive mobilization of Palestinians building on the non-cooperation tactics of the first intifada (commercial and tax strikes, popular committees) could again make the Israeli occupation ungovernable. Is it so far-fetched to imagine an “army” of Palestinian satyagrahis converging on the Wall, their sole “weapons” a pick in one hand and a copy of the ICJ opinion in the other? The ICJ stated that the Wall was illegal and must be dismantled. The Palestinians would only be doing what the world should already have done a long time ago. Who could fault them for enforcing the law? No doubt Israel would fire on Palestinians and many would be killed. But if their supporters in North America and Europe publicized the ICJ opinion, and if Palestinians found the inner wherewithal to persevere nonviolently, it seems probable that far, far fewer than 5,000 Palestinians would be killed before Israel were forced to desist. No one writing abroad from the comfort and safety of his study can in good conscience urge such a strategy that entails so much death. But Gandhi’s point nonetheless stands: if Palestinians have repeatedly shown a willingness to pay the ultimate price, doesn’t it make sense for them to pursue a strategy that has a better likelihood of success at a smaller human price?” (1)

We do not prescribe one single model for carrying out national liberation against imperialism. We believe that virtually any and all tactics which advance that glorious task are permissible. Non-violent protest is a valid tactic to apply to the mobilization of the masses for national liberation and it has, in fact, been widely practiced in Palestine. However, Leading Light Communists are certain that any national liberation movement which does not pursue armed struggle is bound to end in failure. Armed struggle is a prerequisite for national liberation and it is the responsibility of communists in the exploited nations to vouchsafe military means against the foreign occupation of their country and not to disarm until that end is achieved. We will reiterate this point later on. For now, this article proposes to examine the theory of Gandhiism as practised by M.K. Gandhi himself.

Gandhi’s Significance

To a great many Indians, the single most significant aspect of Gandhi’s life is that he successfully mobilized millions of people for the de jure overthrow of Brutish rule in their country. For Westerners influenced by the saintly reputation created for Gandhi by ruling class propaganda, Gandhi represents a citizen of a colony who led his people to freedom without the bloodshed usually associated with national liberation struggles. Gandhi’s example is routinely used by the latter to condemn armed national liberation struggles around the world, with the mistaken assumption that it is always possible to expel foreign occupiers by non-violent means. As such, Gandhiism is the favourite philosophy of conservative opponents of actual national liberation struggles and those who support the status quo of violent imperialist domination of the Third World.

Undeniably, Gandhi had a mass following and played a major role in the glorious struggle for India’s independence (inevitable though the withdrawal of the Brutish Empire from a crumbling economic base in India was). However, the means employed by Gandhi to achieve India’s putative “independence” led to the establishment of a decadent political system there which maintained its dependent relationship to imperialist capitalism. To the extent that Gandhi’s leadership of the Indian national liberation movement consolidated the power of a haute-bourgeoisie allied to feudal and imperialist class interests, Gandhiism can be described as a philosophy of counter-revolution. In what ways did Gandhi help maintain imperialism?

Gandhi’s Racism

Several years ago, the unveiling of a statue to Gandhi in Azania (southernmost Africa) resulted in an outcry of protest from people who knew that he was a racist lackey of the white settlers. During World War II, Gandhi had the gall to write to Hitler as a “friend.” He published an article advising the Brutish to submit completely to Hitler and Mussolini, should the latter invade “great” Britain. He also called upon the Jews to commit suicide en masse by hurling themselves off cliffs when the Nazis came.

The tale that Gandhi defended the oppressed against their oppressors is a colossal lie that continues to set the left back. The story is much told of how Gandhi, while living as a lawyer in Azania under Brutish occupation, was thrown off a train for sitting in a carriage reserved for whites. (Throughout the era of apartheid, and even today, he would have been considered “coloured” – above the Africans but below the whites under that political system.) That experience supposedly led him to fight for the oppressed. The truth is that he actively cultivated an alliance of the Indian population with the whites – AGAINST the Africans.

When Gandhi formed the Natal Indian Congress on August 22, 1894, his declared primary objective was: “To promote concord and harmony among the Indians and Europeans in the [South African] Colony.” His newspaper Indian Opinion launched on June 4 1904 with the words: “The object of Indian Opinion was to bring the European and the Indian subjects of the King Edward closer together.” Gandhi considered native Africans or Kaffirs to be racially inferior to both “colored” Indians and whites. On September 26, 1896, he protested white settler rule in Azania in the following chauvinist terms:

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

In 1904 Gandhi indignantly complained that superior Indians were being treated the same as the undeserving, lazy and unruly “natives”:

“It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing – and most insulting- to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.”

On September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote an editorial in Indian Opinion saying:

“Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community – the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.”

Gandhi here defended the apartheid system that the European settlers in southernmost Africa had devised as a means of consolidating their economic and political power over the African people who, far from being “lazy”, were the virtual slaves of the European bourgeoisie and their bourgeois “working class” and middle class hangers-on.

Gandhi’s strategy of creating a kind of loyal opposition to strict apartheid (specifically, those aspects which impinged upon the liberties of the “colored” petty-bourgeoisie, and even then very selectively) is in striking contrast to the struggle put up against that disgusting system by Indians later allied to the African National Congress. Many southern African “coloreds”, particularly of the working class, strove to create a nation free of white supremacy wherein all non-whites would enjoy equal citizenship. By contrast, Gandhi was a white supremacist defender of settler slavery and mass murder in Azania who advocated the legal ownership of firearms by “coloured” Indians there, but not for black Africans, and boasted of his successful campaign to prevent “kaffirs” from using public transport. Gandhi celebrated the massive European theft of African land and – in a theme reminiscent of every single massive land grab in modern history – argued that the superiority of the white race could be seen by its great land wealth and productivity in comparison to native fruitlessness (conveniently forgetting that whites had brutally robbed the natives of most of their land). Gandhi considered racial segregation properly in-keeping with his unfailing faith in the caste system of his native India. The following statement made by Gandhi in Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903 puts paid to any notions that Gandhi was not a loyal supporter of white racist rule in Azania:

“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they [the European settlers] do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

Gandhi’s Loyalism

In the sense that loyalism is a political ideology justifying fealty to a colonialist power, Gandhi was a pro-British loyalist. Like Irish “nationalist” MP John Redmond in the same period, Gandhi abhorred violence when it was in the cause of his own country’s independence, but he actively promoted it when he campaigned for his countrymen to join the hated Brutish Army to fight for the interests of Brutish finance capital in World War I. In Ireland, revolutionary national martyr Pádraig Pearse is today chastised by “liberals” and historical revisionists for having argued for a “blood sacrifice” in the cause of Irish nationhood. Yet it is conveniently forgotten that Irish Republicanism’s political opponents in 1916, the so-called “moderates” in the Irish Nationalist Party, demanded a far more massive and costly blood sacrifice when they campaigned for Irishmen to go off to die in their thousands for the Brutish Empire. Similarly, Gandhi is today thought of as an apostle of non-violence, but he was quite happy to act as a recruiting sergeant for one of the deadliest and mightiest killing machines in the world in 1915, when he toured the country seeking “20 recruits from every village.” Hypocrisy? No. Merely the product of one politician’s enduring loyalty to capitalist interests. As Gandhi said:

“I discovered the British Empire had certain ideals with which I have fallen in love.”

But the core ideal of the Brutish Empire in Gandhi’s day and our own is popular submission to murderous militarism in the service of the super-exploitation of the downtrodden working masses. Who can love such “ideals” but an enemy of humanity?

Gandhi as Counter-Revolutionary in India

Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence, alike in many respects to that espoused by Russian aristocrat Leo Tolstoy, was intended to guarantee the struggle for national independence in India would not disturb the rule of large propertied interests (the landlords and the big bourgeoisie). As such, to a great and increasing extent, India would be independent in name only, since these same class interests are bound to economic relations that subject Indian national democracy and development to the parasitic requirements of imperialist capital. They were thus in mortal fear of decisive revolutionary mass struggle. Any time the national movement seemed to be heading in a direction whereby it would run outside their control, the right-wing leadership of the Indian National Congress – representing the landlords and the big bourgeoisie – turned to Gandhi. Gandhi had successfully cultivated a reputation amongst the rural Indian masses for advancing traditional Indian values above regional and upper-class sectional interests and was, from that point of view, the perfect figurehead for the reactionary bourgeoisie to place at its head. From the time of the Hartal campaign against fierce and arbitrary Brutish repression in 1919, to the massive wave of proletarian strikes that swept India in 1921-1922 and right up to the Bombay Naval Mutiny of 1946, Gandhi advocated reform, caution and outright capitulation to “great” Britain (whose Royal Air Force had bombed rebellious parts of the country in 1928) whenever the national movement looked set to achieve its goal. As Comrade Rajani Palme Dutt wrote in 1940:

“This Jonah of revolution, this general of unbroken disasters, was the mascot of the bourgeoisie in each wave of the developing Indian struggle. So appeared once again the characteristic feature of modern Indian politics, the unwritten article of every successive Indian constitution – the indispensability of Gandhi (actually, the expression of the precarious balance of class forces). All the hopes of the bourgeoisie (the hostile might say, the hopes of imperialism) were fixed on Gandhi as the man to ride the waves, to unleash just enough of the mass movement in order to drive a successful bargain, and at the same time to save India from revolution.” (2)

Gandhi’s big bourgeois backers worked hand-in-glove with him to ensure the stability of a bourgeois-landlord social compact because they feared that revolution in the countryside would unleash social forces that would threaten their capitalist interests. As Lord Hailey (then Sir Malcolm Hailey), argued in the Indian Legislative Assembly in 1924:

“Anything like a real revolution in India would have most disastrous effects on that very class that is now represented in the Legislative Assembly and Provincial Councils; for among the ignorant masses of India, a political revolution would become a social revolution in a very short space of time.”

Imperialists like Hailey had nothing to fear on this score from “Mahatma” Gandhi, however. Gandhi expressly reassured his landlord backers, the bloodsuckers of India’s rural poor, in the following terms:

“I shall be no party to dispossessing the propertied classes of their private property without just cause. My objective is to reach your hearts and convert you so that you may hold all your private property in trust for your tenants and use it primarily for their welfare…. The Ramarajya of my dream ensures the right alike of prince and pauper. You may be sure that I shall throw the whole weight of my influence in preventing a class war … Supposing there is an attempt unjustly to deprive you of your property. You will find me fighting on your side … Our socialism or communism should be based on non-violence, and on the harmonious cooperation of labour and capital, the landlord and tenant.” (Gandhi, interview to deputation of United Provinces Zemindars, July, 1934, Mahratta, August 12, 1934).

Gandhi was a convinced supporter of the rights of property, that is, the right to exploit and oppress the working class. He wrote (and note the racist implications of his placing different skin color in the same category of “natural” disablement as different degrees of intelligence):

“My social theory is that, although we are born equal, that is to say, that we have a right to equal opportunities, nevertheless, we have not all the same abilities. By the nature of things, it is impossible that we should all be all of an equal stature, that we should all have the same colour of skin, the same degree of intelligence; and consequently is natural that some of us should be more fitted than others to acquire material gain. Those who are capable wish to acquire more, and they bend their abilities to this end. If they use their abilities in the best spirit, they will be working to the benefit of the people. These people will be ‘trustees’ and nothing more. I should allow a man of intelligence to gain more, and I should not hinder him from making use of his abilities.” (Gandhi, interview to Charles Petrasch, Le Monde, February 20, 1932).

The above statement is typical of Gandhi’s vile elitism. Arguably, it might be acceptable under a “more ideal” capitalism. But in reality, as capitalism becomes a fetter on production, the vast majority of the wealth in the world goes not to people who “earned” it through their allegedly superior endowments but rather to people who simply inherited it through circumstances of birth. That is true of the First World (where the wealth of the entire population is largely the fruit of colonialism and imperialism set up by prior generations), and it is certainly true of India, where the tiny elite inherits its status from its parents (even formally, through the caste system!). How many intelligent Indians never get the opportunity to learn to read? How many elites are by no means intelligent?

Gandhi was a dedicated anti-communist and totally opposed to the struggle of the proletariat for emancipation from wage-slavery, from his days in southern Africa when he advocated the setting up of an armed volunteer corps amongst Indians for the repression of African workers right to the end of his life. Thus, in the familiar language of every reactionary in all countries, Gandhi expressed his fear of “red ruin.”

“It has been suggested to me by a Congressman wielding great influence that as soon as I declared civil disobedience I would find a staggering response this time. The whole labour world and the kisans in many parts of India will, he assures me, declare a simultaneous strike. I told him that if that happened I would be most embarrassed and all my plans would be upset…. I hope I am not expected knowingly to undertake a fight that must end in anarchy and red ruin.”

Violence in India Since Gandhi

Gandhi’s “non-violent” method of liberating India proved to be anything but. The country split into three pieces, at least two of which are constantly at war. Tens of millions of people were forced to migrate because of their religious background. Instead of uniting the people around class interests, Gandhi was responsible for advocating the traditional feudal Indian caste system which would leave India’s millions of Muslims as second-class citizens in a Hindu-dominated polity. He therefore bears major responsibility for the violence surrounding partition. Leaving this issue aside, however, what has Gandhi’s “non-violent” and bourgeois elitist approach to national liberation given India’s people in comparison to what communist violence achieved in China?

As mentioned above, Gandhi was staunchly loyal to India’s landlords and the system of capitalist serfage which was in place during his lifetime. Gandhi professed a totally primitivist and anarchist belief in the superiority of small-scale farming in India. Despite the fact that he pragmatically took the side of India’s (re)burgeoning industrial bourgeoisie in the last years of Brutish rule, Gandhi expressed such “spiritual” nonsense as the following to his followers in 1909:

“It is not the British people who are ruling India, but it is modern civilisation, through its railways, telegraphs, telephone, and almost every other invention has been claimed to be a triumph of civilisation … Medical science is the concentrated essence of black magic … Hospitals are the instruments that the Devil has been using for his own purpose, in order to keep his hold on his kingdom … If there were no hospitals for venereal diseases or even for consumptives, we would have less consumption, and less sexual vice amongst us. India’s salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years or so. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and such like all have to go.”

This contempt for modern “civilization” is misplaced. Gandhi may have confused colonial-capitalism with modern industry – forgetting Great Britain’s ruination of India’s own in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – which enables the production of an economic surplus capable of being shared equally by the masses for their own benefit. Gandhi, who was educated at Oxford and was a recipient of big-bourgeois funding, of whom one astute Indian observer remarked that it was costing India millions to keep him in poverty, rejected free social healthcare for the working masses.

Gandhi’s high-faluting asceticism is not just words. It has a real-life impact. In 1949, when the People’s Republic of China was declared and two years after India was declared a sovereign state, both countries were at comparable levels of development, with China being generally poorer than India. Yet the subsequent historical record of both countries demonstrates that socialism brings wealth, health and culture to the masses, thereby saving millions of lives, whilst capitalism (particularly the private ownership of land) brings, disease and starvation leading to millions of unnecessary deaths. The following data is derived from UNICEF reports, 1984, 1986 and 1987 and was published by  MIM several years ago.

Population in 1949

China: 540 million
India: 510 million

Population in 1979

China: 800 million
India: 672 million

Under age 5 child mortality rate, 1945
(Figures per 1000)

India: 430
China: 520

Infant mortality under 1, 1945
(Figures per 1000)

India: 203
China: 280

Infant mortality rate under 1, 1985
(Figures per 1000)

India: 105
China: 36

Life expectancy at birth, 1949

India: 32
China: 32

Life expectancy at birth, 1985

India: 57
China: 69

Daily per capita calorie supply as percentage of daily requirements, 1983

India: 96%
China: 111%

These figures demonstrate that perhaps one hundred million lives were saved in China thanks to communism. We prefer the violent suppression of a portion of recalcitrant exploiters and oppressors – unwilling to peacefully retire their property and privilege – to the misery, hopelessness and mass death occasioned by “non-violent” capitulation to capitalism and imperialism. Gandhi’s bourgeois morality of “non-violence” has translated in practical terms since Indian independence was declared to a massive pile of millions of people starved to death or left to die of preventable diseases, because his politics of bourgeois rapprochement with imperialism left the social structures intact which cause these terrible things to occur. It has ultimately led to thousands of farmers committing suicide in rural India in the past few years and to widespread illiteracy, hopelessness and pig repression and the strengthening of imperialism on a world scale.

The Leading Light Communist Position on Revolutionary Violence

It is not for nothing that the bourgeoisie trumpets M. K. Gandhi and M. L. King: their turn-the-other-cheek politics plays right into the hands of the oppressor. The bourgeoisie wants “non-violence” only from the oppressed. As US boxer Muhammad Ali is reported to have suggested, the oppressor only calls for peace when he has already taken possession of everything by force. If the United States were really serious about “non-violence,” would it invest so much in armaments? Would it occupy Korea? Would it facilitate the overthrow of elected leaders in Honduras? Would it finance its proxy armies in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Would it rampage around the Muslim world like a mad dog killing, torturing and maiming men, women and children?

The United States, the UK, and the Zionist entity demand that the oppressed disarm themselves. That demand should immediately set off howls of laughter from the world’s oppressed, and for that matter from any right-thinking person. How can disarmament possibly be on the agenda when the oppressors, armed to the teeth, are going to keep their arms?

In a world dominated by western monopoly capitalism, war and violent international conflict are inevitable. To condemn any particular armed intervention by imperialism is to miss the point that the entire capitalist system today rests on militarism and the armed repression of the Third World masses by imperialism. Leading Light Communists detest any social system that imposes war as a necessity of life on humanity. We are advocates of the abolition of war. As Mao said:

“War, this monster of mutual slaughter among men, will be finally eliminated by the progress of human society, and in the not too distant future too. But there is only one way to eliminate it and that is to oppose war with war, to oppose counterrevolutionary war with revolutionary war, to oppose national counter-revolutionary war with national revolutionary war, and to oppose counter-revolutionary class war with revolutionary class war…. When human society advances to the point where classes and states are eliminated, there will be no more wars, counter-revolutionary or revolutionary, unjust or just; that will be the era of perpetual peace for mankind. Our study of the laws of revolutionary war springs from the desire to eliminate all wars. Herein, lies the distinction between us Communists and all the exploiting classes.”

With sorrow, we have seen what happens, from Chile to Nepal and from India to Palestine, when the people lay down their arms in the face of imperialism. Imperialism takes its chance and falls to feeding on its hapless victims. Therefore we say to Palestinians and to all other exploited Third World nations:

“The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries.”

Long Live Indian Liberation!
Long Live Palestinian Liberation!
Long Live the Victory of People’s War!


(1) Norman G. Finkelstein, ‘Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict: What we can learn from Gandhi’,….rn-from-gandhi/

(2) R. Palme Dutt, India Today (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1940), 323.

Recommended Reading

Naresh Majhi, ‘Gandhi and African Blacks’,

Richard Grenier, ‘The Gandhi Nobody Knows’, Commentary March, 1983, 59-72

Sudarshan Kapur, Raising up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi (Boston, Beacon Press, 1992)

Fazlul Huq, Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? (Bangalore, Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1992)

Kamran Shahid, Gandhi and the Partition of India (Oxford University Press, 2005)

Rajani Palme Dutt, ‘Gandhi and the Nationalist Movement: A Marxist View’ in Martin Deming Lewis, ed., Gandhi: Maker of Modern India (Boston, D.C. Heath and Co., 1965)

Rajani Palme Dutt, India Today (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1940)


First Worldist “left” hacks the 2016 US Presidential Election for Donald J. Trump

First Worldist “Left” hacks US presidential election for Donald J. Trump

by Jacob Brown


How the First Worldist “left” united with Obama-Clinton regime to bring Trump to power:

One of the more blatantly reactionary examples of pseudo-feminists in action.

With the current “#J20” US Inauguration Day protests against Donald J. Trump, a First Worldist pseudo-feminism is presenting itself as the protests’ main ideological engine, and allowing the CIA, anti-Russian narrative pushed by the US imperialist Democratic Party to buttress questions of “illegitimacy”. (1, 2)  Of course, the purported protection of the reproductive health choices of First World women, while signing onto rhetoric about the supposed necessity of US Marines to help “fight for the global sisterhood” in the Third World has rendered itself hollow to the world’s masses after 15 years of the imperialist “War on Terror”.  Imperialist patriarchy packaged as liberation has produced the worst of both patriarchal worlds for the majority of Third World women, both with the proliferation of misogynistic Western gender culture and with its mirror opposite of imposition of traditional patriarchal gender roles and gender apartheid. It would appear that a repeat of the 2006 US International Women’s Day protests is upon us on “J20”. The 2006 IWD protests saw alleged “communists” marching with the likes of Zionist “feminist” Phyllis Chesler to denounce the Iranian state while NATO troops were imposing imperialist patriarchy in Afghanistan and Iraq. (3) With the current rhetoric being used by First Worldist activists who take their cues from the CIA and Democratic Party, perhaps Russia is the next target for “regime change”. The utilization of “Cold War” militarist rhetoric and pseudo-feminism by the imperialists are but only two dimensions of what these kinds of imperialist politics produces in the real world.

The 2011 Wisconsin protests injected First Worldist economism into the “Arab Spring” as it was beginning in Egypt, following the demonstrations in Tunisia. An example of this includes the infamous photo depicting the false statement “One World, One Pain.” (4) Pretending that the First World majority populations were a natural friend of the Third World had its genesis in this First Worldist fallacy. When the “Arab Spring” found its way into Libya just one month later, this First World “solidarity” was extended to mean NATO providing a free air force for anti-Qaddafi neocolonialist Jihadists. The fall of the Jamahiriya in Libya gave both a material and morale boost to NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which would fuel the “pipeline wars” in Syria for the next 5 years. (5)  “Occupy Wall St.”, and the First Worldist networks that followed it, were advancing First Worldist populism with a vengeance. They continued the social-chauvinist thrust of the Wisconsin protests with anti-imperialist politics given less priority or mostly silenced altogether. A kind of false internationalism was supposedly bringing together social-democrats, anarchists, “left communists”, Maoists, Trotskyists, environmentalists, the EZLN, the social-imperialist parties in Greece, and various “rebels” associated with the US-backed Muslim Brotherhood, based on a rather nebulous idea about “tears in the fabric of history”. (6) These First Worldists, so enthusiastic for the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, were silent on the 2013 mass revolt that overthrew the US-backed stooge Mohammed Morsi (7), with numbers that dwarfed the Tahir Square protests by a factor of 7. (8)

If any population within First World borders was sharing “one pain” with Egyptian masses in either the 2011 or 2013 protests, it would have been the migrants who participated in the May 1, 2006 “Day Without An Immigrant” strike. (9) However, many of those migrants ended up getting deported by the Bush administration in the millions, and by the Obama administration by even greater numbers. First Worldists missed the mark on that issue as well, because too many of them were putting all their energy into pseudo-feminist posturing in tandem with the US State Department and the Zionist entity just 2 months before, or otherwise complaining about the presence of Mexican flags as “nationalist” and “divisive”!

The imperialist pseudo-feminism we saw deployed against Iran in 2006 was also utilized in Libya in 2011, with bogus reports of “Viagra-fueled mass-rapes” advanced by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton. (10)  Of course, no evidence exists to support such claims, but there is ample evidence and testimony of sub-Saharan migrant African women being kidnapped and raped by the very “Libyan Revolutionaries” hailed as anti-patriarchal heroes in the West. (11) In addition to the pseudo-feminist propaganda track in the prelude to the NATO/GCC aggression against Libya, we had a First Worldist “false nationalism” coming from neocolonialist Libyan exiles that was selectively applied in an attempt to silence any non-Libyan supporter of the Jamahiriya with a potent voice. The “authentic voice of the subaltern” was used to justify NATO’s neocolonialist false “liberation narrative” (12), where juxtapositions such as “Muammar Qaddafi = Bad Dictator / Mahatma Gandhi = Good Liberator” were passing for a theoretically solid approach. (13)  Adding the false narrative of the “impending massacre of Benghazi’s population”, and the list of phony justifications for NATO intervention start to gain support in the realm of First World public opinion.

Matthew VanDyke, the American “Freedom Fighter” mercenary in Sirte during the NATO “revolution” Libya  in , would ask the various manifestations of “Occupy” in the First World for donations to continue his imperialist activity in Syria on the side of the neocolonialist “Free Syrian Army”.  He still breathes in 2017.

As the calls for NATO/GCC/Turkish intervention in Syria were increased, the pseudo-feminist angle was used to less of a degree, with some bogus propaganda about “regime rape rooms” being recycled from the last imperialist adventure in Libya. This time however, the false nationalist narrative was more heavily relied upon. The narrative spinning involved equating the imperialist-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Syria with the legitimate indigenous and African anti-colonial struggles (14), or variably by tokenizing Kurdistan liberation forces as a “Third Camp” (15). It is curious that the loudest voices claiming that the Kurdistan liberation forces were on a “long march to Damascus” to topple the Assad regime were doing so in tandem with the US State Department rhetoric about how “Assad must go”, not unlike what transpired in 2006 with the anti-Iran protests.

To understand why purportedly “anti-war” activist scenes around the First World gave space for neocolonialist identity politics to sell the NATO “revolution” in Libya and ramp up the call for NATO intervention in Syria, we can look at the populist and “critical race theory” trends coming into conflict with each other within formations like Occupy. The deliberate First Worldist populism mostly driving the message of Occupy was bound to come into conflict with other forces in and around the Occupy movement calling for decolonization, the politics of which is inherently at odds with the mantra of “We Are The 99% [of the First World]”, regardless if the particular decolonization politics presented is Leninist, anarchist, bourgeois liberal, or something else purportedly “beyond labels” in content. (16) As the “decolonize” rhetoric in the First World activist circles began to congeal, the populist politics of Occupy waned and ended with the Occupy brand itself becoming defunct. The people involved put away their Guy Fawkes masks and copies of Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, and started to pick up art and/or poetry and Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” instead (often to the exclusion of other anti-colonial classics). It became easy for these “radical” First World protest scenes to tokenize pro-Muslim Brotherhood migrants from Palestine, Egypt, and Syria, and accept their neocolonial bogus “decolonial” narratives with unquestioning submission, in tandem with US imperialist “regime change” objectives.

With the uptick of police and paramilitary terrorism against the African diaspora in the United States between 2012-2016, alongside the already existing criminalization of generations of Black youth by the state, the First Worldist activist void left by Occupy was filled with the “Black Lives Matter” network.  This network came together at the same time rebellions were picking up in US cities affected by high profile incidents of police terror like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland. Many well meaning veterans of the anti-colonialist movements within the United States had mistakenly believed the myth that the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s was coming back. (17)  As the Democratic Party’s presidential primary elections approached, the original militant anti-colonial thrust of those involved with the Black Lives Matter network was being put on hold in exchange for engaging with Democratic Party candidates over reformist policy issues, and a First Worldist confining of the issue of reparations to the African diaspora within the United States exclusively. (18)   It did not matter what any “official” BLM statement said at that point about refraining from electoral politics, as the horizons of BLM at that point had been limited by both reformist illusions and First Worldist chauvinism. This had practical implications as well, with the noticeable rift causing some around the BLM network to initiate an armed struggle without the material support of a large portion of the network busy with reformist politics.

An example of some weenie First Worldist “communist”  hack that helped pave the way for Trump, like the pseudo-feminist hacks pictured above.

At the same time that BLM was proliferating around the United States, nominally “communist” First Worldist forces were politically capitalizing on conceptions of group identity embraced by the increasingly college student base of the BLM network, smashing several layers of formal and informal First Worldist male dominated leftist groups in the United States and England in sometimes quite public ruptures. However, breaking the hegemony of historical oppressor groups over First Worldist formations did nothing to break the hegemony of First Worldism and social-imperialism in their general orientation. Indeed, even purported “Third Worldist” formations in the First World managed to sneak First Worldism through the back door by denying that most First World women and non-men constitute an enemy gender aristocracy (but use the opposite logic to justify the idea of a labor aristocracy!). (19) In all cases, the results of these social-chauvinist “communist” forces whether they consciously knew it or not, was to slow the progress of building New Power and preparing for Global People’s War. This is even the case when “Global People’s War” or “Third Worldism” is mentioned by these posturing First Worldists, as their penchant for bourgeois identity politics, navel-gazing, and tokenization betrays their true nature.

A parallel First World decolonization movement drawn from indigenous peoples in North America had emerged to confront domestic oil drilling and pipeline construction on indigenous lands. The relatively smaller population size of the indigenous internal colonies (20, 21) in comparison to the African diaspora in the US made for some interesting contrasts in political trajectory. This smaller sized force of mostly indigenous peoples consciously struggle for decolonization before it was trendy in activist circles, to emphasize the preservation of culture in opposition to Euro-American settler-colonialism.  The element of cultural preservation is more pronounced than other historical internal colonies in the US.  How this has played out on the ground, from “Idle No More” to the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipeline blockades has been almost the mirror opposite of the trajectory of BLM. Unlike the social movement network that originated with BLM, the indigenous protests tended to start out essentially with reformist politics and liberal, settler-imperialist boot-licking, and then more militant and uncompromising anti-colonial Native forces followed and increased the militancy (and may continue to do so, winter weather permitting, as of the time of this article’s publishing). It is not clear with a Trump administration allied with the non-Rockefeller wing of the US oil industry (inclined towards domestic oil drilling / piping in the US) (22), and with those identifying as indigenous people in North America at less than 5% of the total US and Canadian population, that anything besides Global People’s War will be able to stop any new settler-colonial “domestic drilling” agenda under the new regime. At the very least, the Native Warriors at Standing Rock have found themselves outside the capacity for First Worldist “Marxists” or the US Democratic party to co-opt them at this time. However, it isn’t likely that these social-imperialists will give up trying to do so, as their public fawning over US military veterans as some kind of “anti-colonial force” to oppose DAPL attests to. (23)

In 2006, the USA was at the lowest point in global public opinion it had been in decades. (24) There was no Leading Light Communism as an independent system operating in the world at that time. If there were, there may have been a basis to “globalize” the anti-imperialist left under Leading Light Communist leadership. Instead, genuine imperialists were stuck with a dogmatic ideological framework that prevented them from “thinking and acting globally”. Rather, many genuine anti-imperialists and friends of the Third World never escaped the left-liberal horizon of “think globally, act locally” for many years.  Only Leading Light Communism provides any real basis for genuine communist politics independent from First Worldist chauvinism promoted by “mainstream” social-imperialist political parties in the First World, and neocolonialist parties selling First Worldist fantasies to the masses of people in the Third World. The First Worldist “left” offers sometimes-true promises to First World bourgeois majority for more imperialist loot, and always-false promises to the world’s majority in the Third World of attaining First World status by adopting imperialist maldevelopment programs. What these First Worldists of all stripes like to ignore is that such false “proletarian internationalism” actually serves to corral people into pro-imperialist politics. This by default includes electing imperialist politicians for US president, despite any pretense by First Worldist “communists” of opposing electoral politics in principle! When First Worldist “communists” confine their notion of “mass line” to First World peoples exclusively, they are forced to essentially come to a synthesis with social-imperialist electoral politics, regardless of their stated inclinations towards some fantasy of “preparing the masses People’s War” in the First World.

The US social-patriot Michael Moore saw all this coming. (25) The white populist movement that started in 2010 as the “Tea Party” politically evolved into the anti-migrant and economic protectionist force that was to be the social base for Trump’s electoral victory, which Trump’s strategic adviser Steve Bannon coined as the “Alt-Right”. Traditional anti-labor, plus free trade conservative politics was turned on its head with Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP during the Republican presidential primaries, with Donald Trump himself calling for the Republican Party to become an “American Workers Party”. (26)  The identity-based political patchwork combined with the cynical “middle class centrism” that the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair has used to great effect in First World since the fall of the Soviet Union politics were utilized by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  However, the old Democratic Party electoral strategy could not stop Donald Trump’s campaign in a contest for US electoral votes. Along with Michael Moore, surrogates of the US Democratic Party like Van Jones, most of Hollywood, and even Barack Obama himself could not make the liberal politics of the past 25 years work for Hillary Clinton. As Donald Trump himself said many years ago in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, he would only run for president if he thought he could win. (27) Well, the First Worldist “left” set up this whole scenario for Trump to achieve electoral victory.

Without a doubt, the First Worldist “left” worked with Barack Obama and the Democrats to hack the election for Donald J. Trump. It is the nature of their politics, as they have been social-imperialist “hacks” for over a period of 15 years with zero credibility, even amongst their own bourgeois First World social base! The First World “masses” prefer Trump’s new GOP “workers party” to the fantasy “communist” outfits of the First Worldists.

“Daddy Donald wants a big kiss, you precious little First Worldist “leftist” weenies!  You did such a good job at not making revolution, that my ascendancy to USA Emperor was a piece of cake!”

How Leading Light Communists should operate during the ascendance of Trump, Marine Le Pen, Brexit, and the general First World nationalist political trends:

Both paramilitary, white nationalist violence and state repression against Third World migrants in the First World could increase. This could be a catalyst for an explosive May 1st within First World borders.  While their demands are likely to be confined to reformist and First Worldist politics, the connection that migrants have to the Third World masses might make for some great potential Leading Light Communist leaders.  This does not mean that Leading Light Communists should be leading some significant “anti-colonial movement” within First World borders, and such notions will need to be quashed both inside and outside the organization if these ideas find expression.  All that aside, it does mean that there are new opportunities to expose the global capitalist-imperialist system, and put Leading Light Communist politics in command of an emerging anti-imperialist united front.

Current efforts to oppose Trump and other hard right nationalists in the First World are dominated by the “left” First Worldist populists, pro-imperialist pseudo-feminists, and neocolonial and individualist fake posturing around “decolonization” connected to the liberal “globalist” wing of the imperialists.  This is unlikely to change beyond a general “washing out” of the more overtly liberal imperialist forces within such an anti-Trump, unorganized, left leaning coalition.  The commitment to building independent institutions of Dual Power within the First World itself is a noble but ultimately fruitless gesture, with no mass social base for revolution. The same gesture to “not allow US imperialism to go unchallenged” is equally noble yet fruitless if not linked up with the New Power of the Leading Light, based on uniting the world’s exploited in their billions as the driving force for a genuinely militant, material challenge to US/NATO imperialism. Nevertheless, Leading Light Communists in the First World should stay engaged with all people who seek an alternative to the current system, and be ready to impart political education and engage in ideological struggle. (28)

Outside of the First World, the First Worldists have failed terribly at supporting the international united front with their acquiescence to Western imperialist taking points since 2001. Ironically, it is now the right-wing nationalists who have taken up a pretense of “anti-imperialism” and “internationalism”.  Theirs is based entirely on a pan-nationalist framework devoid of any historical perspective on colonialism. (29)  This is why we are faced with the ugly and tenuous First World populist unity of anti-migration and anti-interventionism. This is also why Leading Light Communist politics in command can prevent us from becoming surprised by turns towards fascism from those we once believed were firmly in the progressive anti-imperialist camp. The fact that Donald Trump is very popular among the Egyptian, Syrian and Libyan masses (30, 31, 32) for his anti-NATO/anti-interventionist and anti-Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric during the US presidential campaign, even when often couched in a generalized reactionary anti-Muslim chauvinism suited for Trump’s electoral base in the United States, should be an indication that the First Worldist “left”, especially the “antiwar left” has lost its way on genuine anti-imperialism from a communist perspective. Consider this a wake up call to First Worldist so-called “communists”: These vulnerable populations you claim to represent, chose Donald Trump over you, most likely because of your adherence to outdated social-imperialist programs that puts them last, and not first.

Leading Light Communists can combat both the fake First Worldist “leftists”, and the right-wing usurpers of the anti-imperialist movement. We don’t have to defeat both camps simultaneously, but we need to understand that there cannot be strategic unity in coalition with either of these enemy forces within the anti-imperialist united front. Both the white nationalist imperialist camp and the phony “left wing” social-imperialist camp alike advance a politics that demand more for the First World and less for the Third World. The former wants to build border walls and fences to keep Third World migrants away from the value stolen from them. The latter call for a $15 minimum wage for First World workers exclusively, paid for by the international proletariat. Same politics, but different packaging. As long as the political line of the First Worldist “left” remains fundamentally indistinguishable from the line of white nationalists on questions of global value transfer, superficial differences between the two lines on gender and nation will not matter to the world’s oppressed and exploited majority.

Stopping US imperialism begins with Leading Light Communist politics in command!

The only silver lining about the impending Trump regime would be a temporary pullback of the imperialist military from the Global South early in his term (with the exception of some “hotspots” where there is talk of cooperation against Daesh), as well as a reshuffling of existing First World military alliances like NATO and trade agreements like NAFTA. This could potentially allow an opening for the New Power to expanded into places where it has yet to be built, and to deepen the roots of the New Power where it currently is being built. There is much that Trump is keeping close to his chest, so comrades should be mindful if his international policy rhetoric starts to lean less on making deals and more on stealing resources. This could be an indication that US imperialism is seeking to reimpose itself on the world’s oppressed and exploited majority in a rapid and expansive fashion. (33)  Such an aggressive move by Trump and Exxon’s Rex Tillerson could indeed be the catalyst for unleashing Global People’s War in the future, if the international defense of the New Power of the Leading Light is under such an aggressive imperialist attack.

Help us prepare for the best and worst case scenarios alike, by joining with and donating to the Leading Light Communist Organization! A New Power is being born in this dark world! Cherish and nurture it to total victory with your material solidarity!

5. Oil & Energy Insider; “IRAN-IRAQ: Pipeline to Syria Ups Ante in Proxy War with Qatar”;
February 22, 2013
13. Tidal; “General Strike!”; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak; December 2011


On the Occupy movements

On the Occupy movements


Recently, protests have broken out in many parts of the United States. The biggest of these is the Occupy Wall Street protest. These protests have been getting media attention recently. There is much hype right now claiming that these events are the beginning of an American revolution. It is important to understand the nature of these events. It is important not to be confused by liberal movementarianism. It is important to see through the hype.

1. Diversity of forces. These protests are diverse, but the overall movement is social imperialist and American populist. Like other high-profile protests, these events have a range of forces involved. While there are forces professing to be communist and anti-imperialist among the protesters, these forces do not represent the majority of the protesters by any means. Alex Jones-inspired, rightwing, crackpot populist groups have exerted influence in some places. The protesters also contain more traditionally Democratic Party forces calling themselves the “New American Dream Movement.” The demands are also diverse. While a tiny minority of people are trying to raise awareness about imperialism and its human toll, the dominant rhetoric of the protesters is economic populism and American patriotism. One of the demands is for a “left” version of the Tea Party in order to “take back the Democratic Party.” Typical social democratic and Democratic Party demands for an increased social safety net are also heard. There have been sometimes well-received open calls to reach out to White supremacists, Nazis, the police and military. In some places, despite police brutality against some of the protesters, there is pro-police and pro-military rhetoric, this has obviously kept many non-Whites and youth away. The overall social-fascist and social-imperialist thrust has meant that many national liberation forces and non-Whites are boycotting the protests or keeping them at arm’s length. Many are looking at Occupy movement with skepticism at present. “Occupy Wall Street? Wall Street is already occupied [by the United States]” is often heard.

2. Conspiracy over class? The narrative of the protests is “the people versus the banksters.” The protests claim to pit the “99% percent against the 1%.” This orientation is reflective of the general outlook of many engaged in the protests. They do not see social forces, they see cabals of elites and “banksters” as the main enemy, not the First World, not the global bourgeoisie. On the whole, they do not see capitalism as the enemy. Rather, they see the enemy as a largely invisible and mysterious elite. The main outlook is not even the typical First Worldist outlook of the vanilla revisionists. Such a narrow conception of the enemy makes the question of friends and enemies almost meaningless even within a First Worldist context. It allows for gross opportunism by almost all First Worldist forces.

3. Fan the flames… of what? for what? Movementarianism of a sort predominates within the so-called “far left.” Within the “far left” of American populism, a kind of movementarianism predominates that does not distinguish between social-imperialist struggles and anti-imperialist ones. There is an uncritical “support everything” mentality. Among the vanilla revisionists, there was a method of organizing that said the job of revolutionaries was to seek out the prairie fires that break out and then fan their flames. The question that has to be asked here is “Fanning the flames.. of what? for what?” Politicizing a reactionary social base along economic-nationalist lines is not progressive. This kind of movementarianism is the dominant practice within the political space of the vanilla revisionists, the far left of the Democratic Party and non-profits.  This includes the revisionists who will talk of socialism, communism, and even people’s war, and anti-imperialism, while at the same time fanning all the First World economic nationalism that is serves as the ideological justification for imperialism. On the one hand, they tell people that they deserve their First World way of life — which is based on exploitation and is unsustainable. On the other, they say they support — usually through empty solidarity rhetoric or self-serving revolutionary tourism — those who fight what makes that very First World lifestyle possible, those who fight imperialism against the Third World. When “far-left” First Worldist sects can’t deliver, as they never can, their audience turns toward the next best thing, the Democratic Party or they seek answers in more overtly fascist formations. If you make the key issue an increase in standard of living, what happens when anti-imperialism and First Worldist so-called “communism” doesn’t deliver for First World peoples (as it won’t)? Then they turn to the system, to imperialism and capitalism, which does deliver — at least most of the time at present. Without clear and consistent politics opposing social imperialism, opposing First Worldism, Americans, unless they get stuck in a cult, will always turn back to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party can deliver to an extent or they will turn to overtly fascist formations.

4. No leaders, no New Power. Even if the government could be toppled, at present, this would result only in cosmetic changes because New Power does not exist in a serious way yet. Leadership does not exist. Without New Power, without leadership, there is no revolution. There are not the independent institutions required to fill the vacuum if the old state falls. People who are new to activism tend to overestimate the importance of street demonstrations. Look at Egypt.  Street protests allowed a regime to reinvent itself. The most important revolutionary work is not protesting. Protesting, in the United States, is a kind of street theater.

5. Rise of overt, militant fascism? With the recent economic downturn, contradictions within American society have heightened, contradictions within the global bourgeoisie have heightened. These contradictions are still non-antagonistic. However, not by a far stretch, is the relationship between the bottom 99% and the top 1%  antagonistic in the First World. They will find resolution within the system in the near future. The overall situation is still one where there is more unity than disunity among the American population as a whole. This is due to the high standard of living made possible through global capitalism-imperialism. We should not overestimate the potential rise of overt, militant fascism at the moment in the United States. In poorer parts of the First World, the potential for the rise of overt, militant fascism is greater.

6. Proletariat? You can’t have a proletarian, socialist, communist revolution without a proletariat. There simply is no significant mass base of communist revolution in the First World. Expecting the populations of the United States to rise up and establish socialism or communism is ridiculous at the moment. We cannot con our way to communism by simply infiltrating movements made up of social forces that oppose us. We cannot simply intrigue our way to power. Although we can use every tool in the toolbox, including conspiring and intrigue, we need to understand that global people’s war and the New Power of the Proletariat is the main vehicle to power.

7. Gather the anomalies. Even though these protests are in themselves not progressive, it is likely that they will contain a small minority of people who can be won to Leading Light Communism or anti-imperialist positions. Put the Leading Light Communist vision front and center. In other words, find those individuals who reject the entire First World way of life. Reject economism. Reject First Worldism. Reject First Worldist so-called feminism. Appeal to the head and heart. Appeal to intelligence and altruism. Look for the most intelligent, the most militant, the most caring.  Look for those people who want a whole new world. Equality. Altruism. Sustainability. Empathy.

8.  Think big. It is not enough to oppose merely 1%, we must oppose the whole First World. This is not a movement we can lead at present. Its programme, although unarticulated, is too reactionary and First Worldist. This does not mean we should not try to influence people at the protests, especially on the edges.. We should criticize First Worldism, economism, White chauvinism, etc. We should influence as many people as possible. We should organize as many as possible under our leadership to oppose the First World and to support Leading Light Communism. We should bring as many as possible in to our fold. If somehow this were transformed into a movement to eliminate the whole First World and establish global equality, we could lead it.

9. Learning moment. For some this will be a big learning moment. We should use the shortcomings of this movement and its inevitible failure (as a revolutionary movement) as a teaching moment. We should point out the problems of demanding a communist world while at the same time advocating First Worldism. The Occupy  movement will fizzle or go into the Democratic Party.  Seize this opportunity to teach. We are growing. We are on fire even though the economic crisis has put some life into the corpse of First Worldism. We have won ideologically. All they have left is huff and puff, just lies, just arrogance.

10. Stay on course. We have the science, the organization, the leadership to initiate the next great wave.


On May Day and Occupy in the USA

On May Day and Occupy in the USA


On the first of May, many people celebrate International Workers’ Day or May Day. Even though the day has not always been widely celebrated in the United States, its origins trace back to labor struggles there. May Day commemorates the victims of the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago in 1886. During a general strike by workers in Chicago, USA in 1886, a bomb was thrown by an unknown person. In response, the police fired into the crowd killing many workers. Also, many police died from friendly fire. At the first congress of the Second International in 1889, Raymond Lavigne, called for international demonstrations on the 1890 anniversary of the Chicago protests. In 1891, at the second congress of the Second International, May Day was formally recognized. Later, there were May Day riots in 1894. And in 1904, the International Socialist Conference in Amsterdam called for demonstrations to be held on May Day by social democratic and trade unions to establish the eight hour workday. May Day has since become celebrated in many countries around the world, sometimes as an official holiday. In the old socialist regimes, May Day was often one of their biggest holidays.

In the United States, May Day celebrations have diminished. The official holiday for workers is Labor Day, which is observed on the first Monday in September. Labor Day was established, in part, as an alternative to the radical May Day. Labor Day was promoted by more mainstream, reformist organizations like the Central Labor Union and Knights of Labor. Thus President Grover Cleveland moved the workers’ holiday to the Labor Day celebrated by the more reformist organizations in 1887. Fascist and reactionary states have often worked to eliminate or repress May Day. Even though the state actively worked to draw attention away from May Day, the main reason for the lack of strong May Day demonstrations in the United States can be traced to changes in global class structure. With the rise of US imperialism, the standard of living of workers in the United States increased. More and more concessions were won through reformist struggles. The economic burden was shifted onto Third World peoples. Social peace was won in the First World by increased exploitation and oppression of the Third World. Thus workers in the United States had less and less need of a May Day as workers in the First World became bourgeoisified. May Day became a holiday mostly for insignificant leftist sects and nostalgists. However, in the last decade, May Day has been revived due to protests by migrants in the United States against racism. Even so, May Day protests have been diminishing. The Occupy movement is seeking to revive May Day this year. Although, such a revival can be used by Leading Lights to educate and organize, the premises of the Occupy effort are deeply flawed. The revival of May Day is an honorable goal, however, Occupy profoundly misunderstand the balance of forces globally. A populist attempt to revive May Day, at best, will only gather support from the usual communities of activists and their allies. There may be some spectacles in a few major cities, but the kind of mass outpouring that Occupy expects will not happen. A real general strike will not happen. The general public in the United States simply does not want revolution nor is it in their interest to make real socialist, communist revolution. The conditions for real revolution do not exist in the First World, especially in the United States. The workers here do not have a class interest in uniting with the proletariat in the Third World. Workers in the First World have far more in common with their own overlords than they do with workers, peasants and lumpen in the Third World. Contrary to Occupy’s populist rhetoric, the reality is that most First World peoples are part of the metaphoric global 1 percent, not the global 99 percent. Populist movements in the First World tend to stroke up fascism and social imperialism, not proletarian internationalism. However, such movements will exist whether or not Leading Light participates. At least by participating, Leading Light has some ability to influence some attendees to break left toward internationalism, anti-imperialism, and communism instead of breaking right toward economism, chauvinism, populism, and fascism. Establish a pole for global equality, anti-imperialism and decolonization, revolutionary environmentalism, and Leading Light Communism this May Day. Criticize economism, populism, chauvinism, imperialism and social imperialism, fascism, and First Worldism generally. Participate. Educate. Lead.


Corrupt Politicians, and the need for Youth Leadership


Corrupt Politicians, and the need for Youth Leadership

–statement from Leading Light comrades in West Africa, to the Youth of the Third World


Politicians in a neocolonialist false “democracy” are voted to power as a result of the promises they make to the electorate. Most promise to help develop their communities so that their people will have decent lives. The masses rightfully expect such politicians to fulfill their promises, even under bourgeois law.

After they have been voted into power, they organize local political parties in their various constituencies for those who helped during their campaign. However, instead of helping the masses, some rather live in affluence while the masses live in absolute poverty. They amass wealth from the state coffers and use them for their personal benefits, while these parties maintain this cycle of corruption at the expense of the people.

It seems like as soon as they come to power all that they want is to ride in a sophisticated land cruiser. They are in cars that are so expensive and sophisticated that the masses are shocked by their nature. And this is only one example of how many politicians use state resources to buy expensive things for their own enjoyment, instead of using the money to provide social amenities for the masses! This is an indication that they do not have ordinary people at heart but rather always think of themselves. My intention here is to criticize these corrupt politicians who take advantage of every situation to cheat the society. We, the masses, fail to criticize or point out the wrongs of the politicians for fear of intimidation because of the power they hold. The suffering market people in many of our Third World nations today have no choice but to continue selling his/her harvested produce or second-hand clothes in hope it will fetch them some incomes that will enable them to survive. They have no hope that the politicians will do anything to improve their conditions of life.

In light of this selfish behavior, let me chip in this—we must condemn the extreme and unreasonable lifestyle of selfish and corrupt politicians. Current policies and governments have taken us down the wrong path and it is only the youth of today can lead a global revolutionary movement to sweep away the neocolonialist exploitation and vices of present day political leadership from the Earth! In a nutshell, I would like to ask all that are witness to this unfairness, what kind of leadership do we want and how are we going to create a better society as youth of today? They say we are “future leaders”, but I don’t believe it. We must lead now and not wait for the future. We must be Leading Lights! So youth of today, lets get up, stand up, and organize. If we organize ourselves to construct our New Power all over the Third World, we can make a change and stop following corrupt politicians and their old power. We can and must a build an all-Third World party for the global poor and humble. A communist party with a line, leadership, and organization that is competent and committed to our needs.

Join and build the Leading Light Communist Organization today, and let us make a New Earth together, where everything will belong to everybody!


MIM: Review of the “Black Book of Communism”


MIM: Review of the “Black Book of Communism”


[Before MIM’s crackpot degeneration and despite their errors, MIM made some outstanding contributions to the proletarian struggle.]

The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press) is the bible of the anti-communist movement. The book is often cited as an academic work proving the barbarism of communism. Its figures for deaths under communism are probably the most cited of any other work on the topic. It has also been marshaled into the larger projected of trying to prove that socialism was worse than fascism. Thus, the book is used to not only let fascism off the hook, but as part of the revisionist project of rehabilitating fascism.

In 2001, MIM informed Harvard University Press of undeniable errors in The Black Book of Communism. MIM even got Harvard University Press’ Mark Kramer to admit that the book contained remedial math errors.

MIM’s work exposing the Black Book as a hack job was a great contribution to the international communist movement. So, we are reprinting MIM’s review of the Black Book of Communism. To read the full exchange between MIM and Harvard University Press, click here . This article unfortunately contains MIM’s gender spellings, we have chosen to publish it anyways. — MSH]

The Black Book

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes,Terror, Repression  Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin Translated by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999), 856pp. hb

reviewed by MC5, February 2000

The Black Book came out in France in 1997 and has provoked a storm of controversy since then. Now it has reached the shores of the English- speaking nations in translation through the dubious editorial choice of Harvard University Press.

MIM has already rebutted this book in the context of struggling against Internet fascists in 1999. Our challenge to the proponents of the book was: ” our critics become emotional and can’t use their methods to both sides of anything. The thread started because it was about famine only in allegedly socialist countries. The only problem was that they left out famine in the capitalist countries to give us a comparison!”(1)

Our fascist critics trumpeted this book against us all over the Internet as if something new were said. They cited the 100 million death toll in the introduction as the main message. Yet it remains that it is an 856 page book and there are no statistical comparisons of premature deaths between capitalist and socialist countries anywhere in the book, just as MIM charged all along. The reason is simple: the Communists doubled the life expectancies of the people of the Soviet Union and China. That is the overall picture. It does not mean there were not civil wars or executions, including some unjust ones, but overall, the violence of communism is less than that of capitalism, by far.

The simple scientific link missing in the minds of our critics is the link between poverty under a system of private property and death. Poverty under capitalism causes death from lack of food, a decent environment and adequate health care. Twist and turn as it might, the pre-scientific intelligentsia will never treat this fact in a systematic and thereby scientific manner despite 800 page wailings. It turns out that the capitalists have a Black Book of Capitalism forthcoming. It is like Lenin said about the capitalists bidding for the rope contract for the hanging of their class. We hope it teaches the people how a life expectancy is calculated and why it is superior to tallying millions of deaths in selective patches the way our critics do. The death toll for capitalism reaches 100 million from starvation alone, every 8 to 12 years as MIM has already discussed in its essays on this available on our FAQ web page. It is a measure of general ignorance of the public that purchases monopoly capitalist periodicals and the conscious evil of some intellectuals that the Black Book could create any stir at all with its 100 million figure while so many more die each decade under capitalism.

Overall, somehow or another, the Black Book of Communism has managed to raise the debate one notch. It is a measure of the success of the class struggle that the reactionary intelligentsia felt compelled to write an 854 page book touching on the death toll of communism. By seeking to put a number on the premature deaths caused by communist movements in the 20th century, the pre-scientific intelligentsia who wrote the book brought the subject right to the edge of science before recoiling in horror and retreating to atemporal moral dogmas more fit for inner spiritual reflection than discussion in public.
What is not scientific cannot produce unity, so the anti-communist authors split as the book went to press. Werth and Margolin –the authors of the Soviet, Chinese and other sections of the book disagreed with Stephane Courtois who introduced the book. Courtois suggested in the only comparison in the book that the communist movement was responsible for 100 million deaths, while the Nazis were only responsible for 25 million (p. 15) (which obviously excludes some of the more than 22 million Soviet peoples who died at the hands of Nazis, mostly civilians or the six million Jews or the millions of others of other nations including the Germans themselves.) Werth and Margolin reportedly said that Courtois inflated the figures to arrive at 100 million as the total death toll for communism.

The communism versus Nazism comparison was the only comparison of figures offered in the book and it is mostly a comparison of war time deaths with some extra and invented famine deaths thrown in on the Soviet side, which we will address further in the essay below. The Nazism vs. all communism comparison is easily recognized as absurd just on the basis that communism ruled in more countries decades longer. More importantly it is absurd, because the most deaths occur from the steady grind of daily life, not in war, and the Black Book of Communism simply does not compare life expectancy in ordinary life under socialism and capitalism–thereby whitewashing capitalist starvation, poor distribution of health services and environmental degradation. More intelligent anti-communists realized that Courtois’s mistakes as exposed by his co-authors might encourage the readers to undertake comparisons of death tolls and adopt a scientific approach. In addition, they knew that the masses would realize that the Nazis were stopped at millions killed instead of billions because of the Soviet troops who stopped the Nazis. Thus Courtois was aiming at the masses reading the uncritical filter of the monopoly capitalist media while Werth and Margolin were worried that some intellectuals might notice the huge holes in Courtois’s story.

Courtois obviously believes that tactically speaking, the media will buy anything anti- communist, because it is too ignorant or bought-off to do otherwise. So the question in the minds of the pre- scientific intelligentsia like Courtois becomes “how aggressively should we rehabilitate Nazism and attack communism?” As MIM has long said, there is nothing scientific about fascism. It is simply a ideology justifying open repression on behalf of capitalism. Hence, it is no surprise that intellectuals will never be able to put forward coherent, consistent and detailed books on fascism’s behalf. The authors are largely ex-communists who had thought communism is some kind of purified Christianity. They never understood the science involved in supporting communism. The anti-communists can take advantage of religious mysticism, selective human-rights absolutism and the relativism of post- modernism that is so trendy today, but they themselves can never put forward a coherent and historically detailed line themselves, for the same reasons that one religion can never conquer the whole world.


The introduction by Courtois demonstrates that he is one intellectual who consciously manipulates the pre- scientific sentiments of the masses and other intellectuals. When it comes to communism, he correctly says, “there will always be some nitpickers who maintain that actual Communism has nothing in common with theoretical communism.”(p. 2) Yet he goes on to say, “Of course it would be absurd to claim the doctrines expounded prior to Jesus Christ, during the Renaissance, or even in the nineteenth century were responsible for events in the twentieth century.”(p.2 ) In his own mind, Courtois believes it is wrong to do to Jesus what he is doing to the communists by holding up some idealized scheme and measuring it against real life.

We agree that anyone who counter-poses a dogma goal to a reality is going to make numerous mistakes. We can only compare realities with realities and decide which reality is closer to the goal. Comparing “actual” life and “theory” is really ethical dogmatism and has nothing in common with scientific Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. “Theory” does not mean our long-range goals of what is right and wrong. Theory is the body of ideas that accurately describe how the world works in its vast mesh of cause and effect and change. Christians and other religious people are liable to substitute “Heaven” for “theory” and assume that Marx’s “communism” plays the same role as “Heaven” in their own thought. Not surprisingly they then find communism in practice to be flawed and hypocritical.

Courtois ends up quoting the same Catholic Church that supported the fascist Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany for his moral basis.(p. 29) His last sentence in the introduction quotes, “thou shalt not kill.”(p. 31) In return, the Cardinal Mindszenty foundation put up a favorable review of Courtois’s book on the web.

For this reason, Courtois feels justified when he says “our purpose here is not to devise some kind of macabre comparative system for crunching numbers.”(p. 15) We can only hope he contracts HIV and decides to forgo the “number crunching” and thus takes chicken soup instead of protease inhibitors.

Courtois is also the perfect case of what Stalin called a “social-fascist.” Claiming to be a social-democrat, Courtois has been attacked for fascist sympathies widely. Le Pen is his greatest admirer. It is so striking that it is not only defenders of Stalin who have noticed Courtois’s benefit to fascism. Even the social-democratic “Le Monde” in France had some complainers with regard to fellow social democrat Courtois.(p. xvii)


Courtois attempts to blame Stalin for contaminating himself by signing a pact with Hitler in 1939.(pp. 5, 22) He says it was a crime. No where does he mention all the pacts that the capitalist countries signed with Hitler before Stalin did. It is typical in that most of the book’s distortions are by omission of comparative context.

The Polish signed in 1934 and the French and British of course had their Munich appeasement in 1938. In 1938, Stalin offered to attack Hitler over Czechoslavakia if either England or France sided with him and if the Polish granted passage through their territory. Instead, what happened is Poland took a slice of Czechoslavakia–the Teschen district–in a deal with the Nazis.(3) The fact that Stalin was the last to sign a pact with Hitler is not mentioned by Courtois, because by his own logic, the capitalist countries would be guilty of greater crimes than the socialist countries.

Supposedly these are the scholars, but it is MIM explaining the comparative context once again. Our readers should ask whose standards of scholarship are fairer, MIM Notes’s or the bourgeois scholars’. These bourgeois scholars do not even mention the capitalist countries’ agreements with Hitler while citing Stalin for “crimes” for signing agreements. This same Courtois does not mention anywhere why Hitler’s crimes stopped at the supposed 25 million mark–Soviet troops who defeated him–and these are supposedly historians. They are simply revisionist historians taking advantage of the youth for whom World War II is very distant.

Nor does Courtois or Werth mention the numerous and successful pro-Nazi rebellions throughout Europe when they talk about there being no reason to repress anyone in the Soviet Union and when they talk about how bad conditions in the USSR were that they drove people into the arms of the Nazis. If so, conditions were even worse in the capitalist countries, because Nazi fifth columns overthrew those European governments outright and paralyzed the anti- fascist fighting ability of all continental Europe except for the Soviet Union and mostly communist guerrillas in other countries.

The term “quisling” arose because of a former Norwegian “Defense Minister” who helped the Nazis overthrow the government of Norway in 1940–Vidkun Quisling. In France, in 1940, Henri Philippe Petain, a former Command-in-chief who achieved that post in 1917 headed a Nazi collaborator government in France seated in Vichy. Even the French bourgeoisie agreed he had to receive life imprisonment after World War II. The Belgian Leopold III surrendered his country to the Nazis unconditionally and was dubbed a collaborator.(3) In Sweden, the family that owned half of all the country profited from Nazi gold taken from Jews killed in the Holocaust. Assisting that family in the legal matters was the US future Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles–and of course, the Swedish government.(4) Not surprisingly, Finland joined the Nazi side in 1941, but less known is that the French premier Edouard Daladier had to resign in March, 1940, because his opposition to attacking the Soviet Union in Finland was unpopular! That’s correct: the French public and portions of the bourgeoisie wanted to attack the Soviet Union, not Germany in an effort to get on Hitler’s good side! Hungary and Bulgaria joined the Axis powers outright and made war against the Allies–greatly assisting Hitler in his invasion of the Soviet Union.

In all the above countries overrun in part by internal Nazism, there was also resistance to Nazism, but the point remains that Courtois and Werth failed to mention them while downplaying the threat of Nazi collaborators in the Soviet Union. If they wish to speak for the “human-rights” of Nazis and their collaborators, they should do so without denying that these sorts of fascists existed in the Soviet Union as they did everywhere in Europe. To do as Courtois and Werth do is distortion of the facts to suit a religious agenda of human-rights for fascists.

Karel Bartosek came closer to the truth saying “the repression was especially severe in countries that had sent troops to fight against the Soviet Union–Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia–where the NKVD deported hundreds of thousands to the Soviet gulags.”(p. 394) However, contrary to the impression left by Bartosek (p. 397), Bulgaria also sided with the Nazis as can still be found in common encyclopedias.(3) It is indicative that Bartosek chose to stress the fact that Bulgaria did not send troops against the Soviet Union without mentioning that Bulgaria was occupying Soviet allies in Yugoslavia and Greece–after having received a piece of Romania through the offices of Hitler. There were active fascists in countries other than Italy, Germany and Japan, but the Cold War historians needed to whitewash fascism in Europe, especially Eastern Europe in order to vilify Stalin.

For his part, Nicolas Werth wrote a whole chapter exonerating the peoples who sided with Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and listed their executions in the midst of war as crimes counting against communism. Apparently the context of being in a war is not relevant to these selectively timeless historical moralists. Adam Shatz found Werth’s position to be too much as well, thus proving that not all historical commentators at this time are asleep while speaking: “His lament for the fate of the Vlasovtsky is particularly bizarre. Named after their leader, Andrei Vlasov, the Vlasovtsky were a group of Russian prisoners of war who defected to the German side in 1942. ‘On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions,’ writes Werth credulously, ‘Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of the Bolsheviks.’ Vlasov paid with his life, and his 150,000 soldiers ended up wasting away in the gulag, an unhappy fate, to be sure. But it’s hard to get worked up, as Werth does, over the imprisonment of traitors whose ‘anti-Stalinist convictions’ led them to embrace the Nazis.”(5)

Having written about these Vlasov supporters and also about various Nazi centers that actually did exist in the Soviet Union amongst certain ethnicities (e.g. pp. 219-20, 223-4), Werth still says, “the elimination of potential and mythical ‘fifth columnists’ was at the heart of the Great Terror.”(p. 202) As some of his own work shows, there was nothing “mythical” about the fifth column and the number that sided with Hitler was greater than the number that Stalin executed in the “Great Terror,” according to Werth’s own accounting.

Later Courtois and Karel Bartosek want our hearts to bleed for the Germans who revolted against the Soviet occupation in 1953. (see photos & p. 439) After killing more than 22 million Soviet people, the Germans were lucky to be left alive. Had Stalin been as bad or worse, than Hitler, as Courtois says, no Germans would have been left alive to revolt.

Outside of the Great Leap in China, most of the accusations regard violence in the midst of war. Reading about Vietnam or the Soviet Union or Korea (which is still in a state of war), one would often be able to forget there was a war going on as atrocities were listed.

Anti-semitism and genocide more generally

By placing Nazism at one-quarter the danger of communism, Courtois rightly invoked a charge of anti- Semitism, even in the staid pages of the social- democratic “Le Monde.”(p. xv) While Stalin fought a war against Nazis and toward communism, the goals of the Nazis were always for extermination of all but the master race, which did not even include all whites.

Given his sympathy for the Soviet fifth column in World War II, it is not surprising that Ukrainian fascists quote Werth on their web pages, in the midst of their anti-Semitic filth.(6) Kooky or un-rebutted anti- Semitism was just beneath the surface throughout the book (e.g., p. 86, p. 99). The whole title of the book comes from the title of a book about the holocaust of Jews by Nazis also titled Black Book.

One bourgeois reviewer said that France lagged far behind in recognizing anti-Semitism from World War II: “In fact, the Jewish genocide barely registered among French intellectuals until the late 1980s, when Raul Hilberg’s seminal study, The Destruction of the European Jews, finally appeared in translation. The Russian gulag, as exposed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, had received far more attention thanks to the new philosophers of the 1970s.”(5)

Shatz went on to add: “After all, this was a country where, as the Princeton historian Anson Rabinbach observed in Dissent last year, ‘the demand for a ‘Nuremberg trial of communism’ has a particular connotation, frequently reiterated by Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front, to justify not prosecuting French crimes of the Vichy era.’ Since the book’s publication coincided with Maurice Papon’s trial on charges of Nazi collaboration during the Vichy years, French readers were invited to contemplate the notion that partisan resistance fighters, many of them communists and all of them in alliance with Soviet Russia, were on no firmer moral ground than a pro- fascist bureaucrat who sent Jewish women and children to the ovens.”(5)

Shatz complains about Stalin’s banning of a book that focussed on the Jews and World War II. Yet it is true that the Nazi genocide hit other ethnicities besides the Jews. The communists and Jews were only first in line for extermination by Hitler.

Even Nicolas Werth admitted this, if only in passing in the book and without impacting Courtois’s conclusions obviously. “The barbarism of the Nazis created some reconciliation between the Soviet government and the people, in that Germany classed Russians as sub-humans destined for extermination or slavery.”(p. 215) Also Courtois and a co-author correctly said, “Hitler considered that all Slavs were subhuman and hence were to be disposed of en masse.”(p. 320) Given that most Russians were white, Werth and Courtois should have also said that Hitler planned on the extermination of the vast majority of the world’s population. People seeking to equate Stalin and Hitler do so to whitewash racism and they take advantage of historical ignorance as Nazism recedes in time.

The Ukrainian famine

Throughout his essay, Werth talks about grain requisitions by the Soviet state as if grain so obtained disappeared and thereby caused rural starvation.(e.g. p. 121) No mention is made of city people’s non-negotiable rights with regard to eating. Even though the property system was no longer the capitalist style, he continued to refer to the grain as the “fruit of their[peasants’] labor”(e.g. p. 66, p. 148) that they were entitled to keep–omitting that some people work on much better land than others if there is no socialist cooperation to even out disparities in the means of production.

From 1923 to 1928, the peasants had a free market in grain. Yet, the bourgeois peasants blew their chance in 1928, because grain delivered to the cities was down to 4.8 million tons from 6.8 million the previous year. That spurred Stalin to favor collectivization of agriculture.(p. 142) No doubt, had Stalin let the peasants keep their grain, Courtois and Werth would have blamed Stalin for the starvation of people in the cities instead–unless Stalin changed the system to capitalism, in which case an 8 digit figure of peasants could die each year to this day without the bourgeois propagandists uttering a peep. Whether people starved in cities or in the countryside, Stalin was going to be blamed by these critics.

All along some of the fiercest resistance to doing the right thing centered in the Ukraine and Werth says the Ukrainian famine was the largest death toll Stalin was responsible for. The Ukraine is the equivalent of the US “breadbasket”–states like Iowa or Kansas. Werth admitted as much in a concluding throw-away sentence: “The richest and most dynamic agricultural regions, which had the most to offer the state and the most to lose in the extortionate system of enforced collectivization, were precisely the regions worst affected by the great famine of 1932-33.”(p. 168) The fact that these areas were the equivalent of Iowa should have been a clue that having the peasants just keep their food was not an option that should have been suggested lightly.

In 1929, more than 3,200 Soviet civil servants suffered terrorist attacks.(p. 145) 1,300 riots spread through the countryside in the years 1928-9. That is one indication of the class war going on. They had a history behind them of a movement called the “Greens” that also resisted requisition of food to the city.(p. 81-, p. 91- )

In the midst of this sort of political resistance, many Ukrainians resisted delivering grain to the state. Werth says that in response, Stalin starved 4 million of them to death in 1932-3 for a total of 6 million when other regions of the Soviet Union are counted for being in a similar situation.(p. 146)

New York’s newspaper the “Village Voice” of January 12, 1988 has already debunked the claims about the Ukrainian famine, as being wildly exaggerated and as having been created by fascist Ukrainians, in some cases caught in the act of fraud in propaganda creation.(7) Ludo Martens has also debunked poet, fiction-writer and government official Robert Conquest for his use of Nazi sources, Nazi collaborator sources and fiction books to buttress his most widely cited story of the Ukrainian famine.(8) 80,000 Ukrainians served in the Nazi army including some in the SS and that is the kind of human material that gets wide quotation.(p. 244)

Hence, while some people may have starved in the Ukraine, Werth’s numbers are inflated to the point where the Village Voice referred to the famine as a “hoax.” Nonetheless, Werth touches on the political choices some Ukrainians made. He quotes an alleged Stalin letter that MIM did not check on (because it was consistent with the times) as saying “the workers in your district–not just your district, but in many districts–went on strike, carried out acts of sabotage, and were prepared to leave workers from the Red Army without bread!”(p. 166) From MIM’s point of view, even if all the fascist propaganda were true, Stalin would have been correct to take harsh measures against those who disobeyed the law, cut back their farming and generally acted as the spoiled and privileged owners of the best farming land.

Where Werth and Courtois agree is that the political choice of some peasants to resist delivering grain to the state is not an act of violence in itself against the city-dwellers; even though realistically, food has to come from farmland, especially the Ukraine and other lands in question. They speak of the land as if it were only the property of peasants who live on it. When peasants cut back their work only to grow their own grain and contrary to law, Werth and Courtois defend them. Indeed, Werth comes out openly in saying his approach depends on not recognizing Soviet law. He said that “‘destruction of Soviet property’” and other items including “‘speculation’” should not be counted as crimes.(p. 206) In contrast, we socialists are happy to deport such Ukrainian people as they were deported by Stalin and replace them with people who will do something with the fertile land–because people’s lives are at stake and we see political games played by Ukrainians on breadbasket land as violence against city-dwellers.

The case of the Ukrainian breadbasket land is also important in reminding us why we have to oppose “local control” perfected under Tito’s “market socialism” in Yugoslavia and also adopted by anarchists in Spain. After a revolution implementing “local control,” people who happen to live on gold mines will become rich. People who live on the best land will have an easier time farming, and so on. “Local control” cannot be thought of as socialism, just a switch of owners. The central government has to play some role or the means of production are not truly socialist. Only when that day comes when people cooperate economically across large distances without coercion or reward will it be possible to take an easy-going approach to dividing up resources at the local level, because no one would think of hurting people in the rest of the country or the world based on their fortunate local position.

At a MIM Stalin talk coming out on CD, one critic from the audience said that Stalin induced the Ukrainian famine “for his own power.” When asked what Stalin used that power for, the critic had nothing to say. In the capitalist countries, the sights of the masses are lowered to persynal gain, such that when they see someone with vast power and no persynal gain, they have no idea what to say. Stalin did not gain from starving Ukrainian peasants, unlike the way capitalist speculators who hoard food gain when peasants starve. To say that Stalin did gain is a simple projection of life under capitalism to life under socialism where often the politicians also persynally gain from development, weapons or other deals they broker politically.

In contrast the most bourgeois peasants in the USSR known as kulaks did gain monetarily and persynally from speculation in grain by letting the cities starve. Stalin did not himself benefit from the New Economic Policy (NEP) that allowed the free market in grain. It was the peasants in the countryside actually trying to increase their own power for persynal gain, so our critic has the accusation against Stalin completely upside-down.

In no way are Courtois and Werth correct in equating the holocaust of Jews with the starvation of some peasants who sat on fertile land and decided not to obey the law or cooperate in a new economic system. They chose to cut back their work and hide their grain despite knowing what targets of production they were to reach and despite having come closer to meeting them in the past. It is not that Werth ever claimed these peasants were struck by typhoon or drought. They had a choice, unlike the Jews who are born Jews according to the racial theories of the Nazis.

Since Werth says that Stalin’s single largest crime was the alleged Ukrainian famine,(p. 263) our readers should note it carefully and decide how much credibility the overall criticism of the Soviet Union under Stalin has.

Admissions regarding the Soviet Union

As intellectuals, these fascist and fascist-leaning intellectuals could not help trying to distinguish themselves from historical simpletons. What is more, they claim to do so based on the study of the most recently released Soviet archives.

1. Citing the work of an A. Blum, Werth no longer believes Stalin masterminded the Kirov assassination in 1934. It was the killing of Kirov that resulted in a swing in Soviet public opinion toward a crackdown on “dissent” as World War II was progressing, notably the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.

2. Werth correctly believes Robert Conquest’s work on the “Great Terror” to be exaggerated, (p. 185) MIM would say fictional.

3. According to Werth, the 85% of executions after the Civil War in the Soviet Union and while Stalin was still alive (1922 to 1953), occurred in the “Great Terror,” also sometimes referred to as the “Purges” of 1936-1938.(9) However, Werth says the number of executions has been vastly exaggerated. The number was 681,692.(p. 191)

While everyone agrees that the majority of executions occurred in the 1936-1938 period–while the Soviet Union and Germany were already fighting each other in Spain– the numbers range wildly. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko said that the “Great Terror” was responsible for 19 million deaths from 1935 to 1941, (10) while Werth says the figure is 720,000.(p. 206) This is just an indication of how wildly the bourgeoisie speculates against Stalin.

4. Purges in the Red Army prior to World War II were previously exaggerated and affected 30,000 out of 178,000 relevant cadres.(p. 198)

5. Documented cases occurred where all Mensheviks said to be shot were not shot but imprisoned.(p. 262)

Embarrassments to others in the anti-Stalin swamp

Because the bourgeoisie rushes to attack Stalin from an immense number of improbable angles, it is not surprising that its statements stand in contradiction all the time, even 47 years after Stalin’s death. Like prison cellmates with 47 years to practice their alibis, the bourgeoisie still can’t come up with a consistent story.

1. Werth’s essay tends to confirm that Bukharin was in fact a Liberal in the right-wing of the Communist Party with links to Yagoda, a security chief under Stalin. In 1918, Bukharin was criticizing the Cheka (internal security that arose in civil war) for its “‘excessive zeal of an organization filled with criminals, sadists, and degenerate elements from the lumpenproletariat.’”(p. 79)

In 1924, Bukharin again wrote to the head of the ex- Cheka then called the GPU. His name was Felix Dzerzhinksy. “‘It is my belief that we should now progress to a more liberal form of Soviet power: less repression, more legality, more open discussions, more responsibility at local levels.’”(p. 134) The other major Bolshevik leaders disagreed with Bukharin.

2. The famous Ukrainian anarchist Makhno organized bloody pograms against the Jews in 1919, just as Lenin charged. A picture continues to emerge of only Bolsheviks in the Ukraine as not anti-Semitic.(p. 96)(11)

3. Also contrary to some anarchists today who paint the anarchists as blameless, Werth points out that rebellion and class war against the Bolsheviks did continue into 1921. The Kronstadt rebellion did not occur in a context of social peace.

4. According to Courtois and a co-author, in 1937, Trotsky went to the French police to get French communist Jacques Duclos in trouble, despite having no evidence against him for a murder Trotsky wanted avenged. Trotsky relied on the French police to find the evidence and conduct the investigation.(p. 307)

China: more botched numbers

To their credit, the authors admitted that their criticisms of Asian communists and therefore most of their criticism of communism is speculative.(p. 459) The reason is that they would like the governments there to fall so that they can see the archives before they pass judgement.

The largest part of the 100 million deaths they are attributing to communism comes from the Great Leap, where they use the upper end of a range of estimates–43 million deaths. MIM recently reviewed this literature again in MIM Notes 203, since Harvard professor Roderick MacFarquhar’s book just came out in paperback.

Contrary to MacFarquhar who details all the actions the Communist Party took and how Mao made public self- criticism, Margolin says Mao refused to admit a problem during the Great Leap.(p. 464) He then goes on to list wartime atrocities in World War II by the communists.

Even more than MacFarquhar who misplaced a decimal in his single largest accusation against Mao to make it 10 times worse than it was, Margolin leaves us seriously questioning his basic quantitative skills. We can only hope it was the editors or translators who introduced the errors, but there were numerous basic mathematical errors in his chapter and no matter how one slices it, the chapter does not reflect well on the authors and editors.

“This last province [Anhui], in north-central China, was the worst affected of all. In 1960 the death rate soared to 68 percent from its normal level at around 15 percent, while the birth rate fell to 11 percent from its previous average of 30 percent. As a result the population fell by around 2 million people (6 percent of the total) in a single year.”(p. 492)

The above is such a bungle that it is difficult to sort out all the errors and curiously enough, it refers to Margolin’s biggest accusation at the provincial level. The first number is actually 68.58 per thousand. 68 percent is 68 per hundred. Once again, we have an error overestimating by a factor of 10. What is worse is the stupidity in saying that the mortality rate was 68 percent but only 6 percent died! In this way Margolin exceeds the stupidity of MacFarquhar’s mistake. Of course, the birth rates are similarly exaggerated by a factor of 10. At least MacFarquhar correctly reported these figures in a table in his third volume.(12)

In more obvious moralistic “have your cake and eat it too,” Margolin denounces the regime in China for creating a situation where “the birth rate fell to almost zero as women were unable to conceive because of malnutrition.”(p. 494) He does not realize that if that is true, his death toll must be very low, much less than the 20 million lower end estimate he uses. It’s clear that he has never sat down to think through questions like what goes into creating a life expectancy figure.
Further exceeding MacFarquhar by covering more years with his ignorance, Margolin says “For the entire country, the death rate rose from 11 percent in 1957 to 15 percent in 1959 and 1961, peaking at 29 percent in 1960. Birth rates fell from 33 percent in 1957 to 18 percent in 1961.”(p. 495)

Given this sort of record it is not surprising Margolin also botched the imprisonment rate figures where he momentarily got on the right track before falling off (and actually compared the imprisonment figures with the USA’s and found them equal in his own error-prone way). (p. 541) He apparently is OK with reporting 8 digit figures raw and re-reporting percentages, but anything actually involving his own understanding of division is suspect.

At one point saying that the peasants were too weak to harvest grain rotting on the farms, (p. 493) Margolin also says that once capitalist-style organization came into place, the peasants quickly ended the famine. (p. 496) Which was it Margolin? Were the peasants too weak as the Great Leap went on to harvest or just needing capitalist incentives? Nor does Margolin seem to flinch at saying the worst year was actually 1961,(p. 491) after the Great Leap had ended and widescale private farming and systems tantamount to it had come into play.

It is obvious that Margolin likes to study history, but his quantitative skills are so lacking it is no wonder that he came out against communism. His essay along with MacFarquhar’s error introduces further doubt into the basic competence of the people doing bourgeois academic research on the Great Leap. Anyone with any experience in mortality figures, life expectancies or statistics and the slightest knowledge of the Great Leap from any perspective should have caught Margolin’s mistakes right away and should have known off the top of their heads that what he was saying was impossible. Anyone with a high school education should have caught the mistakes if studying carefully. When talking about China with its large population and the potential for 8 digit famines, it is essential that an author be comfortable with numbers.

With regard to the charge of 100 million dead from communism, 85 million are from the Soviet Union and China, 20 million from the Soviet Union and 65 million from China.(p. 4) As we have just shown the crucial lynchpins to that argument concern a famine reported by Nazi collaborators in the Ukraine and a Great Leap toll where repeated and obvious arithmetic errors were published in the book. Together these two items account for 49 million dead out of 100 million alleged victims.


The book goes on to treat other countries as well, but those countries are all said to stem from the Leninist “genetic code.” Many of these other regimes that Courtois et. al. attack are not communist and as usual they omit significant facts such as the landslide Sandinista victory’s portion of the population (not just the voters) won in a bourgeois style election (p. 670) or the fact that their notion of “responsible” for deaths in the case of the Sendero Luminoso refers mostly to indiscriminate killings carried out by the government but which the Sendero Luminoso is “responsible” for because they started a civil war.(p. 680)

The Black Book sold 70,000 copies in four weeks in France.(13) Of course, the Wall Street Journal endorsed it as well as most of the rest of the bourgeois press. There are 175 entries in an Internet search using the “Google” search engine. Many of the book reviews can be seen by visiting MIM’s bookstore under reviewed books and going to the Amazon bookstore link for the Black Book. The positive reviews can be taken as an indication of the lack of historical knowledge of some, the weak quantitative skills of others and the overall conscious distortion of the bourgeoisie. In the end, MIM agrees that Courtois has recognized the truth about the media: it will buy anything anti-communist.

Despite his correct recognition of the nature of the monopoly capitalist media, Courtois will fail in his goal, because the truth regarding the overall situation is already widely available and cannot be excised from history by selective compilations of statistics or gruesome detail of death on one side of the capitalism versus communism conflict. Despite the whinings of the Solzhenitsyns, Khruschevs and other intellectuals and former party members, nothing will eradicate the fact that the average persyn lived longer under socialism than under capitalism.(14)


1. &CONTEXT=949783412.290127893&HIT _CONTEXT=942257934.934412361&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=9

2. I thank HC88 for the following reference: William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 296, 526, 563f.







9. 12/1997-12-10/1997-12-10-054.html

10. See our article on this at

11. For some examples of the half-assed anarchists who continue to support Makhno against Lenin, unfortunately we have to refer to some of the better anarchists including the Rage Against the Machine, the International Workers of the World, the web and

12. Roderick MacFarquhar, The Origins of the Cultural Revolution: The Coming of the Cataclysm 1961-1966, vol. 3, pb., (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 7-8.


14. We suggest readers follow the following links:


The Loss of Our Dignity


The Loss of Our Dignity

A Poem by Comrade Kwame Ato Aseidu


O people of Africa…
How long will your torpor and lethargy last?
You were once the lords of the whole earth,
The world was at your beck and call.
How is it that your glory has lapsed
And you have fallen from favor now
And crept away into some corner of oblivion?
You were the fountainhead of learning,
The unfailing spring of light for all the earth.
How is it that you are withered now, quenched faint if heart?
You who once lit the world,
How is it that you lurk, bemused, in darkness now?

Why is it that a foreign people,
Who call themselves the “First World”,
Receive all of their wealth, culture, and knowledge from your own forbearance,
And that you, their blood, their rightful heirs, should go without?
How does it seen, when your neighbors are at work
By day and night with their whole hearts,
Providing for their advancement, their honor and prosperity,
That you, in your ignorant fanaticism
Are busy only with your quarrels and antipathies,
Your indulgences and appetites and empty dreams?
Is it commendable that you should waste
And fritter away the brilliance that is your birth right,
Your native competence, your inborn understanding.
We have digressed from our dignity!!

Open your mind’s eye,
See your great power in the midst of this present darkness.
Rise up and struggle, seek education, seek enlightenment.
Become Leading Lights for African Unity and complete liberation!
Let us build the New Power to restore our glory and dignity,
And let us liberate the whole Earth!

–Leading Light Kwame Ato Aseidu, LLCO Ghana


Fidel Castro, Leader of Cuban revolution, passes away


Fidel Castro, Leader of Cuban revolution, passes away

On Friday the 25th of November, 7pm local time, Fidel Castro, the former leader of Cuba, passed away. Fidel Castro served as the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2008, when he stepped down due to health issues and his advanced age.  Fidel Castro was born on August 13th 1926, and experienced his youth through a period in which Cuba was a neo-colonial asset, a mafia state, and puppet regime of the United States. Although having failed a previous focoist uprising against the Batista dictatorship, with a only a handful of fighters, he led a successful guerrilla war against the Batista regime, with patriotic forces capturing the Cuban state in 1959. He led his country through the turmoil of the “Cuban Missile Crisis” period, and also during the so-called “special period” following the breakup of the social-imperialist USSR in the 1990’s.

We should not sugar coat, or have illusions about the nature of the Cuban state. Although it may share many similarities with past socialist experiments, Cuba is not a socialist society today. The socialism of the Cuban revolution stagnated following its embrace of the “international socialist [sic.] division of labor” of the then social-imperialist Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. Throughout the Cold War, many nationalist and national-liberation forces claimed the “Communist” label, and used communist rhetoric in order to secure support from the Soviet Bloc. It is questionable whether Cuba was ever a socialist state, or whether it was a patriotic regime with social-democratic reforms backed by Soviet aid.  Where Che Guevara embraced the Maoist emphasis on independent socialist development and moving society away from the Law of Value, Castro unfortunately embraced the development model promoted by the revisionist-led Soviet Union.  It was Castro’s leadership during the so-called “special period” that partially corrected this error after the end of Soviet aid in the 1990s.  While this prevented Cuba from economic collapse and maintained its independence from the United States, it did not place Cuba on a path towards communism.

Regardless of the class nature of the Cuban state, Castro’s leadership kept Cuba mostly independent despite the full weight of US imperialism bearing down on him in the form of the Bay of Pigs invasion, naval blockades, and CIA assassination plots. His role as Leader of Cuba, especially during the post-Soviet period was not easy. He led the Cuban people on an anti-imperialist, internationalist path during a time of tremendous turmoil for left wing nationalist regimes in the third world. Although not a communist, he was a brave and principled friend of oppressed people around the world, especially on the African continent. In a pointed historical rebuke to the mistaken foreign policy of Maoists in China after Lin Biao’s demise, it was Fidel Castro’s Cuba that materially defended the MPLA in Angola against the reactionary UNITA/FNLA, who were backed by the United States and China. Leading Light Communists see the socialist development model of Maoist China as superior to Cuba’s integration with the Soviet empire. Nevertheless, there were key instances where Castro and the Cuban regime had a better record of international solidarity with the masses of the Global South than with China in the 1970s.

We hope that the Cuban people will stay true to the anti-imperialist path laid out by Castro during his leadership. Leading Light Communists salute Fidel Castro, and stand with the Cuban people in mourning his loss and celebrating his legacy.