Giving up their lunch breaks and a brief chance to relax, over 500 Brookdale Medical Center 1199SEIU union members rallied March 6. They gathered outside their hospital in below-freezing temperatures to show the working-class community of Brownsville their determination to stop Medicaid cuts.

Fiery speakers from 1199SEIU, the New York State Nurses Association and community supporters warmed up this crowd of self-sacrificing workers, who care for patients and their families. With a long history of struggle by and for mostly people of color, in this community with a large West Indian population, 1199SEIU members are prepared to struggle.

Health care workers and communities are uniting now to fight politicians in Albany, the New York state capital. 1199SEIU workers are holding rallies across the state.

The Trump administration’s federal tax cuts have left New York state with a budget crisis. That has Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other politicians trying to make up the difference with a proposed $550 million cut to promised state Medicaid funding. The loss of federal matching funds would mean that New Yorkers stand to lose $1.1 billion in Medicaid funds.

Rather than fight back against Trump or make Wall Street pay the difference, Cuomo and his cronies want to push their budget crisis onto the backs of poor and working-class communities. Health care workers are saying “No!”

Already, 26 New York hospitals face a funding crisis that puts them on a “watch list” for possible closure. These are hospitals serving people without insurance and the poorest who rely on Medicaid, including immigrants. In 2017, these facilities provided nearly 200,000 admissions and 3.5 million emergency room and ambulatory visits.

And, according to 1199SEIU, Medicaid cuts mean that “hospitals will have to cut community services. Hospitals are the biggest providers of care to Medicaid recipients and other vulnerable populations.” What discrimination against the poor and uninsured!  

Homecare workers and nursing home workers can’t afford any cuts either. Union speakers explained that there has been no increase in the funding of Medicaid in 10 years. “Hospitals and nursing homes need funding to provide quality care and to support record Medicaid enrollment,” says 1199SEIU.

As shown by today’s spirited rally, workers can unite to fight back when under attack. As the Brookdale workers chanted: “Protect our care! No cuts!”

The writer is an 1199SEIU retiree.

Photos by Anne Pruden

On Sunday morning March 10, electricity was largely restored in Venezuela after the sabotage of its power grid that began on March 7. Even in the midst of the crisis, Bolivarian Venezuelans with their elected president, Nicolás Maduro Moro, mobilized in a massive united anti-imperialist demonstration on March 9.

The U.S. government bears as much responsibility for these new hardships in Venezuela as was caused by its targeted bombing of Iraqi electric infrastructure in 1991.

Of course, no U.S. Air Force bombs rained down on Venezuela’s Guri hydroelectric complex. None were needed to inflict more economic suffering on the Bolivarian people. Equally devastating and lethal methods are now in imperialism’s toolbox, including cyber weapons and the cruel reality hidden behind the innocuous and nonthreatening term “sanctions.”

In a March 9 article posted during Venezuela’s power outage, Forbes contributor and Senior Fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security Kalev Leetaru wrote: “In the case of Venezuela, the idea of a government like the United States remotely interfering with its power grid is actually quite realistic. Remote cyber operations rarely require a significant ground presence, making them the ideal deniable influence operation. Given the U.S. government’s longstanding concern with Venezuela’s government, it is likely that the U.S. already maintains a deep presence within the country’s national infrastructure grid, making it relatively straightforward to interfere with grid operations.”

On March 7, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s tweets seemed to know a lot about the power outage, before some events could have even occurred. In a TeleSUR video, Venezuelan Minister of Communication and Information Jorge Rodríguez said that the automated control system at the Guri hydroelectric plant had been cyber attacked. Rubio couldn’t have known that the backup generators didn’t work unless he also knew the target. Guri generates 70 percent of Venezuela’s electricity.

However, the Venezuelan grid is an ongoing target in the U.S.’s war for oil. For example, on Sept. 1, 2018, EFE.com reported 12 arrests for damaging electric substations in the Zulia province.

In the article, the minister of electric energy, Luis Motta Domínguez, said: “It grabs my attention that a well-known opposition leader was here yesterday, calling on Venezuelans to insurrect and saying that the insurrection will begin in Zulia, and that the substations exploded that same night.”

Sanctions and terrorism of the dollar

The U.S. economic war on Bolivarian Venezuela began with the election of President Hugo Chávez in 1998. Chávez brought the most oppressed and marginalized out of the shadow of the oil oligarchs, registered everyone to vote and began a constitutional transformation recognizing the rights of the majority working class, women, Indigenous and African-descendent peoples. The U.S.-engineered coup attempt in 2002 was defeated and an oil lockout followed, because Chávez was using the income from the natural wealth of Venezuela for the majority instead of the wealthy few.

When U.S. political figures say President Maduro uses Venezuela’s oil income and other wealth for his “friends,” the friends are the majority of Venezuelans, as it was with Chávez.

The decline in oil prices combined with U.S. restrictions that block purchase or sales on the international markets and threaten to fine any bank or corporation in any other country for granting credit to Venezuela for purchase of food or medicine or equipment parts has created the economic crisis. Thus, the creators of the crisis are really hoping to take control of and profit from Venezuela’s vast oil, gold and coltan resources.

A PressTV correspondent in Caracas reported on March 9 that a woman at an opposition rally called out for Trump’s intervention. He characterized it as “calling the arsonist to put out the fire.” U.S. intervention does not bring prosperity or peace, but the same kind of devastation seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Who are Guaidó’s friends?

Self-appointed U.S.-backed coup leader Juan Guaidó’s picture for Venezuela was reported by the Wall Street Journal to include “financial aid from multilateral organizations, tapping bilateral loans, restructuring debt and opening up Venezuela’s vast oil sector to private investment. It includes privatizing assets held by state enterprises derided by the opposition as corrupt and incompetent and eliminating currency controls. … He also said he’d end wasteful state subsidies and take steps to revive the private sector.”

As Greyzone.com analyzed: “In other words, Guaidó plans to implement the neoliberal capitalist shock therapy that Washington has imposed on the region for decades.

“Using funding from U.S.-dominated international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Venezuelan coup leader seeks to adopt an aggressive ‘structural adjustment’ program, enacting the kinds of economic policies that have led to the preventable deaths of millions of people and an explosion of poverty and inequality in the years following capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union.”

John Bolton doesn’t serve up any mush about “democracy ” or “human rights” in selling the U.S. war against Venezuela. Trump’s national security advisor told the Fox Business Network on Jan. 24 the real reason for the hostilities:

“It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

In other words, it’s all about oil profits.

Turning back the clock to Teddy Roosevelt and U.S. battleships blasting “restless natives,” Bolton told CNN’s Jake Tapper on March 3, “In this administration, we’re not afraid to use the phrase Monroe Doctrine.”  

War hawk Bolton was referring to the colonial relic that was invoked to justify dozens of U.S. invasions of countries in the Americas. Instead of battleships, Bolton’s former boss Ronald Reagan sent two aircraft carriers to assault the 135-square-mile sized island of Granada.

The Monroe Doctrine is also a relic of slavery. It’s named for the fifth U.S. president, slave master James Monroe.

As Virginia governor, Monroe crushed a revolt of enslaved Africans in 1800. At least 26 Black people were hanged. Among them was the revolt’s leader, the blacksmith Gabriel Prosser, and his two brothers Solomon and Martin, who were executed on Oct. 10, 1800.  

The Monroe Doctrine helped murder Haitian national hero Charlemagne Péralte in 1919 after U.S. Marines invaded Haiti and stole the country’s gold reserves. At Trump’s direction, the Bank of England has done the same to over a billion dollars of Venezuelan gold.

Marine Corps Sgt. Herman Hanneken wore blackface when he assassinated Péralte and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his crime. Hanneken was eventually promoted to brigadier general.

Smedley Butler told the truth

It’s a lie that the Monroe Doctrine was ever used to stop European powers from reoccupying their former colonies in the Western Hemisphere. Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for helping British Prime Minister Thatcher invade Argentina’s Islas Malvinas.  

Back in 1935, another Marine Corps general—Smedley Butler—told the truth about the Monroe Doctrine:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank [now Citibank] to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Butler was awarded two Medals of Honor. He wanted to return the first one, given in connection with the U.S. Navy shelling Veracruz. People fought back but hundreds of Mexicans were slaughtered in the occupation that started April 21,1914.

The day before — April 20, 1914 — over 20 people, including 11 children, were killed by the Colorado National Guard at a workers’ tent colony at the town of Ludlow. These National Guard mercenaries were breaking the strike of the United Mine Workers against Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron.

Among those murdered was strike leader, Louis Tikas, a Greek immigrant. Trump would have wanted to deport his corpse.

The Ludlow Massacre was a domestic version of the Monroe Doctrine. To paraphrase Karl Marx, U.S. labor will never be free when workers in Africa, Asia and Latin America continue to be exploited by U.S. imperialist capitalism.

In February 2014, a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a far-right regime representing Western imperialist interests, local oligarchs and neo-Nazis. The new government launched a war against the rebellious Donbass mining region, which has cost at least 13,000 lives so far. People in Donbass declared independence, creating the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR).

I met university student Katya A. in Donetsk in May 2016. Then, she had recently joined a circle of left-wing activists, which included some experienced organizers forced to emigrate from western Ukraine. Today, Katya is not only pursuing her master’s degree, but has become a dynamic women’s and communist youth leader. She has also represented the Donbass struggle abroad. She spoke with Struggle-La Lucha about her experiences.

Struggle-La Lucha: The Ukrainian regime’s war against Donbass started nearly five years ago. Did you live in Donetsk at that time? What do you most remember about the early days of the war?

Katya A.: At the time of those events I lived in Donetsk, like I have for most of my life. I only left for two months in the summer of 2014. When I returned home in September, the war was in full swing.

Then, I was just starting to become interested in Marxism. I was a loner and didn’t participate in any movements. I don’t like to remember those days. I’m often ashamed that I took a detached position then. On the other hand, I didn’t have good teachers and mentors.

SLL: How have the past five years shaped your political views and activities?

KA: Now, I’m a member of the Aurora Women’s Club. Our main activity is education. We study women’s issues from a Marxist standpoint, watch films, discuss books, hold popular science lectures and so on. Another important aspect of our activity is a philosophical circle where we study political economy using original sources and the Marxist classics.

More recently, I’ve become a member of the Komsomol, a communist youth organization. We have a lot of plans. I see that many young people are actively interested in leftist ideas. I’m very pleased that my peers want to study Marxism, to understand the essence of things under capitalism.

War is a hard experience both in terms of shaping political views and shaping character. But I clearly understand that capitalism brings with it destruction and death. We must be strong and not give up in our struggle.

SLL: How would you compare the situation of workers in Donetsk with what existed before 2014, especially for women? What about the economic blockade imposed by Ukraine and the West?

KA: The economic blockade and war have had a negative impact on the working class, particularly women. We are all potential migrants now. Many people are left without work.

Workers from Donbass are frequently deceived. They are mercilessly exploited. Often, they are forced to work illegally. Some have become freelancers or work remotely, but in this case there are problems with cashing electronic payments. To do this, you must either pay big interest here, or go to the nearest Russian cities — Rostov or Taganrog.

Nevertheless, unlike Ukraine and the cities and villages of the DPR occupied by Ukrainian troops, we have relatively cheap public utilities. Most students receive scholarships. Although they are small, it helps with our difficult conditions.

SLL: What similarities do you see between what happened in Ukraine five years ago and the current situation in Venezuela and other Latin American countries targeted by the U.S.?

KA: It’s obvious to me that all these events are imperialistic games. By the way, we often forget that imperialism is not only a direct military invasion. It has long acted in other ways, for example by imposing economic dependence on some countries, huge debts, subordinating their industry. Vladimir Lenin wrote beautifully about this in his book Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Our struggle is a struggle against imperialism, which five years ago aimed its predatory view at our country. Naturally, in Latin America the situation has its own specifics, but these are all phenomena of the same order.

We are in solidarity with the people of Venezuela, closely watching the events taking place there. Unfortunately, many leftists, instead of expressing solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, are beginning to criticize the system that has developed there. In my opinion, at this moment such criticism only serves the imperialists.

First of all, Venezuela needs to defend its independence. Ukraine failed to do this. Although this country used to be largely dependent, now it can hardly be considered an independent political entity at all. Look what happened to what was once the richest Soviet republic! Ukraine has become the poorest European country. It is waging war against the people of Donbass, while hypocritically asserting that this is an integral part of the Ukrainian state.

It feels like a large-scale and inhuman experiment was conducted on Ukrainians. People swallow propaganda garbage, Donbass-phobia and social racism flourishes, while the rightists feel extremely comfortable. These are the consequences of this combination of imperialism, neoliberalism and stupefying nationalism.

SLL: Recently, it was reported that white supremacists from California were trained by an armed fascist battalion in Ukraine. How do you assess the connection between the ultraright takeover and the spread of neofascist movements in the West?

KA: The growth of neofascist movements in the West began before Maidan. Naturally, this is a process, not a single event. Right-wing and conservative regimes have been established in many European countries. You don’t need to go far for an example: look at Ukraine’s neighbor Hungary, where Viktor Orbán rules.

Obviously, the world is experiencing a period of reaction. We see how country after country is falling under the control of right-wing or even neofascist rulers. And surprisingly, the right-wingers get along well with each other.

In Ukraine, as I said, the ultraright feel great. They can smash Roma settlements with impunity. They attack left-wing activists, people from the LGBTQ community, feminists and others who somehow do not conform to their notions of a “normal person.” Then, there are the attacks against people who take a firm anti-war position, or the terror that they carry out in the occupied territories of Donetsk and Lugansk.

By the way, the Ukrainian fascist battalions don’t just train their foreign “friends,” but are also actively engaged in raising children in this “patriotic” spirit.

This war attracted many rightists who began to fight on the side of Ukraine. There are even Russian fascists on their side. The far right understand that they have a common cause. And for them, the war in Ukraine is also an excellent training ground, no matter how scary it sounds.

SLL: How can workers and leftists in the United States help the struggle of people in Donbass?

KA: People should know about what is going on in the Donbass. I often encounter foreigners who have no idea about our struggle — they’ve never even heard about what is happening here.

I believe that workers and leftists in the United States can help us by breaking through this information blockade. Donbass has a lot in common with Palestine. But while the whole left knows about Palestine, few people speak about Donbass.

We are very grateful to those comrades from the U.S. who do not forget about us and constantly raise the agenda of Donbass.

Read Aurora Women’s Club’s 11-point program, issued on International Women’s Day.

Eight Black basketball players with the University of Mississippi (“Ole Miss”) team took a knee during the playing of the national anthem before their game on Feb. 23 in protest of a pro-Confederate rally that was held near the arena where the game was played.

Initially, six players knelt during the start of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” By the end of the anthem, however, two more players had taken a knee in solidarity with their fellow teammates.

All of the players that took a knee during the anthem were African American and, unfortunately, a great opportunity to show solidarity with the Black community was missed by the fact that none of the white teammates took a knee.

In describing what moved the Black players to take a stand, Ole Miss player Breein Tyree said at a press conference after the game: ”The majority of it was just that we saw one of our teammates doing it and didn’t want him to be alone. We’re just tired of these hate groups coming to our school and portraying our campus like we have these hate groups in our actual school.”

The Mississippi players’ act of resistance is a recognition of Colin Kaepernick’s protests while playing in the National Football League. These were protests over racism and police brutality that have led to an array of athletes protesting against racism and injustice.

Since Colin Kaepernick first knelt for the national anthem during an NFL exhibition game over two years ago, that courageous act has now evolved into a broader clarion call against social injustice and oppression. High school teams have used the gesture to stand in solidarity against racism. Notre Dame students invoked it as an expression of faith against racism. And Jewish students in South Africa even did it during Israel’s national anthem to stand in solidarity with Palestinians.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and much of the socialist camp, social democrats and revisionists in the international workers’ movement contend that the ideas of working-class power and the dictatorship of the proletariat have been discredited. They say world developments have shown that social change can only take place within the confines of bourgeois-democratic politics. According to this view, progressives’ only goal should be to win influence in their national parliament or congress and other “democratic” institutions.

It is one thing to use these institutions as part of an overall strategy. Communists use every possible means to advance the class struggle. But it’s something else to rely on bourgeois institutions as the primary means of social change.

Revolutionary communists must expose this accommodation to imperialism.

Many groups and trends in the international communist movement are today seeking a regroupment of revolutionary forces on a world scale. Adherence to the principle of working-class power is one of the most important bases for real unity of action. It must be clearly understood by all Marxist-Leninists.

This isn’t the first time in history that the question has been sharply posed. In fact, it has emerged in every political crisis since Marx’s time as a focal point of struggle between the revolutionary proletarian forces and those who advocate reform of the system through class collaboration with the bosses.

Following the Russian Revolution it was the number one issue in the world workers’ movement. In 1919, revolutionary developments were sweeping the European continent. The choice — power to the workers or to the capitalists — was not just a question of orientation but of concrete action.

That year, delegates from the revolutionary movements of 22 countries met in Moscow, the capital of Soviet Russia, to found the Communist International. At the top of the congress’s agenda was concrete action to make workers’ power a reality.

Impact of the Bolshevik Revolution

Capitalism seemed to be in its death throes in Europe after the destruction caused by the first world imperialist war of 1914-1918. The leaders of most big European workers’ parties of the Second International sided with their imperialist governments in the war, betraying the masses of workers and peasants who died on the battlefields.

In the former Russian empire, the Bolshevik Party had seized the opportunity presented by a disintegrating peasant army and massive worker rebellions. In November 1917, it led the workers of Petrograd, Moscow and other key cities in the capture of state power. For the first time, a full-fledged workers’ state — though underdeveloped and impoverished — was born.

Sam Marcy wrote of Soviet Russia, “The new, infant workers’ state had thrust upon it three Herculean tasks utterly unprecedented in the entire history of the class struggle.” One was to defend the new workers’ state. Another was to lay down socialist economic foundations and raise the living standards of the workers.

In addition, said Marcy: “It had the duty and obligation to reorganize, on a revolutionary basis, the left wing of the social-democratic movement, put it on a communist basis, and lay the foundation for a new and revolutionary International. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were thus obligated from the start not only to give revolutionary leadership at home, but, in a way, to become the general staff of the world revolution which seemed visible on the horizon, especially in Western Europe and later in the East, in China.” (1)

This was no small task — especially for a communist party that also had to govern a war-torn, backward and impoverished land in the midst of imperialist aggression and civil war. Yet the Bolsheviks rose to the task.

The vast expanse of the former Russian empire was a virtual International in itself. Within its boundaries were well over 100 distinct nationalities and ethnic groups in many different stages of social development.

The multinational Bolshevik party reflected this. Its ranks included not only Russians but Ukrainians, Poles, Romanians, Belorussians, Georgians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azeris, Armenians, Turks, Chinese, Koreans, Jews, Germans and many more. Soon, revolutionary exiles and prisoners of war from the U.S., France and other European countries joined its ranks.

In 1922, the nations of the former Russian empire united to form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Revolutionary upsurge

“In the years immediately following the Great October Socialist Revolution, Europe was a veritable revolutionary cauldron,” wrote Marcy. “Proletarian insurrections broke out in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, to some extent France, and later in Great Britain with its great general strike.” (2)

Soviets and workers’ councils sprang up spontaneously in many European countries, including Germany, Austria and Britain. Workers elected political representatives from factories and offices to represent them in the councils. Often, soldiers and even peasants set up similar bodies to represent their interests against the bosses and landlords.

The growth of workers’ councils reflected a pre-revolutionary situation. Their spread in the advanced countries also refuted the widespread belief that soviets were a uniquely Russian phenomenon.

In the United States, “shop committees, hailed as ‘militant tribunes of the union members and nonmembers within the firm,’ spread through American industry,” according to historian Philip Foner. (3)

The first Russian Revolution, in 1905, had sparked national liberation struggles in China and Turkey. The post-war crisis greatly strengthened this trend. As the Communist International was being founded, rebellions against British imperialism arose in Egypt and India. Haitian freedom fighters led by Charlemagne Peralte were fighting to drive U.S. occupation forces out of their Caribbean homeland.

In most countries, though, disciplined, revolutionary Marxist parties of the Bolshevik type did not exist. There were only left-wing trends in the social-democratic and syndicalist movements. Among the handful of communist parties, most were formed only in late 1918.

The leaders of the Second International had become so thoroughly corrupt that their efforts were mostly directed toward saving the capitalist system. There was no hope they could lead the proletariat to victory.

Lenin and the other revolution-minded leaders knew there was only one solution: Communist parties must be built. In the critical circumstances of the moment, it would take a world revolutionary organization — a new International — to unite the various left-wing trends and forge fighting parties.

Blockade of Soviet Russia

During 1918 and early 1919, Soviet Russia and the Bolshevik Party were virtually cut off from the rest of the world. The U.S., Britain, Japan and all the belligerent powers — fearing socialist revolution far more than they feared one another — imposed an imperialist blockade.

The “quarantine” meant that Bolshevik propaganda reached the world working class only sporadically. The capitalist ruling classes and their mouthpieces spread the most incredible and vicious fabrications about the Soviet government — not only of an anti-worker, but of a racist and anti-Semitic character.

Nevertheless, the influence of the Russian Revolution and its leaders grew. Soviet Russia was a bright light of hope that shone on the workers and oppressed of the world.

Soviet Russia looked to a revolutionary development in the imperialist countries to ensure its survival and maximum ability to develop.

Lenin often made this point. At the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) he said: “We are living not merely in a state, but in a system of states; and it is inconceivable that the Soviet republic should continue to exist for a long period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately one or the other must conquer. Until this end occurs a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet republic and bourgeois states is inevitable.” (4)

With this reality constantly in mind, the Bolsheviks watched international developments with keen interest.

A wide variety of revolutionary trends and groups were invited to join in founding the Communist International. Besides the Communist parties and left-socialist groups allied with the Bolsheviks, the list included such groups as the Socialists in Japan; forces in the French syndicalist movement; the Industrial Workers of the World in the U.S., Britain and Australia; and the left forces in the Socialist Party of America, led by Eugene Debs. (5)

The call also went out to groups of oppressed workers living in the Russian Soviet Republic. Lenin was determined that the Communist International would build strong ties of solidarity and cooperation with the oppressed peoples.

It was not easy to reach Moscow. Anti-communist repression in Europe and the U.S. prevented many groups from even getting the invitation. A German delegate was arrested before he could reach Soviet Russia. Two Hungarian delegates were delayed by heavy fighting in the Ukraine. Others who succeeded faced innumerable dangers along the way, not the least of which was the imperialist military blockade.

Fifty-one delegates attended, representing 35 organizations in 22 countries. Nine delegates came from outside Russia’s borders. Fortunately, some groups had representatives living in Soviet Russia at the time.

Voting and consulting delegates from the following countries attended: Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, China, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Soviet Russia, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. Communist organizations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, Turkestan, the Ukraine and the Volga Germans were also present. (6)

The Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was represented by its foremost leaders: V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Grigory Zinoviev and G.V. Chicherin. Soviet Commissar of Nationalities Joseph Stalin was also a delegate, but took no role in the congress. Other prominent Bolsheviks like Alexandra Kollontai and Lev Kamenev attended some sessions. (7)

The critical question

There were many political, ideological, strategic and tactical questions in need of clarification in the revolutionary movement. These ranged from the need for a highly disciplined revolutionary party to a correct Marxist view of the right of nations to self-determination.

Lenin knew this. But he also knew the acuteness of the revolutionary crisis — which does not come often and must be seized in the right way at the right moment. Therefore, his focus, and the theme of the congress, was to clarify and sharpen the understanding of the character and means of the working-class seizure of power.

In fact, “the idea of the working class winning political power” was central in the debates and resolutions of the Congress.

“The delegates came to a very important conclusion, that a new epoch had opened with the triumph of the Russian Revolution and the revolutionary wave that had risen in other countries, ‘the epoch of the disintegration of capitalism, the epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat.’ In accordance with that a central task was posed: the proletariat’s winning of political power and breaking up of the bourgeois state machinery; the counterposing of the Soviet system to bourgeois democracy. The road to victory lay through mass struggle, a preliminary condition of which was to break with the direct opponents of the revolution” in the working-class movement. (8)

The congress began the evening of March 2, 1919. Lenin opened the first session by asking delegates to rise in tribute to “the finest representatives of the Third International”: Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. (9) These two leaders of the Communist Party of Germany (Spartakusbund) had been murdered by police during an abortive uprising in Berlin.

In his opening remarks, Lenin struck the main theme of the deliberations. “The bourgeoisie is terror-stricken at the growing workers’ revolutionary movement,” he said.

“Dictatorship of the proletariat — until now these words were Latin to the masses. Thanks to the spread of soviets throughout the world this Latin has been translated into all modern languages; a practical form of dictatorship has been found by the working people. The mass of workers now understands it thanks to soviet power in Russia, thanks to the Spartakusbund in Germany, and to similar organizations in other countries, such as, for example, the shop stewards’ committees in Britain. All this shows that a revolutionary form of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been found, that the proletariat is now able to exercise its rule.

“Even though the bourgeoisie is still raging, even though it may kill thousands more workers, victory will be ours, the victory of the worldwide communist revolution is assured.” (10)

Lenin was convinced, after listening to the speeches and talking with delegates, that the significance of the system of soviets was still not clear to the broad masses of the politically educated German workers, “because they have been trained in the spirit of the parliamentary system and amid bourgeois prejudices.” (11)

Bourgeois democracy vs. soviet power

The debate in the workers’ movement over whether to support a government of parliamentary democracy or of workers’ councils took its sharpest turn in defeated Germany.

German workers overthrew the monarchy in November 1918. In its place, a coalition of right-wing social democrats and bourgeois parties ruled, which later became known as the Weimar Republic. But the existence of strong workers’ councils put into question who would govern.

The new government denounced the workers’ and soldiers’ councils as undemocratic and instead advocated a constitutional assembly. Social-democratic leaders said that by simply winning a majority in the assembly, workers could secure the victory of the revolution and even “socialism.” To them, democracy was an abstract thing, with no basis in class rule.

The revolutionary forces, led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht, refuted that. They pointed to both the teachings of Marx and Engels and the lessons of the Russian Revolution to show that the working class must rise up against the bourgeois state machine, crush it, and build instead a republic of workers’, soldiers’ and peasants‘ councils. That’s how a true democracy for the oppressed could be built.

Centrists, like Karl Kautsky’s Independent Socialists, wavered between the two positions. Kautsky advocated sharing power between the workers’ councils and the bourgeois parliament. Such a merger could only destroy the councils’ class independence; Lenin pointed out that this view reflected “the mood of the backward sections of the German proletariat.” (12)

Lenin answered the social democrats’ view in his theses and report to the congress “On Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” (13) It was a concrete, practical and theoretical answer to those who counterposed “democracy in general” to working-class rule.

The communist answer

Lenin’s theses, based on the lessons of the Russian Revolution and the post-war crisis in Europe, generalized the revolutionary concepts laid down in his classic work, “The State and Revolution.”

“1. Faced with the growth of the revolutionary workers’ movement in every country, the bourgeoisie and their agents in the workers’ organizations are making desperate attempts to find ideological and political arguments in defense of the rule of the exploiters. Condemnation of dictatorship and defense of democracy are particularly prominent among these arguments.

“2. This nonclass or above-class presentation, which supposedly is popular, is an outright travesty of the basic tenet of socialism, namely, its theory of class struggle, which Socialists who have sided with the bourgeoisie recognize in words but disregard in practice. For in no capitalist country does ‘democracy in general’ exist. All that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of ‘dictatorship in general,’ but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, i.e., of the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, i.e., the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.

“3. History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and forcible suppression of the resistance always offered by the exploiters — a resistance that is most desperate, most furious and that stops at nothing.

“4. In explaining the class nature of bourgeois civilization, bourgeois democracy and the bourgeois parliamentary system, all socialists have expressed the idea formulated with the greatest scientific precision by Marx and Engels, namely, that the most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working-people by a handful of capitalists. There is not a single revolutionary, not a single Marxist among those now shouting against dictatorship and for democracy who has not sworn and vowed to the workers that he accepts this basic truth of socialism. But now, when the revolutionary proletariat is in a fighting mood and taking action to destroy this machine of oppression and to establish proletarian dictatorship, these traitors to socialism claim that the bourgeoisie have granted the working people ‘pure democracy,’ have abandoned resistance, and are prepared to yield to the majority of the working people. …

“10. The imperialist war of 1914-1918 conclusively revealed even to backward workers the true nature of bourgeois democracy, even in the freest republics, as being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Tens of millions were killed for the sake of enriching the German or the British group of millionaires and multimillionaires, and bourgeois military dictatorships were established in the freest republics. …

‘Proletarian dictatorship is absolutely necessary’

“12. In these circumstances, proletarian dictatorship is not only an absolutely legitimate means of overthrowing the exploiters and suppressing their resistance, but also absolutely necessary to the entire mass of working people, being their only defense against the bourgeois dictatorship which led to the war and is preparing new wars. Whenever there is any serious aggravation of the class struggle intrinsic to [capitalist] society, there can be no alternative but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois lamentations.

“14. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all the civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of the landowners and bourgeoisie was the forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., an insignificant minority of the population, the landowners and capitalists.

“It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such a change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism — the toiling classes. …

“16. The old, i.e., bourgeois, democracy and the parliamentary system were so organized that it was the mass of working people who were kept furthest away from the machinery of government. Soviet power, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the other hand, is so organized as to bring the working people close to the machinery of government.”

Only Soviet power, the class power of the armed working people, can dismantle the repressive forces of the capitalist state and break up the bourgeois system. “Destruction of state power is the aim of all socialists, including Marx above all. Genuine democracy, i.e., liberty and equality, is unrealizable unless this aim is achieved. But its practical achievement is possible only through the soviet, or proletarian democracy, for by enlisting the mass organizations of the working people in constant and unfailing participation in the administration of the state, it immediately begins to prepare the complete withering away of any state.” (14)

Lenin laid out the main tasks of communist parties in all countries where soviet governments had not yet been established. These were adopted by the congress in a resolution:

“1. to explain to the broad mass of the workers the historic significance and the political and historical necessity of the new, proletarian democracy which must replace bourgeois democracy and the parliamentary system;

“2. to extend the organization of soviets among the workers in all branches of industry, among the soldiers in the army and sailors in the navy, and also among farm laborers and poor peasants;

“3. to build a stable Communist majority inside the soviets.” (15)

The communist congress officially voted to found the new International on its third day of sessions. Resolutions were also adopted on the international situation and policy of the imperialist powers; the conference of right and center social democrats in Bern, Switzerland; the need to bring women workers into the struggle for socialism; and the White Terror of the bourgeoisie against workers and peasants.

Delegates reported on the development of the workers’ movement in their countries. For the first time, an international Marxist gathering heard a report in the Chinese language. (16)

The second Communist Manifesto

The Manifesto of the Communist International, dubbed “the second Communist Manifesto,” was signed by leading delegates, including Lenin. Red Army commander Leon Trotsky, who authored the document, read it to the delegates on March 5:

“Seventy-two years ago the Communist Party proclaimed its program to the world in the form of a Manifesto written by the greatest heralds of the proletarian revolution, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Even at that time communism no sooner entered the arena of struggle than it was beset by baiting, lies, hatred and persecution of the possessing classes who rightfully sensed their mortal enemy in communism.

“The development of communism during this three-quarters of a century proceeded along complex paths: side by side with periods of stormy upsurge it knew periods of decline; side by side with successes — cruel defeats. But essentially the movement proceeded along the path indicated in advance by the Communist Manifesto. The epoch of final, decisive struggle has come later than the apostles of the socialist revolution had expected and hoped. But it has come.” (17)

The Platform of the Communist International complemented the manifesto’s theoretical overview. It outlined the development of capitalism in the monopoly stage and how it had opened the epoch of imperialist wars and socialist revolutions. And it offered a guide to the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat.

At the close of the congress, Lenin remarked: “That we have been able to gather despite all the persecution and all the difficulties created by the police, that we have been able without any serious differences and in a brief space of time to reach important decisions on all the vitally urgent questions of the contemporary revolutionary epoch, we owe to the fact that the proletarian masses of the whole world, by their action, have brought up these questions in practice and begun to tackle them.

“All we have had to do here has been to record the gains already won by the people in the process of their revolutionary struggle.” (18)

After the founding congress

It did not take long for life to confirm the need for the revolutionary International.

Sixteen days after the congress ended, a Soviet government was proclaimed in Hungary. The Proclamation of the Revolutionary Governing Council of Hungary, issued March 22, 1919, declared: “Today the proletariat of Hungary takes all authority into its hands. The collapse of the bourgeois world and the bankruptcy of the coalition [previous government] compel the workers and peasants to take this step. Capitalistic production has collapsed. Communism alone can preserve the country from anarchy.” (19)

In Vienna, Austria, workers greeted the news with a thousands-strong march through the streets. They chanted, “Down with the capitalists!” and carried banners that said, “Long live the Hungarian Council Republic.” (20)

Soviet republics were soon proclaimed in Bavaria and Slovakia.

Though these heroic revolutions were crushed, they again confirmed the revolutionary character of the post-war epoch — and especially the need for clarity on such fundamental questions as the class character of the state and the need for soviets to be independent of bourgeois institutions.

Never before had the exploiters known such fear. Their overthrow seemed imminent. The capitalist class stepped up its repression against working-class organizations and oppressed peoples.

The founding congress gave a strong impulse to revolutionary forces in every country. It provided a theoretical and practical basis for different trends to unite in unified communist parties. At the Second World Congress of the Communist International in the summer of 1920, over 75 revolutionary organizations were represented, many from the oppressed nations. (21)

These forces also built strong “Hands off Soviet Russia” movements in many countries. “Its main demand, constantly advanced at workers’ meetings and demonstrations, congresses, and conferences, and in the progressive press, was immediate cessation of military support for the Russian counterrevolution, and of the economic blockade and armed intervention.” (22) Bolshevik leaders credited this movement with helping the young Soviet republic survive one of its most difficult years.

Eventually, the revolutionary period ebbed. Capitalism was temporarily stabilized on the backs of the colonial peoples. But the rich revolutionary lessons of that era live on today.

The first issue of Workers World newspaper, dated March 1959, stated: “The founding of the Communist International was probably the most significant event in the postwar revolutionary epoch that followed in the wave of the great socialist October Revolution. It existed as a thoroughgoing revolutionary international only for the first four congresses — roughly to the time of Lenin’s death. But its impact on the labor movement has been unequaled in history.” (23)

History proves need for workers’ power

The whole history of class struggles since 1919 proves the necessity of soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and other countries where workers’ power has existed, the working class and oppressed peoples have won tremendous gains, like the right to a job, free quality health care and education. The workers’ states gave aid and support to national liberation movements in the Third World. All this was possible only through the transfer of ownership from the capitalist class to the working class and the political rule of the oppressed. And it was achieved under constant threat from the imperialist powers, especially the U.S.

In contrast, there are many countries, including in the West, where intense class struggles arose but were not carried through under revolutionary leadership. Social-democratic parties have governed the capitalist system in some of these countries. Yet nowhere have they eliminated the scourges of unemployment, racism and poverty that are built into the crisis-ridden capitalist system. Today, the ruling class is wiping out all the concessions won by workers and oppressed peoples.

In other countries, such as Indonesia and Chile, pro-socialist leaders tried to exercise power over the bourgeois state. They did not support the development of workers’ councils as independent organs of proletarian power. Nor did they arm the masses in preparation for revolutionary action. In both cases, the bourgeoisie crushed the government and the labor movement and instituted fascist terror.

“World history is leading unswervingly toward the dictatorship of the proletariat, but is doing so by paths that are anything but smooth, simple and straight,” wrote Lenin in his famous article “The Third International and Its Place in History.” (24)

Today, we live in a period of reaction and setbacks. But it will not last forever. The capitalist system itself plants the seeds that cause class struggle to grow.

Only a thorough socialist revolution that expropriates the bourgeoisie and puts state power into the hands of the workers and oppressed can smash capitalist oppression and build a socialist future. This must be the unequivocal answer of communists to those who urge reconciliation with the dictatorship of capital.

Sources:

1. Marcy, Sam, “Eurocommunism: A new form of reformism,” pp. l-2.
2. Ibid, p. 46.
3. Foner, Philip, “History of the Labor Movement in the United States,” Vol. 8, p. l3.
4. Quoted in Carr, E.H. “The Bolshevik Revolution l9l7-I923,” Vol. 3, p. 115.
5. Trotsky, Leon, “Letter of Invitation to the First Congress of the Communist International,” in “The German Revolution and the Debate on Soviet Power,” pp. 450-1.
6. USSR Academy of Sciences and Institute of the International Working-Class Movement, “International Working-Class Movement: Problems of history and theory,” Vol.4, p. 266.
7. Riddell, John, ed., “Founding the Communist International,” p. 41.
8. USSR Academy, p. 267.
9. Lenin, V.I., “Collected Works,” Vol. 28, p. 455.
10. Ibid. pp. 455-6.
11. USSR Academy, p. 273.
12. Lenin, p. 469.
13. Ibid. pp. 457-74.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid, p. 475.
16. Riddell, p. 204.
17. Trotsky, Leon, “The First Five Years of the Communist International,” Vol. I, p. 19.
18. Lenin, p. 476.
19. Daniels, Robert V., ed., “A Documentary History of Communism,” pp. 91-2.
20. Klingaman, William K., “1919: The year our world began,” pp. 191-2.
21. Riddell, John, ed., “Workers of the World and Oppressed Peoples Unite!,” Vol. 2, pp. 839-43.
22. USSR Academy, p. 343.
23. Workers World, Vol. I, No. l, March 1959.
24. Lenin, “Collected Works,” Vol. 29, p. 309.

Originally published in Liberation & Marxism magazine, Winter 1994

The Los Angeles conference entitled “Unity for Revolution and Socialism” set for March 16 and called by Struggle for Socialism-La Lucha por el Socialismo has announced that it will be shifting its schedule to participate and actively organize for a major protest and march to demand “U.S. Hands Off Venezuela!”

John Parker, one of the organizers of the conference stated: “We not only want to talk about revolutionary change, we also want to act to make it possible. The war on Venezuela is an emergency for all workers and poor people around the globe!  We are making this fight a priority. Therefore, we officially moved our conference opening to 1 p.m. so that we can organize and participate in a Hands off Venezuela protest.”

The “U.S. Hands Off Venezuela” protest in Los Angeles will gather at 11 a.m. at MacArthur Park to coincide with the March 16 national “No Coup – No Sanctions – No War” protest in Washington, D.C., initiated by the Answer Coalition.  We will march from MacArthur Park, the site of the rally, to the conference.

The organizations that will be gathering in MacArthur Park to demand no U.S. war on Venezuela will include AIM SoCal; Unión del Barrio; the Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice; School of the Americas Watch-L.A.; CISPES-L.A. Chapter; the Eastside Greens of L.A. County; Radio Justice; the Humanity First Coalition; California for Progress; the International League of Peoples Struggles-ILPS Southern California; the People’s Power Assembly; the Democratic Socialists of America-L.A.; the International Action Center West Coast; SOA Watch-L.A.; and Struggle for Socialism-La Lucha por el Socialismo.

See Facebook event.

Conference will include a special ILWU and Black workers panel

Youth Against War and Racism organizer Miranda Bachman noted, “As youth we are excited that we will get an opportunity to listen to and learn from some of the veteran worker organizers like Clarence Thomas from the International Longshore Workers Union, who will be speaking on supply chain workers, ILWU history and the leading role of Black workers.

“I’m also personally, extremely excited that I’ll be able to hear about the recent teachers strike!”

Clarence Thomas, a veteran ILWU organizer, who helped to spearhead the “Million Worker March,” a movement led by Black workers, will address a special interactive panel where younger and older activists will have the opportunity to not only learn but also to ask questions that can help inform and shape current and future workers’ struggles.

The conference will highlight many of the international struggles along with burning issues for workers and oppressed here in the United States, including the epidemic of police terror against Black and Brown communities; prisoner rights and slave labor; the cases of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier; women’s, oppressed genders and LGBTQ2S liberation; teachers and Amazon workers fighting for workers’ power; the need to save planet earth from capitalist destruction, and other issues of importance and concern for the youth, workers, and poor and oppressed people.

There will be lots of time for interactive discussion from participants.  Please sign up so that we can provide adequate food for everyone. On Facebook.

Register now.

In February 2014, a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a far-right regime representing Western imperialist interests, local oligarchs and neo-Nazis. The new government launched a war against the rebellious Donbass mining region, which has cost at least 13,000 lives so far.

Struggle-La Lucha spoke with Alexey Albu, a former deputy of the Odessa Regional Council and a leader of the revolutionary Marxist organization Borotba (Struggle), which is outlawed in today’s Ukraine. Albu survived the fascist massacre at the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014, and was forced to leave Ukraine. From outside the areas controlled by the current government in Kiev, he has been working for the country’s liberation since then.

Struggle-La Lucha: There’s been enormous repression inside Ukraine against opponents of the regime. Even journalists and activists who sided with Euromaidan in 2014 have been targeted in some cases. How many political prisoners does Kiev currently hold and what is their situation? What is the status of the underground resistance inside Ukraine today?

Alexey Albu: Unfortunately, we do not have objective figures on how many oppositionists are in prison today. But in 2015 their number was about 1,500, of whom about 700 were members of the Donbass militia. That is, in fact, about 700 were prisoners of war, and 800 were political prisoners.

But today the numbers are much less. Some make a deal with the prosecutors and get out. Some are released because the government cannot prove their guilt, because there is not even circumstantial evidence. Some are exchanged [for captured Ukrainian troops in the Donbass republics]. So today, unfortunately, we do not have an objective picture.

We try to help communist political prisoners, as well as other anti-fascists, whom we know. We collect money, transfer it to human rights organizations and groups that buy nonprohibited necessities and send them to the prisoners.

The armed resistance that our comrades from the Ukrainian Red Army (URA) began and that was picked up by other autonomous groups was a fiasco. All the attacks against the Nazis, the offices of ultraright volunteers and their sponsors did not inflict serious harm.

Our comrades from the URA have concluded that such attacks must be supported by political work. For example, if we manage to create an alternative authority, we must be able to protect it. But no matter how much we attack the buildings of the junta, nothing will change until we can offer society an alternative. For this reason, our comrades from the URA militant groups decided to suspend such activities.

It is also worth noting that it is very costly, and the results were negative: not only was there insufficient strength to overthrow the regime, but comrades were imprisoned. It’s good that we managed to pull out our heroes, like Vlad Wojciechowski and others whose names I cannot mention right now. But some of our comrades are still in prison.

SLL: NATO military forces and Western intelligence agencies have been active in training and advising the Ukrainian military, including neo-Nazi battalions, in the war against the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR). Do you see NATO offering membership to Ukraine?

AA: This option is being worked on by the top leadership of NATO. But there are some reasons why, in my opinion, this will not happen in the near future.

I will try to explain how we see it from afar: Every month, the capitalist crisis that began in 2008 increasingly exacerbates the contradictions between the imperialist center and the various subsystems or secondary economic blocs — European, Russian, pan-Arab, Chinese, Indian — and also the so-called “economic periphery.”

It’s obvious to everyone that the conflict in Ukraine is the result of an economic “attack” against the Russian economic bloc, of which Ukraine has been a part for centuries. Historically, it was one state and economic strings stretched from Ukrainian turbine factories to Russian aircraft factories, from Russian ammonia producers to Ukrainian fertilizer plants, and so on.

That is, the rupture of all economic relations with Ukraine is a serious blow to the economy of Russia, and therefore to the economies of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and other countries which are closely connected, with a single center located in Moscow.

So, returning to the question of Ukraine joining NATO: The imperialists’ main goal at the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine was successfully fulfilled: the economic ties were broken. Nazis blocked the railways, blocked checkpoints on the border with Russia, blew up power lines and so on.

If we consider a potential military conflict between Russia and its allies and the NATO bloc, then of course, NATO needs Ukraine. But why start a new military conflict if you can just incite Ukraine against Russia? If you can just provoke that conflict and supply Ukraine with weapons?

I understand perfectly well that Vladimir Putin is a bourgeois politician, but fortunately, he has enough wisdom not to succumb to all the provocations that the Ukrainian side is trying to organize.

SLL: In the past year there were some big personnel changes in the leadership of the Donbass republics. The Minsk negotiations have been stalled for a long time. There have been big buildups of armaments by Ukraine in the war zone, but so far no new military offensive. How do you view the situation inside the republics today? What is the situation of the workers and of the left movement?

AA:  New DPR and LPR heads Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik are people from the same cohort as former leaders Igor Plotnitsky and Alexander Zakharchenko. Therefore, nothing has changed.

Regarding the Minsk negotiations, yes, many items in the accords were not implemented. Ukraine hasn’t released the political prisoners, hasn’t implemented the constitutional reforms, and so on. But they are partially implemented: after all, the parties do not go on the offensive, do not use heavy artillery, do not occupy inhabited settlements controlled by their opponents.

The result of the Minsk agreements is a decrease in the amount of blood spilled. And this is definitely good. The armed forces of the people’s republics have become more serious and organized. But of course, people are tired of being stuck between Ukraine and Russia. People want the conflict to end as soon as possible.

The situation inside the republics is quite difficult. But in some ways, it is much better than in Ukraine. Utilities, housing, food and clothing are cheaper than in Ukraine. However, due to the economic blockade, many enterprises have been shut down, and it is quite difficult to find a decent job. Many people have to live on savings, and many serve in the military. Therefore, the position of the workers is quite difficult. But these are objective reasons related to the war.

Speaking of the left movement, it’s worth noting that those left-wing groups that existed in 2014-2015 have almost ceased to exist. Political life is crushed by the burden of war. Public initiatives do not have the support of the young republics, since the new governments are afraid of the emergence of opposition groups within the DPR and LPR.

However, speaking for Borotba, I can say that in four years we have not encountered any obstacles to our activities. We freely hold our meetings, lay flowers at the monument to Lenin, hold commemorative actions dedicated to the massacre of the Odessa anti-fascists on May 2 and other events.

SLL: What similarities do you see between what happened in Ukraine five years ago and the current situation in Venezuela and other Latin American countries targeted by the U.S.?

AA: Analyzing the situation in Venezuela, we see that the same funders that worked in Ukraine paid for the buildup of the crisis: Freedom House, USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development], the International Republican Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy and others.

We see that the imperialists use the same tactics: they create organizations to influence the electoral process, the same as in Ukraine. In Ukraine, it was the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, and in Venezuela it’s Foro Penal Venezolano. For riots in the streets and attacks on “undesirables,” mobile fighting units are created, consisting of so-called civil society activists. In Ukraine, this was the right-wing organization AutoMaidan, in Venezuela the Guarimberos. And so on. …

Of course, there are differences due to local specifics. In Ukraine, the right-liberal opposition in 2013 was united, and in Venezuela, the opposition is strongly split. In Ukraine, there was no real strong national leader — President Viktor Yanukovych turned out to be a wet rag. In Venezuela, there is a strong leader — Nicolás Maduro.

Therefore, there is a chance that the imperialist forces will break their fangs.

SLL: Activity by neo-Nazi groups in Europe and the U.S. has surged in the years since the Ukrainian coup. How do you view the relationship between what happened in Ukraine and the spread of neo-fascist movements in the West?

AA: The right-wing international has long been a fait accompli. The far right coordinates very well on matters of anti-communism and other political issues.

Today, the ultraright in Ukraine is very deeply integrated into the official security agencies: the police, the Security Services of Ukraine (SBU), the army, the prosecutor’s office. Bandit formations control the illegal arms trade. Moreover, neo-Nazi groups control part of the border between Ukraine and the European Union in the Carpathians.

Therefore, there is a very serious threat, which I always tell our European friends about, that in the event of social upheaval, the neo-Nazis of Ukraine can very quickly arm their associates from Europe with the help of smuggling. It’s really dangerous.

SLL: What are the prospects for an anti-fascist revival in Ukraine and the former Soviet countries?

AA: The prospects are excellent. The main thing is to bring our ideas to the masses and to organize well.

SLL: How can working people and the left in the U.S. aid the struggle of people in Ukraine and Donbass?

AA: We are very grateful to you for your help in our struggle. For us, the dissemination of information about the crimes of the neo-Nazis and about our struggle to an English-speaking audience is invaluable.

Your translations have managed to open the eyes of thousands of people in the U.S. and in Europe. We remember well how you greeted [Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko with the flags of Borotba in the U.S., and how you assisted the relatives of our comrade Andrey Brazhevsky who was killed on May 2. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again, all of you!

In conclusion, I want to say that the world and all of us are on the verge of tremendous changes, and it is very important that we have the opportunity to influence them.

I want to wish you success in your struggle. The stronger you are, the stronger we will be. And vice versa: the stronger we are, the stronger you will be.

Long live proletarian solidarity! Long live a new world without exploitation! Forward to socialism!

 

Part 1: 5 years after Ukraine coup, ‘Building communist organization is first priority’

Caracas, 27 de febrero de 2019.
Asamblea Internacional de los Pueblos.

Manifiesto de Solidaridad con Venezuela

1. Reunidos y reunidas en Caracas, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, entre los días 24 y 27 de
febrero de 2019, representantes de movimientos y organizaciones sociales y políticas de más de 87 países,
de los cinco continentes, reafirmamos nuestra defensa de la soberanía y la autodeterminación de
Venezuela, nos pronunciamos en defensa de la Revolución Bolivariana y del presidente legítimo y
constitucional, Nicolás Maduro.

2. Desde hace dos décadas, la Revolución Bolivariana avanza en un proceso y propuesta de
transformación profunda, basada en una democracia participativa y protagónica, centrada en los intereses
populares, que cuenta con una organización comunal y apunta hacia el socialismo feminista propuesto por
Hugo Chávez. Con esa perspectiva ha producido cambios de horizonte, que involucran incluso la
construcción de un mundo multicéntrico y pluripolar, con cambios sustantivos en las relaciones
neocoloniales que afectan a la región y al Sur. Con una visión redistributiva de las riquezas provenientes de
los recursos abundantes que el país produce, Venezuela ha obtenido resultados inéditos en su historia al
universalizar la educación pública y gratuita, consiguiendo tanto la erradicación del analfabetismo como una
inserción sin precedentes a la educación superior. Similares logros se observan en salud, vivienda y otros
derechos sociales.

3. El imperialismo estadounidense, guardián de los intereses corporativos, financieros, militares y
transnacionales que abriga, está determinado a derrumbar este proceso, para tomar control directo de las
riquezas naturales. Para terminar con la propuesta de soberanía y autodeterminación, Estados Unidos ha
desatado todas las estrategias de guerra híbrida y permanente, ha intentado todas las tácticas posibles:
golpes de Estado, terrorismo, especulación financiera, bloqueo económico, e inflación inducida y otros.

4. Desde 2008 se evidencia una crisis estructural, multidimensional e histórica del capitalismo, en ese
marco Estados Unidos busca sostener su hegemonía mundial por todos los medios, entre ellos el bélico, que
se traduce en agresiones, invasiones y guerras para apoderarse de las riquezas naturales, controlar
mercados, territorios y gobiernos. En esa misma línea, la disputa geoeconómica que ha emprendido con
China y Rusia amenaza con conducir la humanidad hacia una guerra total.

5. Así, para proteger el libre mercado y libertad de las corporaciones para saquear y explotar a
nuestros pueblos, en diversas partes del mundo avanzan con presiones económicas, tales como el bloqueo
contra Venezuela, Cuba e Irán y cometen agresiones bélicas, como sucede en Irak, Afganistán, Libia, Yemen,
República Democrática del Congo; y ocupaciones tales como la de Palestina. También imponen guerras
económicas, psicológicas, culturales, como la que infringen a Venezuela desde hace varios años.
Paradójicamente, es la “defensa de los derechos humanos y de la democracia” que ha servido de muletilla
para camuflar las más graves agresiones colectivas. Pero los pueblos resisten y han logrado frenar estos
intentos de control como ha sucedido en Crimea y Siria.

6. La imposición de las reglas del juego del capitalismo corporativo y globalizado solo puede sostenerse eliminando las posibilidades democráticas y los derechos de la clase trabajadora, diseminando caos, destrucción y muerte. Por eso, rechazamos la escalada de presiones del gobierno de Estados Unidos, tales como la acción militar que, disfrazada de “ayuda humanitaria”, avanza contra la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Esta última es una nueva fase de la guerra para reinstaurar un modelo de subordinación política, que se cristaliza con la pretensión de derrocar al presidente electo Nicolás Maduro.

7. Un nuevo momento de este plan injerencista, se expresa ahora en las presiones externas
impulsadas desde instancias had-oc, tales como el llamado grupo de Lima, que articulados con sectores de la extrema derecha venezolana, pretenden instaurar un autoritario golpe de Estado y desconocer las
instituciones democráticas venezolanas. Constatamos con sorpresa que incluso instancias como la Unión
Europea, sucumben a las presiones de Estados Unidos y, en sentido contrario al derecho internacional y la
democracia, llegan hasta a reconocer a un “presidente” autoproclamado, que no fue elegido por nadie. Esto
se respalda en una ingeniería ideológica y comunicacional basada en la diseminación de noticias falsas y
escenarios ficticios, que se posicionan tanto a través de los medios de comunicación corporativos como por
las redes digitales.

8. Hoy en Venezuela está en disputa la soberanía y la autodeterminación, que son pilares de la
dignidad de los pueblos, que buscan construir un futuro para la humanidad y sociedades más justas e
igualitarias. Por eso, y en solidaridad internacionalista con el pueblo de Venezuela y su gobierno legítimo,
presidido por Nicolás Maduro, manifestamos:

1. El cese del bloqueo económico que: infringe sufrimiento al pueblo, atenta contra el proyecto
económico-productivo y las políticas redistributivas; y que ya le ha costado a Venezuela más de 30 mil
millones de dólares.

2. Defendemos la soberanía, la democracia participativa y protagónica y el derecho de
Venezuela a organizar su proyecto económico y gestionar sus recursos naturales bajo criterios
soberanos.

3. Los pueblos del mundo queremos la paz, no queremos más guerras. América Latina y el
Caribe es una zona de paz, así lo reconoció la CELAC en 2014 y así debe proyectarse hacia el futuro.
Venezuela tiene derecho a resolver cualquier diferencia a través del dialogo y de los múltiples
mecanismos que prevé su propia constitución y en el marco del derecho internacional público.

4. Los pueblos del mundo, representados en la Asamblea Internacional de los Pueblos,
defendemos la Revolución Bolivariana como un proyecto que aporta sentidos éticos y de futuro para la
humanidad.

Llamamos al mundo entero a levantar sus voces para construir la paz y detener la guerra!

https://www.redcolombia.org/2019/03/01/asamblea-internacional-de-los-pueblos-manifiesto-de-solidaridad-con-venezuela/

This is this final manifesto from the gathering held in Caracas late February this year.

The International Peoples Assembly was held in Caracas from the 24 to 27 February this year and it brought togethor over 400 leading activists, politicians, academics, journalists and other leading personalities from across the globe.

The following is the Final Manifesto of the Assembly.

---

1. Assembled together in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, between February 24 and 27, 2019, delegates from more than 90 countries from the five continents, representing social and political organizations and movements reaffirm our defense of the sovereignty and self-determination of Venezuela, we pronounce ourselves in defense of the Bolivarian Revolution and the legitimate and constitutional President, Nicolás Maduro.

2. During the last two decades, the Bolivarian Revolution is moving forward in a process and project of deep transformation, based on participatory and protagonist democracy, focused on peoples interests, which has communal organization and aims the feminist socialism proposed by Hugo Chávez. With this perspective, it has produced changes in the horizon that also involve the construction of a multicenter and multipolar world, with important changes in the neocolonial relations that affect our region and the South. With a vision of redistribution of wealth that comes from the plentiful resources that the country produces, Venezuela has attained unprecedented results in its history with universal access to public and free education, eradicating illiteracy and allowing unprecedented access to higher education. Similar achievements are registered in health, housing and other social rights.

3. US imperialism, guardian of the corporate, financing, military and transnational interests it embraces, is determined to bring the process down in order to take direct control of the natural resources. To give an end to the proposal of sovereignty and self-determination, the United States has unleashed all hybrid and permanent war strategies; it has tried all possible tactics: coups, terrorism, financial speculation, economic blockade, induced inflation, among others.

4. Since 2008, there is a clear structural, multidimensional, and historical crisis of capitalism; in this context, the United States seeks to maintain its world hegemony by all means, including war, which results in aggression, invasions and wars to seize natural wealth, and control the markets, the territories and the governments. In this sense, the geoeconomic dispute with China and Russia threatens to lead humanity towards a total war.

5. Thus, in order to protect free market and the freedom of corporations to plunder and exploit our peoples, in various parts of the world, they are moving forward with economic pressures, such as the blockade against Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, and war aggressions, as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and land occupations such as Palestine. They also impose economic, psychological, and cultural wars, such as the one that has been violating Venezuela for several years. Paradoxically, it is the “defense of human rights and democracy” that has served as a crutch to camouflage the most serious collective aggressions. But the peoples resist and have managed to stop these attempts of control as it was the situation in Crimea and Syria.

6. The imposition of the rules of the game of corporate and globalized capitalism can only be sustained by eliminating democratic possibilities and rights of the working class, spreading chaos, destruction and death. Therefore, we reject the escalation of pressure from the United States government, such as the military action that, disguised as “humanitarian aid”, advances against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This is a new phase of the war that seeks to reinstate a model of political subordination, which can be seen in the aim of overthrowing the elected president Nicolás Maduro.

7. A new moment of this interventionist plan is now expressed in the external pressures promoted by ad hoc bodies, such as the so-called Lima group, which, coordinated with sectors of the Venezuelan far right, seeks to establishing an authoritarian coup d’état ignoring Venezuelan democratic institutions. We note with surprise that even institutions, such as the European Union, succumb to US pressures and, contrary to international law and democracy, proceed to recognize a self-proclaimed “president”, who no one has elected. This is supported by an ideological and communicational engineering based on the dissemination of fake news and fictitious scenarios, which are positioned both through corporate media and digital networks.

8. Today, in Venezuela, sovereignty and self-determination are at issue, these are pillars of the dignity of the peoples that seek to build a future for humanity and fairer and more egalitarian societies. For this reason, and in internationalist solidarity with the people of Venezuela and their legitimate government chaired by Nicolás Maduro, we proclaim:

• 1. To stop the economic blockade that leads to the suffering of the people, threatens the economic and productive project and the redistributive policies, and which has already cost Venezuela more than 30 million dollars.
• 2. To defend sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy and the Venezuelan right to organize its economic project and manage its natural resources with based on sovereign criteria.
• 3. The peoples of the world want peace; we do not want another war. Latin America and the Caribbean are peaceful territories, as it has been declared by CELAC in 2014, and as it needs to be projected into the future. Venezuela has the right to solve any difference through dialog and the multiple mechanisms provided by its own constitution and within the framework of the public international law.
• 4. The peoples of the world, represented by the International Peoples’ Assembly, defend the Bolivarian Revolution as a project that provides a sense of ethics and future for humanity. We call the entire world to raise its voice to build on peace and stop the war.

Caracas, February 27, 2019

International Peoples Assembly

From: https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14364