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!


Global Warming threatens to push 100 million people into extreme poverty


Global Warming threatens to push 100 million people into extreme poverty


A World Bank report released a few months ago, “Shock Waves: Managing the Impact of Climate Change on Poverty,” predicts that global warming will push 100 million more people into extreme poverty over the next decade and a half. This means that 100 million more people will see their incomes drop to under 1.90 dollars per day. This would add a hundred million to the roughly 700 million people earning 1.90 dollars a day or less, or what the World Bank defines as “extreme poverty.”

The people of the poorest countries are the most threatened, especially the people of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. According to the report, climate change will have terrible consequences for agriculture and health of the poor parts of the world. Crop yields will be reduced by five percent by 2030. This will cause food costs to rise for the poorest people. Natural disasters, like flooding, will become more frequent. And diseases will become more widespread among the poorest parts of the world.

It should also be emphasized that global warming is potentially catastrophic in some cases. For example, of major countries, Bangladesh is ranked the most vulnerable to global warming. By 2020, an estimated 500 to 750 million, mostly in the poorer countries, will be affected by water stress caused by climate change. Low-lying coastal countries such as Bangladesh are especially threatened. Bangladesh, for example, will face increasing water levels and natural disasters like cyclones that it is unprepared to deal with. According to one estimate, by 2020, Bangladesh will face a 50 percent reduction in rain-fed agriculture. South Asia, by 2020, will face an estimated 10 percent drop in staple crops like rice and maize. Countries like Pakistan could face 50 percent reduction in these staples by 2020. The impact on food security in Bangladesh and other countries will be catastrophic if estimates hold.

Global climate change, especially global warming, is potentially so threatening that even the capitalists at the World Bank and other global institutions taken notice. So much is global warming a threat to the entire capitalist system that it cannot be ignored. However, the managers of Empire are unable to address the problem in a serious way because to do so would require a revolutionary change in the global class structure. The global economy is organized in such a way that the poorest countries suffer the worst effects of capitalist production. The populations of the poorest countries slave away for subsistence or sub subsistence wages producing commodities that they themselves rarely consume. The populations of the poorest countries suffer the toxic environments and natural disasters that are a result of capitalist production. At the same time, it is the wealthy countries that reap the benefits of the modern consumer culture. The populations of the wealthy countries live in relative comfort and stability.

Interestingly, a recent poll showed that concern about climate change reflects the global class structure. The poorer countries, with Africa and Latin America leading the pack,  say climate change is of “grave concern.” By contrast, even though climate change is recognize as a real problem by international institutions of Empire, less than half of the people polled in the United States see climate change as a serious problem.

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx famously stated:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

It is often forgotten that Marx did not see revolution as the only consequence of class struggle. There is another possibility: our common ruin. This is the reality that humanity faces. Global capitalism is pushing our planet, our common home, to its limits. The First World culture of consumption and waste is pushing the environment to a breaking point. The majority of humanity, the global poor, the proletariat suffers. A minority, the global rich, the bourgeoisie consume more and more, waste more and more. If we are to avoid our common ruin, if there is to be a future for our children and their children, we must awaken. We are the vast majority. We are the only ones who can stop this madness. Time is running out. Now is the time to raise the banner of the Global People’s War of the Leading Light. Ruin or revolution?



Molotov, MIM, Dogma, and Stalin’s support for Israel


Molotov, MIM, Dogma, and Stalin’s support for Israel


Stalin was a great socialist leader, but it is important to tell the truth about his mistakes. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov was a high-ranking, important member of Stalin’s regime. Today’s Stalinists occasionally choose him as their favorite candidate to have succeeded Stalin in  “what if” fantasy histories. “What if Molotov had led the Soviet Union rather than Beria or Khrushchev?” they ask. One of the biggest questions about both Molotov and Stalin is why they supported an apartheid state like Israel. Decades later, Molotov states in his memoirs:

“Everyone objected [to recognizing the State of Israel] but us — me and Stalin. Some asked me why we favored it. We are supporters of international freedom. Why should we be opposed if, strictly speaking, that meant pursuing a hostile nationalist policy? In our time, it’s true, the Bolsheviks were and remained anti-Zionist… Yet it’s one thing to be anti-Zionist and anti-bourgeois, and quite another to be against the Jewish people. We proposed, however, an Arab-Israeli union, for both nations to live there together. We have supported this version if it could have been arranged. Otherwise we favored an Israeli state… Israel has turned out badly. But Lord Almighty! That’s American imperialism for you.”  (1)

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) extrapolates on Molotov’s defense of Stalin:

“Stalin has been criticized for his recognition of Israel. There is a limit to what the revolutionary forces are capable of. In the case of the existence of Israel, the progressive forces were not able to stop its creation as a separate, exclusive state. Once created, the question became whether or not to recognize it. From Molotov’s quote above, it is clear that Stalin would not recognize the right to self-determination of only those nations with progressive impact, and that he said Molotov thought that not recognizing Israel would have been ‘against the Jewish people.’ They believed they should not oppose the fait-accompli in Israel, though they would have preferred a different outcome.” (2)

These are good examples of how not to approach political errors and history. In his memoirs, Molotov washes his hands of responsibility for Israel even though he had a big role in policies that aided Israel’s creation. Rather than accepting his errors, Molotov obfuscates. He shifts the blame onto United States, who subsequently became the main supporter of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian peoples and wars against the Arabs. The genocide and wars continue to this day. MIM does not confront Molotov on his dishonesty. MIM articulates Molotov’s excuse better than Molotov. According to MIM, Stalin’s power was limited and he had no choice but to recognize Israel. Since the Zionists had won their war, what is gained by an infantile refusal to recognize them? This might make sense if all you had to go on was Molotov’s word. However, the reality is that Molotov is lying by omission. And MIM doubles down on the lie.

Stalin’s regime did more than extend de jure recognition to an already victorious Israel on May 18, 1948, they were the first. Several Eastern Bloc countries followed suit, extending de jure recognition to Israel before the United States, which only got around to de jure recognition by January 31, 1949. Golda Meir, one of Israel’s founding elders and Israel’s Fourth Prime Minister, wrote in her memoirs:

“… [T]he Soviet recognition of the State of Israel on May 18 was of immense significance to us.  It meant that the two greatest powers in the world has come together, for the first time since World War II, to back the Jewish state, and although we were still in deadly danger, we knew, at last, that we were not alone. It was in that knowledge – combined with sheer necessity – that we found the spiritual, if not the material, strength that was to lead us to victory.” (3) *

Stalin’s recognition of Israel gave a tremendous morale boost to the Zionists. It also boosted their international legitimacy and gave them diplomatic cover. What Molotov and MIM fail to mention is that  Stalin’s support for the Zionist movement goes back prior to the Israeli victory. The Eastern Bloc played a key role in the victory of the Zionists.

The Jewish Agency, an organization that later became the state of Israel, between June 1947 and October 31, 1949, began seeking weapons for Operation Balak. Weapons were procured using communist help in Czechoslovakia. As the communists became more influential after World War 2, material support for Zionism increased. The communist coup increased Czechoslovakia’s support for the Zionists. The Soviet Bloc arms shipments were very significant. Most of the arms were of German design. They were either leftover arms from World War 2 or new arms manufactured in Czechoslovakia using German designs. The arms shipments up to October, 1948 included: 34,500 P-18 rifles, 5,515 MG 34 machine guns with 10,000 ammo belts, 10,000 vz.24 bayonets, 900 vz. 37 heavy machine guns, 500 vz. 27 pistols. Other infantry weapons: 12 ZK-383 submachine guns, 10 ZK 420 semi-automatic rifles, 500 vz. 26 light machine guns (shipped, yet delivery not confirmed in Czech sources). Ammunition: 91,500,000 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridges, 15,000,000 9mm Parabellum cartridges, 375,000 13mm cartridges for MG 131, 150,000 20mm cartridges for MG 151, 375,000 7.65mm cartridges for vz. 27 pistol. Aircraft: Israeli Avia S-199, 1948, 25 Avia S-199 fighters, 61 Supermarine Spitfire Mk. IX fighters. (4) The Israelis continued to receive arms and support after 1948. In addition, the Soviet bloc provided weapons and tactical training the the Zionist insurgency. Eighty-one pilots and 69 crew specialists were trained. Some of these later formed the first units of the Israeli air force. The equivalent of a brigade of Jewish-Czech volunteers were trained on Czechoslovakian soil from August 20, 1948 until November 4, 1948. The Czechoslovakian codename for the operation was “DI,” an abbreviation for “Důvěrné Israel,” which means “Classified Israel.” A motorized brigade was also trained, but the war had been won before they were deployed. (5)

Golda Meir was especially appreciative of Stalin’s help, which saved their movement:

“Had it not been for the arms and ammunition that we were able to buy in Czechoslovakia and transport through Yugoslavia and other Balkan countries in those dark days at the start of the war, I do not know whether we actually could have held out until the tide changed, as it did by June, 1948. For the first six weeks of the War of Independence, we relied largely (though not, of course, entirely) on the shells, machine guns, bullets – and even planes – that the Haganah had been able to purchase in Eastern Europe at a time when even the United States had declared an embargo on the sale of shipment of arms to the Middle East. ” (6)

Elsewhere, she states:

“I shall always remember the profound understanding shown by the Russian authorities to the many problems of our young state.” (7)

Stalin’s aid to the Zionists is not some big secret. On May 14, 1947, before the Zionist victory that led to the Israeli state, the Soviet ambassador Andrei Gromyko announced:

“As we know, the aspirations of a considerable part of the Jewish people are linked with the problem of Palestine and of its future administration. This fact scarcely requires proof…. During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering… The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter…The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration.” (8)

Although the Soviets said they preferred the partition, they also supported an Israeli state. So the Soviet support for Israel was not because Israel was a fait-accompli, as MIM claims. The socialist bloc had been giving moral, diplomatic, and material support to the Zionist insurgency long before its de jure recognition of Israel.

It is easy to see how the dishonest historical narrative arose. MIM approaches history as other dogmatic revisionists do. Their method is to construct a narrative in favor of their pantheon of revolutionary icons, then gather information that appears to support it, ignore what does not support it, make excuses, avoid political responsibility for errors. In this case, they present a small tidbit from Molotov that appears to the uneducated to sound reasonable. MIM leaves out the rest of the story because they are not interested in truth. The are not interested in the genuine historical record, they are interested in deflecting criticism from Stalin. They do not practice historical science, they practice apologetics. Truth does not matter. Defending Stalin on all things matters most, even if it means sacrificing truth. MIM uses this same method in their work on the Maoist era. All the more damning is that two of MIM’s cardinal points of unity involve historical claims about when the Soviet and Maoist revolutions were reversed. Either MIM was demanding unity about historical eras it did not understand or MIM was consciously misrepresenting these eras in an effort to be in line with Maoists internationally. Whether MIM was sloppy and ignorant or dishonest, their approach was not scientific. Unfortunately, MIM’s “cutting the toes to fit the shoes” approach to history is all too common among revisionists that claim to be communist. By contrast, the scientific, true communist historian goes where the data leads. He does not begin with picking good guys and bad guys, then proceed to cherry pick data to support the good guy and defame the bad guy. A serious historian looks at and presents all the data, even data which goes against his political instincts. A serious historian examines all possible reasonable narratives, weighing them against each other and the data. A serious historian integrates his narrative with what we know about systems of oppression. A serious historian is out to discover truth, even if truth goes against his political instincts.  We must uphold what is good in all things, all leaders, and reject the bad. We must uphold what is good in Stalin and come to terms with what is not. Writing history should not be like writing a novel.

Several factors led to Stalin’s support for Israel. After World War 2, the Soviet policy continued to be based on Lenin’s idea of continuous intra-imperialist conflict. Stalin thought that the Western allies of World War 2 would break down. As the imperialists sought more and more expansion, they would inevitably lead the world into another great war. Stalin saw the British empire as the strongest of the European powers after World War 2. The Zionist insurgency could be used to weaken British rule over Palestine. In addition, the British still wielded power and influence over those lands neighboring the Soviet Union’s southern flank. The Soviets had their buffer zone of satellite states in Eastern Europe, but were encircled in the south. The Zionist war against the Arabs was also a war against the British who had restricting migration and enforcing an embargo on Palestine in hopes of keeping the peace with the indigenous Palestinians. The British did not want to see their colonial possession destabilized or fall into sectarian conflict. Stalin was hoping to fan the flames of the conflict between the Zionists and the British. Golda Meir states, “There is now no doubt in my mind that the primary Soviet consideration was to get the British out of the Middle East.” (9) Furthermore, the Zionist movement had a strong pole that was perceived as leftist, socialist, anti-capitalist. The Kibbutz movement and Golda Meir herself represent this trend. Golda Meir and Molotov’s wife briefly discussed collective property in 1948:

“I had a much more interesting and rewarding encounter with another Soviet citizen at the reception given by Mr. Molotov on the anniversary of the Russian Revolution, to which all the diplomats in Moscow are invited each year… After I had shaken hands with Molotov, his wife, Ivy Molotov, came up to me. ‘I am so pleased to meet you, at last,’ she said with real warmth and even excitement. Then she added, ‘I speak Yiddish, you know.’

‘Are you Jewish?’ I asked in some surprise.

‘Yes,’ she said, answering me in Yiddish, ‘Ich bin a yiddishe tochter.’ (I am a daughter of the Jewish people.) We talked together for quite a long time. She knew all about the events at the synagogue and told me how good it was that we had gone. ‘The Jews wanted so much to see you,’ she said. We touched on the question of the Negev, which was being debated at the United Nations. I made some remark about not being able to give it up because my daughter lived there and added that Sarah wa with me in Moscow. ‘I must see her,’ said Mrs. Molotov. So I introduced Sarah and Yael Namir to her, and she talked to them about Israel and asked Sarah dozens of questions about kibbutzim, who lived in them and how they were run. She spoke Yiddish to the girls who were overjoyed when Sarah answered in the same language. When Sarah explained that everything in Revivim was owned collectively and that there is no private property, Mrs. Molotov looked troubled. ‘That is not a good idea,’ she said. ‘People don’t like sharing everything. Even Stalin is against that. You should acquaint yourself with Stalin’s thoughts and writings on the subject.’ Before she returned to her other guests, she put her arm around Sarah and, with tears in her eyes, said, ‘Be well. If everything goes well with you, it will go well for all Jews everywhere… after that conversation with us, Ivy Molotov had been arrested, and how earlier that day, we had watched the military parade in Red Square. I had so envied the Russians all those weapons on display – the tiniest fraction of which was beyond our means – and, as if he read my thoughts, Molotov had raised a glass of vodka to me later and said, ‘Don’t think we got those in a single day. The time will come when you, too, will have these things. It will all be all right.” (10)

Because there was some perceived ideological overlap between parts of the Zionist movement and the Soviet Union’s ideology, there was a hope that Israel might emerge as not just friendly to the Soviet Union, but as a satellite country, similar to the Eastern European people’s democracies. In this way, Israel could help not only break up the imperialist encirclement on the Soviet southern flank, but an Israeli people’s democracy could also become a southern buffer against imperialist attack.

The Arab world suffered in more ways than one. The Zionist war led to the racist, apartheid state of Israel. The genocide against the Palestinians continues. Israel has become the right hand of imperialism in the Middle East. Israel is on the front lines suppressing resistance movements and regimes on behalf of the First World. Israel is a kind of permanent, giant aircraft and troop carrier in the troubled region, always ready to do battle with the people. Recently, Israel has been called on to check Iran’s growing power in the region. In addition, in  almost every large region of the Third World there have been communist or nominally communist parties that seized state power: Asia, Latin America, Africa, all had genuine Marxist or nominally Marxist movements seize power. Even though the Arab world is very large, spreading over the whole of northern Africa and much of the Middle East, very few Marxist or nominally Marxist movements have gained any real significance. Conditions there are not fundamentally different than in other Third World countries. In the Middle East, nationalism, Baathism, and Islamic movements have, for the most part, led the concrete anti-imperial struggle, not Marxists nor revisionists. There was South Yemen’s pro-Soviet regime and forces in Oman connected to Yemen, but, on the whole, both real Marxism and revisionism have lacked strength in the Arab world. Even though Stalin changed his policy toward Israel in the following years, the international communist movement suffered from Stalin’s error.

During World War 2, Stalin’s regime had to resurrect Russian nationalism as a way of motivating the people to fight the Nazi invader. This carried over into the post-war years. Stalin’s Israel policy placed Russo-Soviet national or imperial interest above the interests of the global proletariat, including the Palestinians who were suffering an invasion by a racist enemy that eventually led to occupation and depopulation. Stalin placed the narrow geopolitical concerns of the Soviet Union as a country above the international proletariat. Even if Stalin was able to win Israel to his side on a more permanent basis, it should have been obvious that support for such an invasion and occupation would taint communism in the eyes of the Arab people. Stalin’s approach does not calculate in the agency and potential of the Arab people, a poor and colonized people. Instead of the masses making history, in such a worldview, geopolitical machinations by powerful states make history. Stalin was looking too much to powerful states, not class struggle as the motor of history. In the case of Israel, the Soviet outlook does not seem totally different from those of the Western imperialists. No matter what superpower won, the Arabs lost.

Other changes were afoot in the Soviet Union. The Soviet regime edged toward traditionalism in gender and culture during and after World War 2. Traditional roles were recommended to women again in Soviet art. After World War 2, for example, a genre about overambitious wives who neglect their children develops in Soviet literature. The Soviet support for Israel is another indicator of regression. Soviet foreign policy seems to be operating, in this case, according to the national interests of the Russo-Soviet state, not the global proletariat. The fight for communism appears to be taking a back seat both domestically and in foreign policy.

Maoist China split with the Soviet Union over its imperialist policies after Khrushchev delivered his famous “secret speech” criticizing Stalin at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956. Mao used Stalin as a battering ram against Khrushchev’s domestic capitalism and imperialist foreign policy. However, these tendencies that Mao so criticized pre-dated Khrushchev’s rise to power. Even though Mao posed as an orthodox Stalinist to criticize Khrushchev, the reality is that the these tendencies began to arise under Stalin’s watch. Interestingly, Stalin’s inner circle – Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria – all moved for a less confrontational Soviet foreign policy after Stalin’s death. At Stalin’s funeral, Malenkov unveiled a “peace initiative.” “There are no contested issues in U.S.-Soviet relations that cannot be resolved by peaceful means.” (11) The idea of “peaceful coexistence” between the Soviet bloc and the United States was mainly blamed on Khrushchev by the Maoists. This was one of the main reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. The claim that the contradiction between socialism and imperialism is non-antagonistic is thoroughly revisionist. Thus the Maoists correctly identified Khrushchev as a social imperialist. By the Khrushchev era, the Soviet state was really imperialist even if claimed to be socialist. When Mao’s own revolution went off the rails in the 1970s, Mao too began to place China’s narrow interest above that of the international proletariat. This is why Mao began to align with the West. This is why Mao aligned with the West in Angola, Bangladesh, Chile, etc. Just as such policies discredited the Soviet Union as it slid into revisionism, they also discredited Mao in the 1970s. Nationalism has proven a big danger to socialist regimes.

Leaders often play important, decisive roles. Leaders are often representatives of and concentrations of  great social forces. Great leaders, great geniuses, great warriors, can be indispensable. Even so, the analysis of history has to go beyond leaders. We should not organize our analysis of revolution and counter-revolution around a hero and villain. To do so is really just a version of what Marx criticized as the Great Man Theory of History. A truly scientific, materialist approach to history is looks beneath the surface. It is important to be honest with the masses. It is important to tell the truth, to have a real scientific attitude, about past revolutions. We are initiating the next great wave of revolution. It is important that we go further than all past revolutions. It is necessary that we achieve total revolution, Leading Light Communism. Only through a scientific account of the history of revolution can we really understand the errors of the past so that we can avoid them the next time we have power.

Friedrich Engels stated, “without theory, practice is blind.” Dogmatism blinds the people. It keeps the masses ignorant. Those who espouse dogma show a basic lack of trust in the masses. The masses can handle the truth. They are waiting for it. They demand it. Leading Light Communism is about rejecting all dogma. It is about advancing the science, pure and simple. It is about advancing the science in an all-round way, in history, in political economy, in aesthetics and culture, in power struggle, in military science, in constructing communism, in epistemology, and on and on. The proletariat must be given the weapons they need to liberate themselves, not dull knives, but sharp blades. Open your eyes. There is a new breakthrough, a new science, a new organization, a new leadership capable of leading us to victory. It is not about individuals. It is about the science, the masses, and the Earth.  There is a way to victory.


1. MIM. MIM Theory: The Stalin Issue. MIM. 1994 p. 43

2. ibid. p. 45

3. Meir, Golda, My Life. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New York, USA: 1975 pp. 230-231



6. Meir, Golda, My Life. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New York, USA: 1975 pp. 230-231

7. Syrkin, Marie. Golda Meir: Israel’s Leader. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New York, USA: 1969 p. 234


9. Meir, Golda, My Life. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New York, USA: 1975 pp. 230-231

10. Meir, Golda, My Life. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New York, USA: 1975 p. 254

11. Zubok, Vladislav and Pleshakov, Constantine. Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War. Seventh Printing. Harvard University Press. USA: 2003 p.155

* Golda Meir mentions, contrary to most accounts, that the Soviet recognition occurred after the US recognition. She may be confusing de jure and de facto recognition.


Notes on today’s Maoists who uphold Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

Notes on today’s Maoists who uphold Pol Pot and the Khmer RougeMTIwNjA4NjMzOTQzOTgzNjI4


The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is one of many democratic, progressive, anti-imperialist, groups fighting the Indian state, a part of the global empire. They are one of many movements fighting for the liberation of the poor in the second most populous country on Earth. They are a movement that deserves our critical support even though, as of today, their organization has refused to give up the dogmatism of the past. One example of this dogmatism is their continued embrace of the Khmer Rouge as the last genuine communist movement with state power.  And, for Maoists, upholding Mao’s theories is the dividing line between Marxism versus revisionism. So, since, according to the CPI (Maoist), only fellow Maoists are communists in the present era, it stands to reason they also regard the Khmer Rouge of the past and Democratic Kampuchea as Maoist. Around 2002, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) highlights the Khmer Rouge in key documents, including their basic course on Maoism for their cadre:

“After the death of Mao in 1976, the capitalist roaders who had remained in the party staged a coup under the leadership of the arch revisionist Deng Tsiao-ping and took over the control of the party under the nominal leadership of Hua Kuo-feng, a so-called centrist. As Mao had often taught, with political control going over to the hands of the revisionists the socialist base had gone out of the hands of the proletariat. At the same time the leadership of the Albanian Party of Labour switched over to an opportunist line attacking Mao Tse-tung Thought and projecting Mao as a petty bourgeois revolutionary. Though the Khmer Rouge continued to hold power in Kampuchea they were waging a constant struggle against the internal and external enemies of the Revolution and were yet to emerge from the economic ravages of war and consolidate their rule when they were defeated by the Soviet backed Vietnamese Army.” (1)

According to the CPI (Maoist), the Khmer Rouge were the last remaining communist organization with state power:

“The mid-70s saw the final overthrow of many long standing colonial regimes after long guerrilla wars. Thus the US and their puppets were thrown out of Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos in 1975. In Africa the republics of Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Congo, and Benin were formed in this period. However most of these countries were taken over by puppets or satellites of the new imperialism – Soviet social imperialism. A prominent exception was Kampuchea, where genuine communist revolutionaries – the Khmer Rouge – remained independent until invaded in 1978 by Vietnam on the behest of the Soviet imperialists.” (2)

On the anniversary of Mao’s birthday, December 26,  2006, the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) further stated at an international conference:

“Many communist movements were ruthlessly crushed as in Kampuchea. Now, after over 150 years of the communist movement we can count the number of genuine communist movements with some mass base on our finger-tips. ” (3)

Furthermore, according to some of their critics, People’s War Group,  the main predecessor group of the CPI (Maoist), did not just praise the Khmer Rouge in print, but distributed Pol Pot badges. Thus they promoted Pol Pot’s cult of personality.  An editorial in Dalit Voice reports:

“If DV can also get hold of the erstwhile PWG’s literature boasting of how it distributed Pol Pot badges, our savarna maoists (in this context, a reference to the CPI (Maoist) and its predecessors – ed.) will be totally exposed globally.” (4)

The CPI (Maoist) are not the only Maoists who express for their admiration of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge are popular amongst some of the smaller Gonzaloist and Gonzaloist-influenced sects. For example, a Panamanian Gonzaloist-influenced blog reproduces a document that states:

“The experience of the Khmer Rouge revolution is unprecedented and it shows that young people can also do great revolutions and these are not huge heritage of countries or world leaders. There are also ‘small’ leaders who acquire greatness but their victories pretend to be ignored and maligned worse.” (5)

The Panamian blog reproduce a video entitled “Kampuchea :Honor and glory to the beloved Comrade Pol Pot, a communist steel and his gift to his beloved Kampuchean people!”  (6)  Brazilian Gonzaloists also celebrate Pol Pot:

“Today, we celebrate the 87th birth anniversary of the historic cambodian communist leader, Comrade Pol Pot (1925-1998).” (7)

Thus there is a strange convergence of opinion on this point between the CPI (Maoist), some Gonzaloist and Gonzaloist-influenced sects, and the imperialist media. The former praise the Khmer Rouge as “communist.” At the same time, the imperialists pin the “Maoist” and “communist” label on the Khmer Rouge as a way to taint Maoism and communism as a whole. For example, the reactionary media used to refer to the Communist Party of Peru as “the Khmer Rouge of Latin America.”

Several points must be made:

1. Imperialism, not the Khmer Rouge, was the main perpetrator of violence against the peoples of Kampuchea. More bombs were dropped on Indochina during the years of the Vietnam War than were dropped in every country in World War 2. The violence inflicted by imperialism on the peoples of Kampuchea, Vietnam, and Laos reached genocidal levels. Millions were killed by the imperialists. By 1975, already an estimated 10% of the Kampuchean population– 600,000 had died as a result of the Vietnam War. (8) When the Khmer Rouge took power in April in 1975, the country had been devastated. The cities had swelled from refugees fleeing the bombing of the countryside. Food production was disrupted. The Khmer Rouge inherited a crisis situation where they had to attempt social transformation in a country that was ruined and in a country that was under constant threat by imperialists. We must never forget that imperialism caused the most harm to the Kampuchean people, not the Khmer Rouge.

2. The Khmer Rouge were an extremely opportunist movement. They only claimed to be “Maoist” after Mao had died. And they only claimed to be “Maoist” to get aid from the post-Mao, revisionist regime in China. In fact, the Khmer Rouge did not claim to be Maoist in their internal documents or to their domestic audience. Furthermore, the Khmer Rouge denounced the “Gang of Four,” arguably the last remaining leftists in the Chinese Communist Party, as “counter-revolutionary.” Furthermore, the Khmer Rouge praised the revisionist leadership of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping in an effort to secure support. (9)

3. Despite their rhetoric of independence and self reliance, the Khmer Rouge always aligned politically with whatever forces would give them aid. This opportunism led them into supporting the revisionists in China when the Chinese were giving them support. Later, this opportunism led them into an alliance with Western imperialism. The United States delivered aid to the Khmer Rouge and other anti-Vietnamese and anti-Soviet forces after the Khmer Rouge were driven from power in 1979. It was the United States that was instrumental in keeping The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, which included the Khmer Rouge, as the official representative of Kampuchea at the United Nations up until 1993. As part of their opportunism, the Khmer Rouge quickly dropped the communist label after they were deposed in 1979. In his last interview before his death, Pol Pot was honest about his disregard for communism:

“When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that… When I say Cambodia {should} be part of the West, I mean that if you belong to the West, at least there is no fascist regime.” (10)

The reality is that the Khmer Rouge were never a real communist organization. Rather, they were a nationalist organization that opportunistically used communist rhetoric and symbols to secure aid. And, when China no longer cared about communist rhetoric, the Khmer Rouge dropped the communist rhetoric altogether in an attempt to befriend Western imperialism, especially the United States.

4. The way that the Khmer Rouge understood socialist construction was not unlike some of the Chinese revisionists. They placed extreme emphasis on economic development carried out by a terrorized, disciplined, and docile population. They embraced a version of the revisionist Theory of the Productive Forces, which overemphasizes economic and technological development at the expense of class struggle. They embraced crackpot schemes to propel Kampuchea forward that ended in disaster. Although their developmental schemes failed miserably, their model put development and economic prosperity at the forefront, not class struggle that would prepare the masses for taking power.

Even though they used rhetoric from China to describe their model, they modified Chinese slogans to suggest their approach would outdo even the Chinese. Thus they claimed to outdo the Chinese “Great Leap Forward” with their own Khmer “Super Great Leap Forward.” They claimed that their Khmer revolution was unprecedented. There is an underlying nationalist chauvinism in this bombast, in their false claim to have outdone previous revolutions, especially the revolutions of their Chinese, Maoist neighbors. Thus like many other movements nationalism accompanied developmentalism at the expense of revolution.

5. The communist movement had always placed great emphasis on ideological education. This was especially true of Mao’s revolution, which elevated the importance of ideology to a whole new level. Ideological education is one of the main forms of class struggle. However, not all ideological education is the same. At its best moments, the Chinese Maoist efforts of ideological remolding were ones that actively involved the population. The masses were not simply told what was right and wrong. Rather, the masses were motivated to actively question many aspects of the system. Top leaders, even President Liu Shaoqi, were forced to answer questions before the masses during the Cultural Revolution. Big debates on the nature of the revolution, history, aesthetics, and other topics were published in the Chinese press. The Chinese masses were encouraged to discuss and debate the issues. Although the Chinese experience was not perfect, at its best moments, it promoted Socratic questioning, open and free criticism, and science over the blind obedience of Confucianism. Along with this, the Chinese Communist Party was patient with masses. The Communist Party of China criticized the errors of commandism and Confucianism, both of which denied the ability of the masses to think for themselves and lead themselves. In its best moments, the Chinese Communist Party recognized that it was necessary to understand that to transform the masses, it is necessary to take a gradualist approach. This principle is also behind the Maoist leadership method of mass line. Communist leadership must be humble and patient enough to meet the masses where they are. Only by coming to the masses with patience and humility can the trust of the masses be won so that the masses become open to transformation by communist leadership. This principle is also behind the gradualist approach of Maoist collectivization of agriculture, which happened in stages: New Democracy, collectives, then People’s Communes. This is part of the meaning behind the most famous Maoist slogan: “Serve the people.”

By contrast, in an effort to outdo the Chinese and previous revolutions, to re-establish a golden age of Khmer greatness, the Khmer Rouge did away with Maoist gradualism. The most infamous practice of the Khmer Rouge was the emptying of cities. Whole populations of cities were labeled as “new people,” and treated like class enemies. They were stripped of their possessions and marched from the cities to the countryside where they labored at bayonet point. Violence and control of the food supply were two ways they motivated the population. One Khmer Rouge slogan stated: “Hunger is the most effective disease.” (11) The Khmer Rouge were also known to persecute minorities. The Khmer Rouge seemed more interested in obedience than transformation of the population to prepare it for active leadership. This is reflected in the Khmer Rouge’s descriptions of themselves. Even after they had taken power, the Khmer Rouge, for a long time, did not even tell the population that they claimed to be a communist party. Instead, they referred to themselves simply as “Angkar” or “Organization.” Also, they described themselves as omniscient, invincible, immortal. This high-handedness  is reflected in some of their slogans:

“Let Angkar pour truth into your head.”

“Angkar has [the many] eyes of the pineapple.”

The Khmer Rouge’s attitude toward dissent was much different than Mao’s. The Chinese Cultural Revolutionaries emphasized “big debates,” protests, power seizures, criticism, etc. By contrast, the Khmer Rouge looked on dissent very critically:

“You can arrest someone by mistake; never release him by mistake.”

“Better to kill an innocent by mistake than spare an enemy by mistake.”

The terroristic aspect of the Khmer Rouge is reflected in several slogans that threaten death upon the population:

“He who protests is an enemy; he who opposes is a corpse.”

“If someone is very hungry, the Angkar will take him where he will be stuffed with food.”

“If you wish to live exactly as you please, the Angkar will put aside a small piece of land for you.”

“No gain in keeping, no loss in weeding out,” (also rendered: “To destroy you is no loss, to preserve you is no gain.” – ed)  (12)

Think of how different the Khmer Rouge’s approach is to Mao’s approach. Written in April, 1956, Mao’s “Ten Major Relationships” was produced amid reports of excessive executions during the Stalin era in the Soviet Union:

“We must keep up the policy which we started in Yenan: ‘No executions and few arrests’. There are some whom we do not execute, not because they have done nothing to deserve death, but because killing them would bring no advantage, whereas sparing their lives would. What harm is there in not executing people? Those amenable to labour reform should go and do labour reform, so that rubbish can be transformed in something useful.

Besides, people’s heads are not like leeks. When you cut them off, they will not grow again. If you cut off a head wrongly, there is no way of rectifying the mistake even if you want to.

If government departments were to adopt a policy of no executions in their work of suppressing counter-revolutionaries, this still would not prevent us from taking counter-revolution seriously. Moreover it would ensure that we would not make mistakes, or if we did they could be corrected. This would calm many people.

If we do not execute people, we must feed them. So we should give all counter-revolutionaries way out of their impasse. This will be helpful to the people’s cause and to our image abroad.

The suppression of counter-revolution still requires a long period of hard work. None of us may relax our efforts.” (13)

This injunction by Mao against summary executions reflects how the Chinese revolutionaries emphasized the importance of “uniting all who could be united,” “big debates,” mass line, populism, patience and humility when dealing with not only the masses, but even many enemies.

Serve the people truth, not falsehood

In the 1970s, during and after Mao’s death, the Chinese press referred to the Khmer Rouge in glowing terms. However, the Chinese press referred to numerous states and movements in a similar way. For example, numerous Eastern European and national liberation movements were labeled “socialist” by the Chinese even though such regimes and movements would not be considered as such by Maoist nor Leading Light standards. When examined closely, the Khmer Rouge has never deserved the label. Just as there are communist movements that have adopted national liberation as a means of advancing communism, there are also nationalist movements that have adopted communist rhetoric and policies as a way to gain support in the pursuit of purely nationalist goals. The Khmer Rouge are the latter, not the former. Although the Khmer Rouge was once an anti-imperialist movement that drove the United States out of Kampuchea, like other narrowly nationalist movements, they later opportunistically aligned with the imperialists and revisionist anti-communists when it suited their purposes.

It is important today to come to terms with the real history of revolutionary and national liberation movements. Just because a movement claims to be “revolutionary” or “communist” does not make it true. There is a long history of movements that “wave the red flag to oppose the red flag.” Revolutionaries in China used to warn: “Be careful not to board a pirate ship.” Just because Beijing Review in the 1970s identified the Khmer Rouge in such a way does not mean they were. If today’s Maoist movement is ever going to advance scientifically, then it must deal honestly with history. One of the irony of ironies is that many of the same Maoists who uphold Pol Pot denounce Lin Biao as a Confucian and authoritarian with no real evidence at all. Such dogmatism would be funny if it weren’t so sad, if lives were not on the line.

Mao himself noted the importance of the correct, scientific line:

“The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out.” (14)

The correct, scientific line is the key to victory. The incorrect line only leads to defeat. It is a sign of the weakness of the Maoist movement today that even though they claim to be scientific and materialist, the reality is that they are dogmatic, metaphysical, idealists that share much in common with religious sects. The dogmatic embrace of the Khmer Rouge by a Maoist organization so prestigious as the CPI (Maoist) reflects the sad state of affairs. Thus the claim by Maoism that it is the highest stage of revolutionary theory rings hallow today. Of today’s Maoist bombast, perhaps Mao would repeat his famous words: “It is an empty drum that beats the loudest.”

We can do better. If we are to initiate the next great wave of revolution, it is necessary to articulate a truly liberating vision of the future. It is also necessary that our vision of the future be based on genuine science, not old dogma. Those who uphold the Khmer Rouge today set themselves at odds with the advances of revolutionary science. We hope that those Maoists who continue to uphold the Khmer Rouge correct their line on this and other questions. We encourage the remnants of the Maoist movement to advance to the next, highest level of revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism. The masses deserve the best.


  2. ibid.
  3. The Worker, #11, July 2007, pp. 39-47.
  9. ibid.
  11. Locard, Henri. Pol Pot’s Little Red Book: The Sayings of Angkar. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, 2004
  12. ibid.
  13. Mao Zedong, “On Ten Major Relationships,” April 1956

Leading Light – Simple Talking Points to use with other people’s forces

Leading Light – Simple Talking Points to use with other people’s forcessunshine-500536_600x400


This is a collection of talking points to introduce Leading Light Communism to other people’s forces that may not understand the truth of what we are saying yet. We must always express these points in a humble and friendly, never arrogant way. Let them come to us at their own pace. These people have their own long tradition of serving the people. We must be respectful of this, but also critical in a friendly way. A true friend is an honest friend. Education takes time. Relationships and trust take time. We are planting seeds.

1. If we want to win, we need to think and act in new ways.

The world revolution is at a low point. The last great wave of revolution, the Maoist revolution in China, peaked around 1969. The world has changed greatly in the half century since that time. The way out of the current impasse of decline and stagnation of the revolutionary movement is to further develop revolutionary science and new, advanced practices. It is necessary to acknowledge the contributions of past Leading Lights like Marx, Lenin, and Mao. However, to remain stagnant, to remain in the past, is to have already lost, already been defeated. The capitalists are always advancing their science of oppression. We must do the same. This is what Leading Light Communism is about.

2. The world has changed, the whole First World, Bourgeois World is the enemy.

The First World and its class allies are the Bourgeois World. The Bourgeois World as a whole is the class enemy. The Bourgeois World as a whole must be opposed. We must not be deceived into thinking we have class unity with any segment of the Bourgeois World. A few anomalies may exist in the First World who will be friends, but they are a small handful, few and far between. There is simply no significant proletariat amongst the Bourgeois World. The Bourgeois World must be written off.

3. The Third World, the Proletarian World, is the storm center of the world revolution.

The exploited and oppressed classes of the Third World are our friends, our social base. Oppressed peasants, landless peoples, tribal peoples who suffer oppression, the slum dwelling poor and workers of the Third World and their allies are the sea in which we swim. We are the poor, the exploited, the oppressed, those whose voice has been silenced. These are our sisters and brothers, our people. The Proletarian World will rise up like a mighty storm against the Bourgeois World and all its allies. All reaction, all oppression, all exploitation — imperialism, capitalism, semi-feudalism, patriarchy, etc. — will be washed away. The Bourgeois World will be dismantled through Global People’s War.

4.  Third World, Proletarian World, has changed. We must adapt.

We must also understand that the Third World and its allies, the Proletarian World, has changed. The world is not the same as Mao’s day. We cannot rely on dogmatic strategies of the past. For the first time in history, more people live in cities than in the countryside. There is a New Proletariat that is rising amongst the poorest peoples in the global slum of the Third World. Global People’s War must be adapted to account for this new rising class. People’s war should not be conceived as a linear process from the countryside to the city anymore. Instead, we need to adapt more sophisticated strategies that match today’s economic realities. This includes adapting transitional forms like New Democracy and New Socialism to the urban context. This means adapting New Power and the Red Zone to this new context. This is not to discount the countryside, the country side will still play an important, key strategic role, but its logistical importance may even be more important.

5. We advocate Global People’s War, an internationalist and total people’s war using old and new methods, against the Bourgeois World.

Global People’s War is total war. It is a people’s war without borders. It is people’s war of many fronts in many countries, speaking many languages, with only one flag. We must not be limited by traditional conceptions of war. No option should be taken off the table. We must use every tool in the tool box against the enemy. Long term, protracted efforts to weaken the logistics of the Bourgeois World while increasing our strength are especially important. We must develop midterm, longterm, and inter-generational strategies to disrupt and destroy the Bourgeois World and its system of global imperialism. We must update our science and technology of war.

6. We call for a new internationalism; we cannot rely on enemy help.

We should not count or rely on intra-imperialist conflict. The overall trend has been toward a system of global imperialism, the global domination of the Bourgeois World as a whole. This situation is similar to how Lin Biao said imperialism and social-imperialism still had contradictions, but that they had reached reconciliation overall in their joint exploitation of the global countryside. Just as global capitalism has globalized, so must resistance to it.

7. Arise, people’s warriors everywhere. Think globally. Act globally.

People’s warriors of all nationalities, colors, languages, etc. are welcome in our ranks. We call on people’s warriors everywhere to join the struggle in whatever capacity they can. We must concentrate the maximum amount of force against the weakest points of global imperialism, against the Bourgeois World. Do not spin your wheels where victory is not possible. Direct energy to where it matters.

8. Spread the word.

We must be innovative and daring, ideologically and in practice. To break the decline and stagnation of the world revolution, we must reevaluate all aspects of ideology and practice from the standpoint of the most advanced science. We must adapt or perish. This is the nature of scientific and revolutionary advance. We must uphold the advances of Leading Lights of the past like Marx, Lenin, Mao, but also the advances of today. We must strive to elevate to bring all people’s forces, friends of the people, to the new science.

9. We fight for Leading Light Communism.

We fight to end all oppression, all exploitation. We fight for total liberation. We do not intend to merely recreate past models of socialism. We must innovate. We must take revolution, take socialism, to a whole new level. New technologies exist. Sustainability is key. New advanced revolutionary science exists. New methods exist to really make total communism, Leading Light Communism a realistic, achievable goal.  Just as the Maoist revolution advanced beyond the Bolshevik one, we too must advance.

10. Our sun is rising. Our day is coming.

This is the beginning of the new wave of proletarian, communist revolution. We must not hesitate.  We must have the courage to embrace it, to fight, to live and die, for total liberation, for Leading Light Communism. Surrender is not an option. Stagnation in not an option. Daring. Courage. Loyalty. Discipline. Sacrifice. We must carry our lives on our fingertips, be willing to give everything when called to do so. We must stand shoulder to shoulder as sister and brother, as comrades-in-arms. We must always help each other when we stumble. Pick ourselves up when we have fallen. Never betray. Never cower. Never give up. Our hearts are the deepest red. Our example will shine like the sun shattering the midnight of exploitation and suffering. We must be the sword of history.  We serve the people. And this is greatness.

Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light. Long Live the Leading Light. Our sun is rising.
 Our day is coming.

Bangladesh is in chains, literally

Bangladesh is in chains, literallyChild working in a brick crushing factory in Bangladesh


In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote that the proletariat had nothing to lose but their chains. Marx was speaking figuratively. By the time Marx wrote, Europe had mostly abolished slavery, at least officially. Marx was speaking to the wage slavery of the free laborer, who nonetheless suffered intense poverty in the Europe of the past just as free laborers suffer today in the Third World. In our land, our people suffer not just from “wage slavery” of the free laborer, but also slavery in its most vicious and barbaric form still exists even though it is now the twenty-first century. And it is only getting worse with the globalization of capitalism. Slavery, human trafficking, in Bangladesh is now tightly bound to the global market.

In 2012, it was estimated that between 330,000 and 360,000 of our brothers and sisters are enslaved. Bangladesh was tenth on a list that ranked the countries in which slavery was practiced.  Slavery has historically been concentrated in the countryside, where semi-feudal conditions and traditions are strongest. Much of the land and power in the countryside is held by landlords. The masses are so poor that we live on a razor’s edge. Many of our families live under constant threat that we will lose everything. Many of our families have already lost everything. We are driven off the land. We are hungry. We are sick. We fall into debt that we can never escape from. Ourselves and our children become slaves to the local landlords, userers, capitalists, and criminal organizations. Many flee to the city for a better life only to be met with dissappointment. There the feudal barbarism mingles and mixes with the cruety of liberal capitalism. The innocent suffer the most. Our children are turned into beasts of burden by the overlords of the country and city. Or women and daughters are stolen and placed into bondage by sex traffickers. Their bodies are sometimes exported to be consumed on the global market. The bodies of our people are just another commodity to the empire:

“She comes into the room swaddled in a red sari, carrying big premature black bags under her eyes. She tells her story in a slow, halting mumble. Sufia grew up in a village near Khulna in the south-west of Bangladesh. Her parents were farmers; she was one of eight children. ‘My parents couldn’t afford to look after me,’ she says. ‘We didn’t have enough money for food.’  And so came the lie. When Sufia was 14, a female neighbor came to her parents and said she could find her a good job in Calcutta as a housemaid. She would live well; she would learn English; she would have a well-fed future. ‘I was so excited,’ Sufia says.  ‘But as soon as we arrived in Calcutta I knew something was wrong,’ she says. ‘I didn’t know what a brothel was, but I could see the house she took me to was a bad house, where the women wore small clothes and lots of bad men were coming in and out.’ The neighbour was handed 50,000 takka – around £500 – for Sufia, and then she told her to do what she was told and disappeared.”

Another story:

“‘Jesse used to tell me that she had bought me as a slave at Tk 40,000 from Monira and Joyati, and therefore, I have to work for free,’ Bedena said.   The couple used to torture her by spraying hot water on her body, stabbing her with hot kitchen knives, and beating her up with sticks and rolling pins, alleged Bedena.   Jesse as usual tortured her Tuesday morning on the pretext that Bedena could not prepare breakfast in time, leaving her unconscious.    She discovered herself in the bathroom after regaining her consciousness.”


“In the face of acute poverty, his father, a farmer, sent him at this early age to the capital to work as a domestic help, said Mohammad Sadek Ali, a cousin of the boy. Another cousin Yasmin brought him along from Kishoreganj to Dhaka city around two and a half months ago and arranged a job for him at a house in Mohammadpur near the mosque.

‘The people at the house where I worked fed me once a day. I was given some rice in the morning and that was it,’…

Masum’s body was scarred all over. Deep purple welts were seen on his back that is already crisscrossed by old scars.  He said he had been hit on the head with a rod and that the scars were from the injuries when the homemaker had flogged him with a bundle of wires.  A black blister was seen on his left elbow. ‘She burnt me here with a hot iron spoon,’ Masum said.  His cousin sister rescued him on Friday as she discovered him in this appalling state.

The child said he had to sleep inside the bathroom. ‘The floor used to be wet.’  He used to do the laundry, drag mattresses up to the rooftop to put them out in the sun and sweep and mop the floor.”


“The exploitative practices centring Bangladeshi workers in Malaysia constitute nothing other than human trafficking; the governments of Bangladesh and Malaysia have not been able to protect the workers’ rights, said Irene Fernandez, a veteran migrants’ rights activist of Malaysia.

When they brought workers in surplus numbers to Malaysia, they were only interested in making fast cash. The outsourcing companies told Bangladeshi job brokers ‘you pay me 500 ringgit per worker and find jobs for them and do whatever’. So, Bangladeshi job brokers then bought the workers from the outsourcing companies, and literally made them slaves. The brokers then told the workers ‘you go and work, I will give you food and lodging’. And the workers were put to work for two, three, or four months.”

The First World is happy with slavery of our people. They do not have to feel or see our pain. They are pleased with the cheap goods that fill their homes. The global corporations say that it is good for business to keep the population controlled. Our sweat and tears fuels the prosperity of their empire. The corrupt politicians do not care about our pain. Their ears do not hear our cries, but only the orders of their imperial masters who pay them well to keep us in chains. The Islamists do not care about the poor, they declare slavery is acceptable in their twisted minds. They would have us be slaves to their barbaric caliph who feeds on the blood of the people. The feudalists and local capitalists do not care, they are the ones who hold the whip for the empire. The liberal NGOs use our pain to extend capitalist control over our lives.

We have nothing to lose but our chains. We say “no.” No to slavery, poverty, hunger, violence, disease, ignorance, cruelty. We are the ones who create the wealth. We are the ones who work. We are the ones who grow the food. We are the vast majority. They need us. We do not need them. We can have the power if we have the courage. We say “yes.” Yes to liberty, land, homes, prosperity, health, jobs, education, dignity. Today we planting seeds in ourselves, in our families, in our communities. Total liberation, total revolution, for our children and their children. We will harvest a revolution, a better world. The future is our’s. One fight. One land. One people. One organization. One leadership. One truth. One Leading Light.



Bangladesh: the holocaust in our water

Bangladesh: the holocaust in our waterarsenic-250_tcm18-59295


Water is one of the most basic things required for life. Seventy-one percent of the Earth’s surface is water. By weight, the average human body is about 65 percent water. Water brings life to animals, forests, crops, lands. Even though 97 percent of people in Bangladesh have access to water, only 40 percent have  access to  sanitation. In other words, the majority of our people, 60 percent of our brothers and sisters, do not have access to safe, clean drinking water.

To make matters worse, we, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, are suffering a holocaust hidden in our water. Potable water is limited. And the groundwater that is used by 90 percent of the population is contaminated with arsenic. The levels of arsenic in our water is contributing to what the World Health Organization calls “the largest mass poisoning of a population in history… beyond the accidents at Bhopal, India, in 1984, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986,” affecting as many as 77 million of brothers and sisters. Exposure to arsenic causes the deaths of one out of every five people in Bangladesh. This means that roughly 30 million people of our current populations will die from poisoning. The state could easily direct more resources into preventing these deaths, but it does not care. This is a invisible holocaust that those in power refuse to address in a serious way. Yet we see the this holocaust every day when we look into the eyes of our sick and dying children and elders. This holocaust is a result of underdevelopment imposed by the empire, the capitalists, and feudalists. It is a result of poor planning by the state and imperial schemes. The mass poisoning could have been easily avoided in the people had a say in their own destiny. It could have easily been avoided with a system that placed people and the environment first.

Corruption and underdevelopment touches every aspect of life in Bangladesh, including the availability of water. The availability of water changes with the season. There is the monsoon season and there are drier months. However, because of centuries of underdevelopment and neglect, our state has not developed the infrastructure to capture the excess water from the wetter months to provide during the drier months. This problem is compounded. This gives us little control over our water since our great rivers, the Brahmaputra, Meghna, and Ganges, all originate in other countries that are able to control the flow of water at its source. This is yet another example of how the capitalist system values profit, not people. The state could easily create the infrastructure to deliver clean, consistent water year round for the masses. For the capitalists, poor people, workers, peasants, small owners, homeless, we do not matter. They do not care if our sons and daughters drink clean water or poison.

Another problem is the rising salinity, the salt content, of our water, which makes our water less suitable for human use and agriculture. One of the reasons for the rising salt content of our water is the construction of projects such as the Farakka Barrage in India, which diverts water from the Ganges to irrigate Indian soil. This causes the flow of water to slow, thus raising salinity. In addition, the number of shrimp farms in fresh water causes salinity to rise. All of this has an adverse effect on our soil and groundwater. All of this reduces our precious fresh water. All of this could easily be addressed by proper planning and infrastructure development.

The old system, the empire, capitalism, feudalism, are all rotten to the core. The Awami League, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Islamists, etc. have no real solutions. Our lives mean nothing to the Old Power. Our children are poisoned every single day. Every time they drink, days are being stolen from their lives. When they steal our water, they steal our lives. We raise our fists.  They have no right to steal our lives, the lives of our children and our children’s children. Our future is our own. Together, we can take back our lives. We have the organization, the science, the leadership to really win. There is path to our future. Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light. Our sun is rising. Our day is coming.


United States rich, India poor, so-called “international communism movement” deaf and dumb

United States rich, India poor, so-called “international communism movement” deaf and dumbOB-SH091_ipover_EA_20120320073430


A rough figure for median personal income per workday for people (working and non-working) in the United States over 15 years of age is $119.03 (roughly Rs. 4,946.88, we are using the current exchange rate). (1) According to a recent report, 394.9 million Indians, 86% of the workforce, are employed in the unorganized sector and work in “utterly deplorable conditions.” 316 million (roughly 8 out of 10 working in this main sector of the Indian economy), the vast majority of the workforce, make less than Rs. 20 or $0.49 a day. (2) We are going to compare the United States and India in terms of income per workday to get a rough idea about how great the gap is between the wealth of First World workers and Third World workers. In addition, this disparity of income is greater than these daily figures indicate because Indians often work more hours per day. (3) In addition to this, we should consider that people in the United States are generally employed in cushy jobs in the non-productive sector in safe environments. Indians, by contrast, are employed doing backbreaking and unsafe labor. (4) (5) (6) (7)

The standard First Worldist reply will be “But half of people in the United States make less than the median.” This is, of course, true. To that we reply that the *minimum* wage for a full-time worker in the United States is $5.15 (roughly Rs. 214.075) an hour, or $41.20 (roughly Rs. 1,712.60) a day, and that’s still almost 100 times what working Indians at around the *80th* percentile are paid. Nearly all working people in the United States make well over the minimum wage. For that matter, we could look at welfare recipients.  Their income is vastly higher than $0.49 a day (which is about $10 a month if we count only “working” days) that Indian workers. So even persons on welfare in the United States are much better off than most Indian workers. Indeed, so is the “lumpenproletariat” in the United States, which is really not a lumpenproletariat at all, but a lumpenbourgeoisie. Anybody in the United States can get ahold of $10 in a month’s time, even if they have to resort to begging. Few Indians can. It is a good bet that many ordinary people in the United States have more access to capital than many who are considered bourgeoisie in India. When there is this much disparity in quality of life, reflected in income disparity, between workers in the United States and Indian workers, there is no meaningful sense in which we should consider these groups as part of the same class. There is no meaningful sense in which there is an alignment of class interests between a worker making $0.49 cents a day and someone who makes 100 to 243 or more times that amount, for example. In addition, other factors besides income raise the standard of living in the First World vis a vis the Third World. People in the United States have lives of luxury, Indians live at subsistence and sub-subsistence levels. Let’s consider the system of capitalist-imperialism as a whole. Within this system, people in the United States are getting more than their share of income and purchasing power. They are net-beneficiaries of the global distribution of wealth. There is no meaningful sense in which they can be considered exploited nor part of the proletariat as a revolutionary class. With a more egalitarian, more just distribution globally, all people in the United States legally would have their income, wealth, standard of living and purchasing power greatly decreased. Any way we examine it, virtually all people in the United States are getting more than their share of the global social product. First World workers are part of the global bourgeoisie whose interests align with empire against Third World. Marx said that we have to break with metaphysical approaches. We have to  look beneath surfaces. It is not enough to look at the superficial means by which value flows into the pockets of First World people. It is not important whether an individual receives more than his share of the global social product by a salary, wage, or payment from investments. No matter how he receives the value, he still receives the value as an exploiter.

The disparity of wealth is caused by empire, by global capitalism, a system where whole geographic regions, whole countries, even continents, benefit by exploitation and oppression of the Third World. First Worldist revisionists agitate on behalf of First World economic interests are not true communist parties. They are First World social-fascist organizations agitating for a bigger cut of super-profits stolen from the Third World. Third World people’s organizations that make alliances with these social-fascist organizations should be looked at with great skepticism by true communists. Parties who lack common sense or science enough to see the obvious should stop calling themselves “communist.” Only Leading Light Communism explains today’s global class structure. Today, there is a lot to be happy about. We’ve got the new breakthrough. We have developed the revolutionary science capable of really winning. The masses are stepping forward and picking up the sword of Leading Light Communism. Great leaders, warrior geniuses, have emerged to lead humanity out of the darkness. This is a time of heroes.


1. htm

According to the United States Census Bureau, people in the United States over 15, working or not, the median personal income was $28,567 (roughly Rs. 1,187,473.00) for 2005. People in the United States typically work about 240 days a year. They work five days a week. They get two weeks in holidays off and another two weeks in vacation time. So, let’s divide $28,567 by 240 to get roughly of $119.03 (roughly Rs. 4,946.88 ) for a very rough lowball median personal income per workday for people (working and non-working) in the United States over 15 years of age.


3. pp 70

4. pp 58

5. pp 66

6. pp 97

7. pp 99

On the recent criticisms of northern Korea’s atomic tests

On the recent criticisms of northern Korea’s atomic tests


It is reported that northern Korea has tested another atomic weapon. According to northern Korea, the device tested was a hydrogen bomb, a fusion bomb that is an advance over their fission ones. However, much doubt has been expressed over northern Korea’s claim to have detonated a true hydrogen bomb. Many international experts believe that the recent explosion was too small to have been true hydrogen bomb. Instead, many speculate that the recent explosion was a simple fission device or a fission device with fusion elements. In any case, northern Korea has been condemned by the forces of Empire.

Leading the criticism of northern Korea is the United States, a country that has been perpetually at war since its birth, a country currently estimated to have 1,900 active warheads. Since its beginning, the United States was at war with its indigenous neighbors. Nearly a whole continent of indigenous peoples were annihilated. And its tradition of war and genocide has continued into this century: world wars, millions killed in the Korean war, millions killed in Vietnam and Indochina, millions killed in the recent, ongoing wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons on humans. At the end of World War 2, in August 1949, the United States dropped two nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs killed an estimated 129,000 to 250,000 people, mostly civilians. This is the only time nuclear devices have been used in the course of war. According to the United States, the use of atomic weapons was necessary to secure Japan’s surrender. However, Japan had already expressed their desire to surrender before the weapons were used. It is far more likely the weapons were used to test them in a real war scenario. It is also likely the weapons were dropped as a warning directed to a potentially expansionist Soviet Union. As it turns out, the bombing of the two cities was unnecessary from a military standpoint.

The Japanese were not the only victims of nuclear weapons.  After the United States forcefully moved the indigenous population of the Bikini Atoll, the United States detonated 23 warheads on there between 1946 and 1958. Many of the indigenous families were moved to Rongerik Atoll and Kili Island, which proved unable to sustain the population. Starvation resulted. Even though the indigenous families were promised that they would be able to return safely to the Bikini Atoll, the nuclear tests made the islands uninhabitable. In its quest for creating ever greater weapons of mass destruction, the United States committed genocide against this small part of the world. To add insult to injury, the degenerate marketers of Empire attached the word “bikini” to fleshy female bathing suits meant to create a sexual sensation. Thus the word “bikini” entered the public lexicon as the genocide itself was largely forgotten.

As expected, all the junior partners in Empire, all with oceans of blood on their hands, echoed the criticism of northern Korea. This included: Russia with 1,780 active warheads, the United Kingdom with 150, France with 290, China, among others. Israel, a country perpetually at war with its neighbors and involved in ongoing genocide of Palestine, is estimated to have between 40 and 600 warheads.

This world is upside down. There is a reason that northern Korea is denounced, while the biggest war criminals, who are armed with far more nuclear weapons, are largely ignored. States like northern Korea and Iran, despite their relatively peaceful histories, are attacked for developing nuclear technology because doing so increases their independence. If countries like northern Korea and Iran develop nuclear weaponry, not only does it increase their defensive capabilities, but it sets important precedents. Developing nuclear weapons is an important way for Third World peoples to reach independence. Empire knows this, which is why Empire is moving against northern Korea and Iran. Leading Lights and good people everywhere stand by the right of Third World peoples, including northern Korea and Iran, to stand up against Empire. We absolutely defend the right of northern Korea and Iran to arm themselves with nuclear technology.



B. R. Myers youtube interview: The Myth of Juche

B. R. Myers youtube interview: The Myth of Juche


B. R. Myer’s The Cleanest Race traced the origin of the northern Korean state and its ideology to Japanese fascism. In his latest interview, B. R. Meyers continues debunking the claim that northern Korea is a far-left state. Even though northern Korea ended up allied to the Soviet Union and China, even though Kim il-sung had been involved in the anti-imperialist struggle, those who constructed the ideology of the northern Korean state borrowed heavily from Japanese fascism. Even the word “Juche” itself, claims Myers, is from the Japanese.

Northern Korea is not and has never been a socialist society. It has always been an ultra-nationalist state that has projected a socialist message when it is useful. According to Myers, the propaganda that is created for domestic consumption in northern Korea is very different from the more socialist-sounding propaganda that is exported. Looking at the origin of Juche reveals what its purpose is. Myers states:

“To understand the fraudulence of Juche, you have to walk yourself back through the Juche story… and you can tell me how plausible it sounds, OK? Kim il-sung waits until 1955 to declare the ideology that has been guiding him since his guerrilla years. Does he do this at a Party congress? No. He does this at a relatively undistinguished gathering of propagandists. And the declaration of the ideology doesn’t even take up the whole speech, just the first half of it. The speech doesn’t mention self-reliance nor does it criticize the USSR. In fact, Kim il-sung tells his listeners that loving the USSR is just as good as loving Korea. And yet somehow it manages to be an anti-Soviet declaration of self-reliance. And even more magically, just by using the word ‘Juche’ in its usual Korean sense of the acting subject or main actor, Kim somehow turns it into a uniquely North Korean coining that must be left untranslated in English with a capital ‘J’ if possible. That is not where the strangeness ends, strangely enough, Kim does not revisit the topic of Juche at any length until 1965. So he didn’t even mention it again until 1960. And he didn’t revisit it at any length until 1965 when he happens to be in Indonesia. OK, then in 1972, Juche ideology was dramatically redefined into a human-oriented “man is the master of all things” ideology. But this was done in a manifesto delivered to Japanese journalists. So they got it before Kim il-sung’s own people did… Yet, according to Bruce Cummings…, Juche thought is only fully accessible to the Korean mind. Ok, I could go on and on… But I think you’re getting the idea here.” (1)

There is no question that northern Korea must be defended from imperialist attack. However, defending it from imperialist attack does not require misrepresenting the class nature of northern Korea. It is our duty to the proletariat to tell it the truth. There are no revolutionary societies today. Initiating the next great wave of revolution will not come about by opportunistically cobbling together the fragments of the past, cobbling together the dogmatic Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. And it certainly won’t be made by relying on northern Korean ultra-nationalism posing as socialism. Real revolutionary waves have always come about by elevating and advancing the science. The revolutionary wave that began in 1917 was not merely a product of repeating the past in dogmatized form. Gramsci, called the Bolshevik revolution a revolt against past Marxism. Similarly, the Maoist wave did not merely repeat 1917. Rather, revolutionary waves are made by advancing science. Learning from the past and then going forward with new ideas adapted for today’s reality. Those who look to northern Korea for direction are not even looking to past socialist dogma, they are looking to past ultra-nationalist dogma packaged to look like socialism. Leading Light is about science, pure and simple. The light of true science will guide the masses to the future.



* Also see video of B. R. Myers speaking on The Cleanest Race

** Also see our review of B. R. Myers on The Cleanest Race