Author: Gerald Mcisaac

On January 30, 1939, the Chancellor of Germany made a speech to the German Reichstag. The name of that Chancellor was Adolf Hitler. The speech he gave was historic. I have chosen to copy the key part here:

‘’If international financial Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus victory of Judaism, but annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’’

Allow me to stress the fact that Hitler first announced, to the Reichstag and the world, that he planned to commit an act of genocide! Then he did precisely that. Six years later, the whole world was shocked to find out that Hitler meant what he said!

Now, on September 22, 2026, President Donald Trump appeared at the United Nations, and made a speech, to the General Assembly. It is reminiscent of the speech given by Adolf Hitler, in which he threatened to commit an act of genocide. I have chosen to copy the pertinent parts here:

Trump: ‘’I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran, that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world. Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them the chance to kill and destroy people and countries again. Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope?’’

Donald Trump has just threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran, with ‘’annihilation’’! An act of genocide! Trump is not joking! Trump is every bit the psychopath, as was Adolf Hitler! He also plans to ‘’do it quickly’’, which means that he plans to use nuclear weapons! This will almost certainly result in a Third World War!

In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, it should be mentioned that some of the most highly respected, of the bourgeois journalists, recognize the danger presented by Trump and his class of multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, commonly referred to as the Oligarchy. Yet their concern is not that Trump may commit an act of genocide, as the head of the United States, or even that he may provoke a Third World War! On the contrary, they are worried that the working people may rise up in revolution!

In fact, Colonel MacGregor pointed out this danger. In his video, titled ‘’Is Trump Facing a New 1848 in America’’, I have chosen to transcribe the key parts here.

‘’We are on the verge of unrest on the scale of the 1848 revolutions. The difference is that the regimes that were challenged in 1848, were still strong, and they were still viewed as legitimate. Increasingly, people in Europe and here in the United States, no longer view the institutions of national governance, as legitimate. How many times do you hear an American say, ‘It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you get the same outcome.’ Over and over. That is a very dangerous observation. Now, take away food, take away fuel, take away jobs, and what do you get?….That is what you call a recipe for revolution. The potential here for unrest, given the things I sited to you in the economy, where things are headed, is very serious….. We have not yet felt the effects on what’s been happening in the Persian Gulf, on the scale that we will. In other words, there is a lag time between what happens now, and the real effects in several months….’’

It is clear that MacGregor is one of the more intelligent of the bourgeois scholars, as he recognizes a revolutionary situation, when he sees one. And the current situation in America is absolutely revolutionary. Yet he makes no comparison to the American Revolutionary War of 1776, or of the Civil War of 1861. In the Revolutionary War, the ruling class of British nobility was thrown out, and in the Civil War, the completely reactionary class of slave owners was crushed.

Instead, MacGregor delved into the European Revolution of 1848, as well as the fact that, at the end of the First World War, a number of European families of the nobility, were ruined. Apparently, he is ‘’pining’’ for the ‘’good old days’’, when the power of the nobility was almost absolute. As the American bourgeoisie, the Oligarchy, has been referred to as the ‘’new nobility’’, and as they are determined to set themselves up as such, this does make sense.

I mention this as merely one example of the ‘’muddled thinking’’, of one of the more intelligent members of the bourgeois intellectuals. As Lenin stated, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, this is an indication that they ‘’cannot help committing irreparable blunders. That, in fact, is what will bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie. Our people, however, may commit blunders (provided, of course, that they are not too serious and are rectified in time) and yet, in the long run, will be the victors.’’ 

It may be argued that Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, and a potential candidate of the Democrats, for the office of president, is far more intelligent. That could well be. Yet he appeared at the World Economic Forum, of the United Nations, during a ‘’special climate session’’. By chance, he appeared the day after Trump threatened genocide. The speech Newsom gave is quite revealing:

‘’You heard that speech from my president yesterday. He all but called for genocide of 93 million people. Nothing normal about that. Nothing normal about this moment.’’

To say that ‘’calling for genocide’’ is ‘’not normal’’, is an understatement. Especially as Trump is speaking as the President of the United States! It stands to reason that genocide is now the official policy of America! As Gavin Newsom is an American citizen, as well as the Governor of California, he was absolutely correct in departing from his prepared remarks, concerning climate change, and instead, addressing the far more important topic of American sponsored genocide! Yet to refer to this as ‘’not normal’’, is to gloss over the fact that genocide is nothing less than a crime against humanity, possibly a war crime!  To even threaten such an action, that of genocide, is also a crime! Further, it is correct to bring this to the attention of the United Nations, and demand that they take the appropriate action. Yet Newsom did none of this. Instead, he quickly changed the subject. 

Newsom: ‘’I’m proud to represent, yes, the fourth largest economy in the world, a state larger than 21 state populations combined….We’re also the most unTrump state, in the United States of America. …There is probably nothing more important than, on this topic, that you will hear today, than the imperative of ending Trump’s presidency, as we know it. And that, my friends, will happen this November, when the Democratic Party takes back the House of Representatives, and we finally reinstall what our founding fathers lived and died for, and that’s a system of checks and balances, in the spirit of the mayor of Boston’s remarks.’’

So ending the presidency of Trump is more important than the American policy of genocide? Since when does the United Nations concern itself with the internal affairs of a particular nation? It does not. The individual who occupies the office of the President of the United States, does not concern the United Nations, just as the midterm elections do not concern them. So why raise the subject?

Newsom: ‘’But my remarks are not just in the context of the invasive species, Donald Trump, but in the context of the work that we continue to do, despite the headwinds. The people that have their heads in the sand, soaked by oil. This in not complicated. The challenge is self evident. And some of us are as dumb as we want to be, subsidizing and doubling down on stupid. Subsidizing the very problem we’re trying to fix. It’s not complicated. It’s from burning coal, and gas and oil. And of course that’s what we’re doubling down in the United States, but not in the state of California…..’’

Did Newsom just refer to Donald Trump as an ‘’invasive species’’? That is not clear. We have to wonder why Newsom would start his speech with a reference to the official policy of genocide, on the part of America, and quickly switch to various subjects, from local elections to ‘’singing the praises’’ of ‘’entrepreneurial society’’, by which he of course means capitalism.

If Newsom was at all concerned that the official policy of the United States was that of genocide, he should have reminded the members of the United Nations that, not only is genocide illegal, a crime against humanity, but also the threat of genocide is also illegal. Is it too much to expect the members of the United Nations to perform their duty? To charge Trump with that crime?

Regardless, it is clear that the ruling class of multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, commonly referred to as the Oligarchy, is deeply divided, squabbling among themselves. This is of the utmost significance, as it satisfies one of the requirements for a successful revolution. Lenin covered this supremely well in his article, Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder:

‘’The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place, it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place, it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the ‘lower classes’ do not want to live in the old way, and the ‘upper classes’ cannot carry on in the old way, that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation wide crisis (affecting both the exploiters and the exploited). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, and politically active workers), should fully realize that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses- hitherto apathetic- who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is clear to the more astute, of the bourgeois scholars, that the ‘’common people’’, the workers and farmers, as well as the lower strata of the middle class, are completely ‘’fed up’’, demanding change. Even those simple souls are using the word ‘’revolution’’, although with the utmost reluctance and bitterness.

That begs the question: What can we expect? The answer is given in the Communist Manifesto:

‘’Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole .’’

May I suggest that the current class struggle has indeed reached the ‘’decisive hour’’. The ‘’process of dissolution’’, which is going on within the ruling class of bourgeoisie, the Oligarchy, has indeed reached a ‘’violent, glaring character’’. As President Trump is now openly calling for genocide, in the name of the United States, it cannot possibly become more glaring!

So now we can expect a ‘’portion of the bourgeoisie’’, the portion that is capable of ‘’raising themselves’’, to the level of ‘’comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole’’, to ‘’join the revolutionary class’’, the ‘’class that holds the future in its hands’’. That class is of course the proletariat. 

Incidentally, middle class intellectuals have every reason for joining the proletariat. First and foremost, the multi billionaires, those who are worth tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars, have recently ‘’laid down the law’’. They have ‘’decreed’’ that merely five businesses are ‘’Too Big To Fail’’. But as every coin has two sides, the flip side of that coin is that all other businesses are ‘’Too Small To Succeed’’. 

It stands to reason that all members of the upper middle class, including those who had ‘’visions of joining the bourgeoisie’’, ‘’dancing in their heads’’, are about to receive a rude awakening. Not about to happen! The ‘’books are closed’’! All other businesses are about to face bankruptcy!

By way of contrast, such people have a bright, shining future, under a state of Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. After all, the managerial and organizational skills those people have, will be in great demand, after the revolution. They will be highly respected, and paid accordingly.

In the mean time, they can assist in creating a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I can suggest that it also be an International Communist Party, but that remains to be seen. Separate independent republics may prefer to create their own Party.

The reason I say this, is because working people are no different from anyone else, in the sense that they need leaders. Equally without doubt, the working class gets into motion. In previous articles, I have compared this motion, to that of a motor vehicle. If the driver is lost, the vehicle invariably ends up going around in circles. It is only when the driver follows the roadmap, that the vehicle can reach the proper destination, that of Scientific Socialism. The Communist Party can be thought of as providing that roadmap.

I have also compared the class struggle to that of two boxers, one of whom is blindfolded. Naturally, the boxer who can see quite well, is able to land one crashing blow after another. By contrast, the boxer who is blindfolded, swinging wildly in all directions, lands the occasional blow, but more by chance that skill. In this childish comparison, the two boxers represent the two classes, the bourgeois and the proletariat. The proletariat is blindfolded, while the bourgeois is not. It is up to the Communist Party to ‘’remove the blindfold’’ from the proletariat. This is accomplished by raising the level of awareness, of the proletariat, making the workers aware of themselves, as a class, in opposition to the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie. Even the least advanced workers are capable of understanding these comparisons. 

No doubt, very soon, middle class intellectuals will come together with the most advanced members of the working class, and take part in the creation of a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party.

As previously mentioned, the American workers have a history of revolution, of which they have every right to be proud. What is more, they are about to build upon that revolutionary tradition. Lenin made this quite clear, on August 20, 1918, in his Letter To American Workers. That letter is just as relevant today, as when it was first written:

‘’Comrades! A Russian Bolshevik who took part in the 1905 Revolution, and who lived in your country for many years afterwards, has offered to convey my letter to you. I have accepted his proposal all the more gladly because just at the present time, the American revolutionary workers have to play an exceptionally important role as uncompromising enemies of American imperialism—the freshest, strongest and latest in joining in the world-wide slaughter of nations for the division of capitalist profits. At this very moment, the American multimillionaires, these modern slaveowners have turned an exceptionally tragic page in the bloody history of bloody imperialism by giving their approval—whether direct or indirect, open or hypocritically concealed, makes no difference—to the armed expedition launched by the brutal Anglo-Japanese imperialists for the purpose of throttling the first socialist republic.

‘’The history of modern, civilized America opened with one of those great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been so few compared to the vast number of wars of conquest which, like the present imperialist war, were caused by squabbles among kings, landowners or capitalists over the division of usurped lands or ill-gotten gains. That was the war the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed America and held her in colonial slavery, in the same way as these “civilized” bloodsuckers are still oppressing and holding in colonial slavery hundreds of millions of people in India, Egypt, and all parts of the world.

‘’About 150 years have passed since then. Bourgeois civilization has borne all its luxurious fruits. America has taken first place among the free and educated nations in level of development of the productive forces of collective human endeavour, in the utilization of machinery and of all the wonders of modern engineering. At the same time, America has become one of the foremost countries in regard to the depth of the abyss which lies between the handful of arrogant multimillionaires who wallow in filth and luxury, and the millions of working people who constantly live on the verge of pauperism. The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires, and find themselves playing the role of hired thugs who, for the benefit of wealthy scoundrels, throttled the Philippines in 1898 on the pretext of “liberating” them, and are throttling the Russian Socialist Republic in 1918 on the pretext of ‘protecting’ it from the Germans.

‘’The four years of the imperialist slaughter of nations, however, have not passed in vain. The deception of the people by the scoundrels of both robber groups, the British and the German, has been utterly exposed by indisputable and obvious facts. The results of the four years of war have revealed the general law of capitalism as applied to war between robbers for the division of spoils: the richest and strongest profited and grabbed most, while the weakest were utterly robbed, tormented, crushed and strangled.

‘’The British imperialist robbers were the strongest in number of ‘colonial slaves’. The British capitalists have not lost an inch of ‘their’ territory (i.e., territory they have grabbed over the centuries), but they have grabbed all the German colonies in Africa, they have grabbed Mesopotamia and Palestine, they have throttled Greece, and have begun to plunder Russia.

‘’The German imperialist robbers were the strongest in organization and discipline of ‘their’ armies, but weaker in regard to colonies. They have lost all their colonies, but plundered half of Europe and throttled the largest number of small countries and weak nations. What a great war of ‘liberation’ on both sides! How well the robbers of both groups, the Anglo-French and the German capitalists, together with their lackeys, the social-chauvinists, i.e., the socialists who went over to the side of ‘their own’ bourgeoisie, have ‘defended their country’!

‘’The American multimillionaires were, perhaps, richest of all, and geographically the most secure. They have profited more than all the rest. They have converted all, even the richest, countries into their tributaries. They have grabbed hundreds of billions of dollars. And every dollar is sullied with filth: the filth of the secret treaties between Britain and her ‘allies’, between Germany and her vassals, treaties for the division of the spoils, treaties of mutual ‘aid’ for oppressing the workers and persecuting the internationalist socialists. Every dollar is sullied with the filth of ‘profitable’ war contracts, which in every country made the rich richer and the poor poorer. And every dollar is stained with blood—from that ocean of blood that has been shed by the ten million killed and twenty million maimed in the great, noble, liberating and holy war to decide whether the British or the German robbers are to get most of the spoils, whether the British or the German thugs are to be foremost in throttling the weak nations all over the world.

‘’While the German robbers broke all records in war atrocities, the British have broken all records not only in the number of colonies they have grabbed, but also in the subtlety of their disgusting hypocrisy. This very day, the Anglo-French and American bourgeois newspapers are spreading, in millions and millions of copies, lies and slander about Russia, and are hypocritically justifying their predatory expedition against her on the plea that they want to ‘protect’ Russia from the Germans!

‘’It does not require many words to refute this despicable and hideous lie; it is sufficient to point to one well-known fact. In October 1917, after the Russian workers had overthrown their imperialist government, the Soviet government, the government of the revolutionary workers and peasants, openly proposed a just peace, a peace without annexations or indemnities, a peace that fully guaranteed equal rights to all nations—and it proposed such a peace to all the belligerent countries.

‘’It was the Anglo-French and the American bourgeoisie who refused to accept our proposal; it was they who even refused to talk to us about a general peace! It was they who betrayed the interests of all nations; it was they who prolonged the imperialist slaughter!

‘’It was they who, banking on the possibility of dragging Russia back into the imperialist war, refused to take part in the peace negotiations and thereby gave a free hand to the no less predatory German capitalists who imposed the annexationist and harsh Brest Peace upon Russia!

‘’It is difficult to imagine anything more disgusting than the hypocrisy with which the Anglo-French and American bourgeoisie are now ‘blaming’ us for the Brest Peace Treaty. The very capitalists of those countries which could have turned the Brest negotiations into general negotiations for a general peace are now our ‘accusers’! The Anglo-French imperialist vultures, who have profited from the plunder of colonies and the slaughter of nations, have prolonged the war for nearly a whole year after Brest, and yet they ‘accuse’ us, the Bolsheviks, who proposed a just peace to all countries, they accuse us, who tore up, published and exposed to public disgrace the secret, criminal treaties concluded between the ex-tsar and the Anglo-French capitalists.

‘’The workers of the whole world, no matter in what country they live, greet us, sympathize with us, applaud us for breaking the iron ring of imperialist ties, of sordid imperialist treaties, of imperialist chains—for breaking through to freedom, and making the heaviest sacrifices in doing so—for, as a socialist republic, although torn and plundered by the imperialists, keeping out of the imperialist war and raising the banner of peace, the banner of socialism for the whole world to see.

‘’Small wonder that the international imperialist gang hates us for this, that it ‘accuses’ us, that all the lackeys of the imperialists, including our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, also ‘accuse’ us. The hatred these watchdogs of imperialism express for the Bolsheviks, and the sympathy of the class-conscious workers of the world, convince us more than ever of the justice of our cause.

‘’A real socialist would not fail to understand that for the sake of achieving victory over the bourgeoisie, for the sake of power passing to the workers, for the sake of starting the world proletarian revolution, we cannot and must not hesitate to make the heaviest sacrifices, including the sacrifice of part of our territory, the sacrifice of heavy defeats at the hands of imperialism. A real socialist would have proved by deeds his willingness for ‘his’ country to make the greatest sacrifice to give a real push forward to the cause of the socialist revolution.

‘’For the sake of ‘their’ cause, that is, for the sake of winning world hegemony, the imperialists of Britain and Germany have not hesitated to utterly ruin and throttle a whole number of countries, from Belgium and Serbia to Palestine and Mesopotamia. But must socialists wait with ‘their’ cause, the cause of liberating the working people of the whole world from the yoke of capital, of winning universal and lasting peace, until a path without sacrifice is found? Must they fear to open the battle until an easy victory is ‘guaranteed’? Must they place the integrity and security of ‘their’ bourgeois-created ‘fatherland’ above the interests of the world socialist revolution? The scoundrels in the international socialist movement who think this way, those lackeys who grovel to bourgeois morality, thrice stand condemned.

‘’The Anglo-French and American imperialist vultures ‘accuse’ us of concluding an ‘agreement’ with German imperialism. What hypocrites, what scoundrels they are to slander the workers’ government while trembling because of the sympathy displayed towards us by the workers of ‘their own’ countries! But their hypocrisy will be exposed. They pretend not to see the difference between an agreement entered into by ‘socialists’ with the bourgeoisie (their own or foreign) against the workers, against the working people, and an agreement entered into for the protection of the workers who have defeated their bourgeoisie, with the bourgeoisie of one national colour against the bourgeoisie of another colour in order that the proletariat may take advantage of the antagonisms between the different groups of bourgeoisie.

‘’In actual fact, every European sees this difference very well, and, as I shall show in a moment, the American people have had a particularly striking ‘illustration’ of it in their own history. There are agreements and agreements, there are fagots et fagots, as the French say.

‘’When in February 1918 the German imperialist vultures hurled their forces against unarmed, demobilized Russia, who had relied on the international solidarity of the proletariat before the world revolution had fully matured, I did not hesitate for a moment to enter into an “agreement” with the French monarchists. Captain Sadoul, a French army officer who, in words, sympathized with the Bolsheviks, but was in deeds a loyal and faithful servant of French imperialism, brought the French officer de Lubersac to see me. “I am a monarchist. My only aim is to secure the defeat of Germany,” de Lubersac declared to me. “That goes without saying (cela va sans dire ),” I replied. But this did not in the least prevent me from entering into an ‘agreement’ with de Lubersac concerning certain services that French army officers, experts in explosives, were ready to render us by blowing up railway lines in order to hinder the German invasion. This is an example of an ‘agreement’ of which every class-conscious worker will approve, an agreement in the interests of socialism. The French monarchist and I shook hands, although we knew that each of us would willingly hang his ‘partner’. But for a time our interests coincided. Against the advancing rapacious Germans, we, in the interests of the Russian and the world socialist revolution, utilized the equally rapacious counter-interests of other imperialists. In this way we served the interests of the working class of Russia and of other countries, we strengthened the proletariat and weakened the bourgeoisie of the whole world, we resorted to the methods, most legitimate and essential in every war, of manoeuvre, stratagem, retreat, in anticipation of the moment when the rapidly maturing proletarian revolution in a number of advanced countries completely matured.

‘’However much the Anglo-French and American imperialist sharks fume with rage, however much they slander us, no matter how many millions they spend on bribing the Right Socialist-Revolutionary, Menshevik and other social-patriotic newspapers, I shall not hesitate one second to enter into a similar ‘agreement’ with the German imperialist vultures if an attack upon Russia by Anglo-French troops calls for it. And I know perfectly well that my tactics will be approved by the class-conscious proletariat of Russia, Germany, France, Britain, America—in short, of the whole civilized world. Such tactics will ease the task of the socialist revolution, will hasten it, will weaken the international bourgeoisie, will strengthen the position of the working class which is defeating the bourgeoisie.

‘’The American people resorted to these tactics long ago to the advantage of their revolution. When they waged their great war of liberation against the British oppressors, they had also against them the French and the Spanish oppressors who owned a part of what is now the United States of North America. In their arduous war for freedom, the American people also entered into ‘agreements’ with some oppressors against others for the purpose of weakening the oppressors and strengthening those who were fighting in a revolutionary manner against oppression, for the purpose of serving the interests of the oppressed people. The American people took advantage of the strife between the French, the Spanish and the British; sometimes they even fought side by side with the forces of the French and Spanish oppressors against the British oppressors; first they defeated the British and then freed themselves (partly by ransom) from the French and the Spanish.

‘’Historical action is not the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt, said the great Russian revolutionary Chernyshevsky. A revolutionary would not agree to a proletarian revolution only ‘on the condition’ that it proceeds easily and smoothly, that there is, from the outset, combined action on the part of the proletarians of different countries, that there are guarantees against defeats, that the road of the revolution is broad, free and straight, that it will not be necessary during the march to victory to sustain the heaviest casualties, to ‘bide one’s time in a besieged fortress’, or to make one’s way along extremely narrow, impassable, winding and dangerous mountain tracks. Such a person is no revolutionary, he has not freed himself from the pedantry of the bourgeois intellectuals; such a person will be found constantly slipping into the camp of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, like our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and even (although more rarely) Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.

‘’Echoing the bourgeoisie, these gentlemen like to blame us for the ‘chaos’ of the revolution, for the ‘destruction’ of industry, for the unemployment and the food shortage. How hypocritical these accusations are, coming from those who welcomed and supported the imperialist war, or who entered into an ‘agreement’ with Kerensky who continued this war! It is this imperialist war that is the cause of all these misfortunes. The revolution engendered by the war can not avoid the terrible difficulties and suffering bequeathed it by the prolonged, ruinous, reactionary slaughter of the nations. To blame us for the ‘destruction’ of industry, or for the ‘terror’, is either hypocrisy or dull-witted pedantry; it reveals an inability to understand the basic conditions of the fierce class struggle, raised to the highest degree of intensity that is called revolution.

‘’Even when ‘accusers’ of this type do ‘recognize’ the class struggle, they limit themselves to verbal recognition; actually, they constantly slip into the philistine utopia of class ‘agreement’ and ‘collaboration’; for in revolutionary epochs the class struggle has always, inevitably, and in every country, assumed the form of civil war, and civil war is inconceivable without the severest destruction, terror and the restriction of formal democracy in the interests of this war. Only unctuous parsons—whether Christian or ‘secular’ in the persons of parlour, parliamentary socialists— cannot see, understand and feel this necessity. Only a life less ‘man in the muffler’ can shun the revolution for this reason instead of plunging into battle with the utmost ardour and determination at a time when history demands that the greatest problems of humanity be solved by struggle and war.

‘’The American people have a revolutionary tradition which has been adopted by the best representatives of the American proletariat, who have repeatedly expressed their complete solidarity with us Bolsheviks. That tradition is the war of liberation against the British in the eighteenth century and the Civil War in the nineteenth century. In some respects, if we only take into consideration the ‘destruction’ of some branches of industry and of the national economy, America in 1870 was behind 1860. But what a pedant, what an idiot would anyone be to deny on these grounds the immense, world-historic, progressive and revolutionary significance of the American Civil War of 1863-65!

‘’The representatives of the bourgeoisie understand that for the sake of overthrowing Negro slavery, of overthrowing the rule of the slaveowners, it was worth letting the country go through long years of civil war, through the abysmal ruin, destruction and terror that accompany every war. But now, when we are confronted with the vastly greater task of overthrowing capitalist wage-slavery, of overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie—now, the representatives and defenders of the bourgeoisie, and also the reformist socialists who have been frightened by the bourgeoisie and are shunning the revolution, cannot and do not want to understand that civil war is necessary and legitimate.

‘’The American workers will not follow the bourgeoisie. They will be with us, for civil war against the bourgeoisie. The whole history of the world and of the American labour movement strengthens my conviction that this is so. I also recall the words of one of the most beloved leaders of the American proletariat, Eugene Debs, who wrote in the Appeal to Reason, I believe towards the end of 1915, in the article “What Shall I Fight For” (I quoted this article at the beginning of 1916 at a public meeting of workers in Berne, Switzerland)—that he, Debs, would rather be shot than vote credits for the present criminal and reactionary war; that he, Debs, knows of only one holy and, from the proletarian standpoint, legitimate war, namely: the war against the capitalists, the war to liberate mankind from wage-slavery.

‘’I am not surprised that Wilson, the head of the American multimillionaires and servant of the capitalist sharks, has thrown Debs into prison. Let the bourgeoisie be brutal to the true internationalists, to the true representatives of the revolutionary proletariat! The more fierce and brutal they are, the nearer the day of the victorious proletarian revolution.

‘’We are blamed for the destruction caused by our revolution. . . . Who are the accusers? The hangers-on of the bourgeoisie, of that very bourgeoisie who, during the four years of the imperialist war, have destroyed almost the whole of European culture and have reduced Europe to barbarism, brutality and starvation. These bourgeoisie now demand we should not make a revolution on these ruins, amidst this wreckage of culture, amidst the wreckage and ruins created by the war, nor with the people who have been brutalized by the war. How humane and righteous the bourgeoisie are!

‘’Their servants accuse us of resorting to terror. . . . The British bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1649, the French bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1793. Terror was just and legitimate when the bourgeoisie resorted to it for their own benefit against feudalism. Terror became monstrous and criminal when the workers and poor peasants dared to use it against the bourgeoisie! Terror was just and legitimate when used for the purpose of substituting one exploiting minority for another exploiting minority. Terror became monstrous and criminal when it began to be used for the purpose of overthrowing every exploiting minority, to be used in the interests of the vast actual majority, in the interests of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, the working class and the poor peasants!

‘’The international imperialist bourgeoisie have slaughtered ten million men and maimed twenty million in ‘their’ war, the war to decide whether the British or the German vultures are to rule the world.

‘’If our war, the war of the oppressed and exploited against the oppressors and the exploiters, results in half a million or a million casualties in all countries, the bourgeoisie will say that the former casualties are justified, while the latter are criminal.

‘’The proletariat will have something entirely different to say.

‘’Now, amidst the horrors of the imperialist war, the proletariat is receiving a most vivid and striking illustration of the great truth taught by all revolutions and bequeathed to the workers by their best teachers, the founders of modern socialism. This truth is that no revolution can be successful unless the resistance of the exploiters is crushed. When we, the workers and toiling peasants, captured state power, it became our duty to crush the resistance of the exploiters. We are proud we have been doing this. We regret we are not doing it with sufficient firmness and determination.

‘’We know that fierce resistance to the socialist revolution on the part of the bourgeoisie is inevitable in all countries, and that this resistance will grow with the growth of this revolution. The proletariat will crush this resistance; during the struggle against the resisting bourgeoisie it will finally mature for victory and for power.

‘’Let the corrupt bourgeois press shout to the whole world about every mistake our revolution makes. We are not daunted by our mistakes. People have not become saints because the revolution has begun. The toiling classes who for centuries have been oppressed, downtrodden and forcibly held in the vice of poverty, brutality and ignorance cannot avoid mistakes when making a revolution. And, as I pointed out once before, the corpse of bourgeois society cannot be nailed in a coffin and buried. The corpse of capitalism is decaying and disintegrating in our midst, polluting the air and poisoning our lives, enmeshing that which is new, fresh, young and virile in thousands of threads and bonds of that which is old, moribund and decaying.

‘’For every hundred mistakes we commit, and which the bourgeoisie and their lackeys (including our own Mensheviks and Right Socialist-Revolutionaries) shout about to the whole world, 10,000 great and heroic deeds are performed, greater and more heroic because they are simple and inconspicuous amidst the everyday life of a factory district or a remote village, performed by people who are not accustomed (and have no opportunity) to shout to the whole world about their successes.

‘’But even if the contrary were true—although I know such an assumption is wrong—even if we committed 10,000 mistake for every 100 correct actions we performed, even in that case our revolution would be great and invincible, and so it will be in the eyes of world history, because, for the first time, not the minority, not the rich alone, not the educated alone, but the real people, the vast majority of the working people, are themselves building a new life, are by their own experience solving the most difficult problems of socialist organization .

‘’Every mistake committed in the course of such work, in the course of this most conscientious and earnest work of tens of millions of simple workers and peasants in reorganizing their whole life, every such mistake is worth thousands and millions of ‘lawless’ successes achieved by the exploiting minority—successes in swindling and duping the working people. For only through such mistakes will the workers and peasants learn to build the new life, learn to do without capitalists; only in this way will they hack a path for themselves—through thousands of obstacles—to victorious socialism.

‘’Mistakes are being committed in the course of their revolutionary work by our peasants, who at one stroke, in one night, October 25-26 (old style), 1917, entirely abolished the private ownership of land, and are now, month after month, overcoming tremendous difficulties and correcting their mistakes themselves, solving in a practical way the most difficult tasks of organizing new conditions of economic life, of fighting the kulaks, providing land for the working people (and not for the rich), and of changing to communist large-scale agriculture.

‘’Mistakes are being committed in the course of their revolutionary work by our workers, who have already, after a few months, nationalized almost all the biggest factories and plants, and are learning by hard, everyday work the new task of managing whole branches of industry, are setting the nationalized enterprises going, overcoming the powerful resistance of inertia, petty-bourgeois mentality and selfishness, and, brick by brick, are laying the foundation of new social ties, of a new labour discipline, of a new influence of the workers’ trade unions over their members.

‘’Mistakes are committed in the course of their revolutionary work by our Soviets, which were created as far back as 1905 by a mighty upsurge of the people. The Soviets of Workers and Peasants are a new type of state, a new and higher type of democracy, a form of the proletarian dictatorship, a means of administering the state without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. For the first time democracy is here serving the people, the working people, and has ceased to be democracy for the rich as it still is in all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic. For the first time, the people are grappling, on a scale involving one hundred million, with the problem of implementing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and semi-proletariat—a problem which, if not solved, makes socialism out of the question.

‘’Let the pedants, or the people whose minds are incurably stuffed with bourgeois-democratic or parliamentary prejudices, shake their heads in perplexity about our Soviets, about the absence of direct elections, for example. These people have forgotten nothing and have learned nothing during the period of the great upheavals of 1914-18. The combination of the proletarian dictatorship with the new democracy for the working people—of civil war with the widest participation of the people in politics—such a combination cannot be brought about at one stroke, nor does it fit in with the outworn modes of routine parliamentary democracy. The contours of a new world, the world of socialism, are rising before us in the shape of the Soviet Republic. It is not surprising that this world does not come into being ready-made, does not spring forth like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.

‘’The old bourgeois-democratic constitutions waxed eloquent about formal equality and right of assembly; but our proletarian and peasant Soviet Constitution casts aside the hypocrisy of formal equality. When the bourgeois republicans overturned thrones they did not worry about formal equality between monarchists and republicans. When it is a matter of overthrowing the bourgeoisie, only traitors or idiots can demand formal equality of rights for the bourgeoisie. ‘Freedom of assembly’ for workers and peasants is not worth a farthing when the best buildings belong to the bourgeoisie. Our Soviets have confiscated all the good buildings in town and country from the rich and have transferred all of them to the workers and peasants for their unions and meetings. This is our freedom of assembly—for the working people! This is the meaning and content of our Soviet, our socialist Constitution!

‘’That is why we are all so firmly convinced that no matter what misfortunes may still be in store for it, our Republic of Soviets is invincible.

 ‘’It is invincible because every blow struck by frenzied imperialism, every defeat the international bourgeoisie inflict on us, rouses more and more sections of the workers and peasants to the struggle, teaches them at the cost of enormous sacrifice, steels them and engenders new heroism on a mass scale. 

‘’We know that help from you will probably not come soon, comrade American workers, for the revolution is developing in different countries in different forms and at different tempos (and it cannot be otherwise). We know that although the European proletarian revolution has been maturing very rapidly lately, it may, after all, not flare up within the next few weeks. We are banking on the inevitability of the world revolution, but this does not mean that we are such fools as to bank on the revolution inevitably coming on a definite and early date. We have seen two great revolutions in our country, 1905 and 1917, and we know revolutions are not made to order, or by agreement. We know that circumstances brought our Russian detachment of the socialist proletariat to the fore not because of our merits, but because of the exceptional backwardness of Russia, and that before the world revolution breaks out a number of separate revolutions may be defeated.

‘’In spite of this, we are firmly convinced that we are invincible, because the spirit of mankind will not be broken by the imperialist slaughter. Mankind will vanquish it. And the first country to break the convict chains of the imperialist war was our country. We sustained enormously heavy casualties in the struggle to break these chains, but we broke them. We are free from imperialist dependence, we have raised the banner of struggle for the complete overthrow of imperialism for the whole world to see.

‘’We are now, as it were, in a besieged fortress, waiting for the other detachments of the world socialist revolution to come to our relief. These detachments exist, they are more numerous than ours, they are maturing, growing, gaining more strength the longer the brutalities of imperialism continue. The workers are breaking away from their social traitors—the Gomperses, Hendersons, Renaudels, Scheidemanns and Renners. Slowly but surely the workers are adopting communist, Bolshevik tactics and are marching towards the proletarian revolution, which alone is capable of saving dying culture and dying mankind.

‘’In short, we are invincible, because the world proletarian revolution is invincible.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Invincible! Allow me to stress the fact that the ‘’world proletarian revolution is invincible’’! It has not happened before now, partly because the working class has been deprived of its leaders, some of them murdered, others ‘’bought off’’’, and partly because certain otherwise fine scientific socialist leaders made some rather serious mistakes. Now it is our duty to learn from the mistakes of those revolutionaries, so as not to repeat those mistakes, and to follow the correct scientific socialist theories of Marx and Lenin. We will know that we are succeeding in this noble endeavour, when the posters and signs read:

Workers of the World, Unite!

Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Soviet Power!

Peace! Democracy! Scientific Socialism!

As I write this, it is now late September, several weeks before the 2026 Midterm Elections of November. Just when everyone thought that President Trump could not sink to any greater depth of depravity, he has managed to ‘’rise to the occasion’’, so to speak. His latest post is an absolute ‘’jewel’’, a ‘’gem’’ of stupidity, a ‘’masterpiece’’ of ignorance and incompetence. To think that a Head of State, the President of one of the most highly industrialized countries of the world, would deliberately write such blithering nonsense, is stranger that fiction. And to think that when he wrote this, he was very likely not ‘’pissed to the gills’’ drunk, or even ‘’wired’’ on cocaine!

Trump writes: ‘’If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic, tremendous economic success, like in, in history, we’ve never had anything like what’s happening, but because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000. Very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders, or like last year when I gave our great members of the military $1,776. Remember?’’

There is a ‘’vicious rumour’’ going around, a ‘’whisper campaign’’, if you will, to the effect that the individual who wrote this, the President of the United States, no less, has a university degree! Believe it or not, according to the internet, Donald Trump has received a degree from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, apparently with a Bachelor of Science in Economics. Yet this in no way changes the fact that he appears to have the vocabulary of a fifth grader! Clearly, money ‘’may not buy happiness’’, but it can certainly buy a university degree!

Be that as it may, since you ask, as luck would have it, Mr. President, we do remember. That ‘’cash distribution’’ of ‘’$1,776’’, to ‘’members of the military’’, was money that was intended to help military families pay for housing. The fact that you ‘’relocated’’ that money, for your own purposes, amounts to nothing other than an act of fraud. Not too surprising, as it is simply not reasonable to expect anything better from a convicted felon, thirty four times over!

As for your offer of a ‘’dividend’’ of $5,000, to every ‘’adult citizen of the United States’’, on the condition that the Republican Party win ‘’both Houses of Congress’’, in the forth coming Midterm election, may I suggest that such an offer is nothing short of a bribe, and as such, is strictly against the law. 

Behold the law: ‘’Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was wilful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.’’ 

What is that you say, Mr. President? Tell somebody who cares? You consider yourself to be above the law? Could that have something to do with the fact that you have been convicted of felonies, thirty four times, and have yet to serve even one day in jail? Or could it have something to do with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that you are ‘’immune from prosecution’’, for ‘’official acts’’? So perhaps everything you do is an ‘’official act’’, so that you are indeed ‘’above the law’’.

It was so nice of the Supreme Court to clarify the situation. They have made it clear that the laws apply only to those of us who are working class people! Not to the multi billionaires, the monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, the class of people now referred to as members of the Oligarchy class! So much for the courts being impartial!

Far be it for me to interfere with your game of golf, which you love so much, but may I suggest that you pay a little attention to a certain Member of Congress, from the state of New Mexico, by the name of Melanie Stansbury. She has been ‘’shooting her mouth off’’, mentioning you by name, and rest assured, in a manner which is something less than flattering. The nerve of some people! Just because she is a Member of Congress, she thinks she can just blurt out the truth! Here is a example of one of her speeches, apparently given at a meeting of a Congressional Committee:

‘’The American people are pissed as hell right now. They see a president who is literally stealing from the American people, lining his own pockets and breaking the law with reckless abandon, waging a foreign war, while the American people are suffering, and there have been no consequences for any of this, except for the lawsuits that one of our witnesses and many of you here today have helped to file against this administration. Now I think it is easy to say, as many of you have today, that this is the most corrupt administration ever in the history of the United States. And let me just say this, Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of corrupt presidents. And in the wake of those actions, this body stepped up and passed laws and held people accountable. But what we’ve seen, time and time again, since last January of 2025, when this president took office, is that our Republican colleagues are not only not holding this president accountable, they are colluding with him directly. And in fact, here we are, on the precipice of a midterm election, and the American people are experiencing the highest rates of inflation they have experienced since COVID. They can’t afford housing. Their health care has been gutted through the Big Ugly Bill. Their food assistance has been gutted. Educational assistance has been gutted. And we have the highest gas prices that we have had in the history of the United States, over the Labour day weekend, just last weekend. It’s outrageous. And meanwhile, the president is over there partying with his friends, golfing in Ireland, on the tax payer dime. He’s engaged in ‘’pay to play’’ schemes, crypto, pardons, payments from foreign governments, kickbacks to his corporate friends, insider trading, using the military to invade foreign governments, and steal their oil and gas. He’s giving his son and his friends drone concessions. He’s using his family and friends to negotiate with foreign governments, while their foreign actors are giving kickbacks to to the US government, that are somehow disappearing in the president’s pockets. He’s using federal taxpayer land to build an arch and a ballroom for himself. We believe that he may have embezzled funds from the state fair. Remember that? That big flop that happened on the National Mall. He’s giving his sons mineral deals worth billions of dollars in foreign countries, and trying to sell off our public lands to his buddies. And meanwhile, he’s covering up the Epstein files, refusing to prosecute criminals, and using the DOJ to try to negotiate sweetheart deals so he’s not held accountable, forever more. Literally, this is the most corrupt government we have ever seen in the history of the United States. …But the number one question I get asked in my district, every single day, is why is he not being held accountable? And what do we do?’’

The preceding speech suffers from a number of defects, but even so, it is clear that this lady is able to express herself far more effectively than Donald Trump. Which is not saying much!

For purposes of clarification, we should mention that the reference to the American people being as ‘’pissed as hell’’, is a rather crude way of saying that the American people are very angry. With good reason, I might add. They are indeed suffering, and their democratically elected leader is partying, playing golf, and ‘’lining his pockets’’, as well as enriching the members of his immediate family, while simultaneously waging an illegal war. She was also correct when she states that Trump is ‘’covering up the Epstein files’’, in order to protect the members of his class of multi billionaires. In short, she gave a rather  accurate description of the current situation, although in a rather haphazard manner. 

Yet she was careful to not make any mention of classes! As if classes do not exist, at least not in America! Nonsense! 

The problem is not one person! Even though Donald Trump is completely despicable, he is not alone! He is merely the most visible presence, the leader of his class of monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, commonly referred to as the Oligarchy. One member of that class is every bit as contemptible as the other! That is the fact which Stansbury glosses over! It is not a matter of holding Trump accountable, but rather that of holding his class responsible! Yet she was correct to ask the question, ‘’What do we do?’’ The answer was revealing:

‘’The lawyers are going to continue to file cases on behalf of the American people. But one branch of government can’t check the other one without the third branch. And so we need this Congress, which of course in our Constitution is actually the first branch of government. We need this Congress to act. We need this Congress to come together. It is disappointing that you have no Republican members here today. This is not a partisan issue. This is about people. It’s about affordability. It’s about ethics. And it’s about our country. And so we encourage this Congress to act in all the ways that it can to investigate and to pass laws that will further help the accountability infrastructure of the country.’’

It is significant that the Member of Congress who answered this question, responded in much the same manner in which the question was asked. Without any reference to classes! Instead, there were vague references to ‘’people’’ and ‘’country’’. As if the ‘’people’’ within the ‘’country’’ do not belong to separate classes! The vast majority of those ‘’people’’ are ‘’common people’’, members of the working class, the proletariat, as well as the family farmers. A tiny minority are members of the ruling class of multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie. This not so little detail was carefully overlooked!

Melanie Stansbury: ‘’In the wake of the Watergate scandals, there were massive structural reforms to the federal government. They changed the way the federal government workforce was structured. There were new safe guards put in place, anti corruption. We passed the War Powers Act, to stop presidents from starting illegal wars, which this president is blatantly disregarding right now. And so I believe, as you stated, we are on the precipice of major structural reform of the government, on a scale we’ve not seen before. And what do we need to be prepared for?’’

True, after the Watergate scandal of the early seventies, there were laws passed, in order to prevent such blatant corruption, as well as preventing the president from engaging in illegal wars. Yet it is one thing to pass certain laws, and something else entirely to enforce those laws. It is also true that Trump is ignoring those laws. It is the duty of Congress to enforce those laws. Instead, Congress has abdicated their authority, allowing Trump to do as he pleases. So now they are calling for ‘’major structural reform’’, whatever that is, as an alternative to holding him responsible. As he has absolutely no respect for the laws currently in place, what makes them think that he will respect any new laws, or ‘’major structural reform’’, which they have planned?

Answer: ‘’We need boldness of reform that’s commensurate with the gravity of the problem. We can’t have technical little fixes. We need major shifts. I think part of that is a complete ban on outside income for the president. Clearly, that will cut off some of these revenue streams. But we also need to think much more seriously about the infrastructure for enforcement. Because right now, we can’t even enforce the laws that we have on the books, because of a weaponized or neutered Office of Government Ethics, NDOJ. So I think a serious look at how to reduce opportunities for graft, combined with more enforcement options is necessary. Well, we certainly look forward to working with all of you to hold this administration accountable to recover our money. And yes, to see some people go to jail.’’

This Member of Congress just admitted that they ‘’can’t even enforce the laws that we have on the books’’, so it is necessary to consider ‘’more enforcement options’’. May I suggest that one of those options may just involve growing a backbone? You admit to being ‘’neutered’’. As that is the case, feel free to ‘’grow a set’’! If that is beyond your limited ability, then get out of the way, and let someone with some ‘’intestinal fortitude’’ take your place!

Yet the Midterm Elections are still a few weeks away, while the proposed ‘’Truckers Strike’’ is planned for October 1. That is significant, if only because Melanie Stansbury was correct when she stated that the American people are very angry now, although she did not phrase it in those precise terms. The only question is, just how angry are the American people? Is it possible that they are angry enough to start a revolution? It would not be the first time they rebelled against a ruling class! Of course, I am referring to the Colonial Rebellion of 1776, that which American history books refer to as the Revolutionary War. Americans are supremely proud of their revolutionary history, as well they should be. Their ‘’Founding Fathers’’ even gave them the right to ‘’abolish any government which does not represent them’’, in the Declaration of Independence. Yet strangely enough, all too many Americans, or at least members of the middle class, refuse to even consider the possibility- or perhaps are not capable of considering the possibility?- that a Second American Revolution is rapidly approaching.

 Consider that which Lenin stated, in that regard: 

‘’The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place, it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place, it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the ‘lower classes’ do not want to live in the old way, and the ‘upper classes’ cannot carry on in the old way, that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation wide crisis (affecting both the exploiters and the exploited). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, and politically active workers), should fully realize that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses- hitherto apathetic- who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is not just the truckers who realize that ‘’it is impossible to live in the old way’’, and are ‘’demanding change’’. Millions of Americans feel the same way. The recent ‘’No Kings Protests’’, in which many millions of Americans ‘’took to the streets’’ in protest, allow no room for misunderstanding in that department! Further, the fact that the local police arrested almost no one, testifies to the strength of the revolutionary motion. That satisfies one requirement for a successful revolution. The other requirement, that of the ruling class being unable to ‘’live and rule in the old way’’, is also being met. In our case, the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, currently referred to as the ‘’Oligarchy class’’, are ‘’at their wits ends’’, completely frustrated. It cost them a great fortune to get one of their own installed in the White House, a fellow billionaire, and now he simply will not behave himself. Each time he ‘’shoots his mouth off’’, he embarrasses himself, exposing his incompetence. At the same time, he draws attention to his class of imperialists. They just do not know what to do with that boy! That is the very definition of a revolutionary situation!

Numerous truckers have posted videos on the internet. All are agreed that the price of diesel is too high, so that they are unable to earn a living. So they think that by parking their trucks, they will be able to force the government to lower the cost of fuel. They are about to find out that the government has no control over the cost of any commodity, and that includes the price of diesel.

They have got to be made aware of the fact that we live under a state of monopoly capitalism, otherwise known as imperialism. The monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires are in charge, and they are determined to further enrich themselves, at the expense of the ‘’lower classes’’, which is to say the working class, the proletariat, as well as the family farmers and the middle class. For that reason, they must be overthrown, the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is referred to as Scientific Socialism. 

Incidentally, the words Soviet simply means Council, in English. The problem now is to make sure that those taking part in this revolutionary uprising, are aware of this fact. Until the ruling class of Oligarchy is overthrown, nothing of substance will change. Further, I have noticed that most revolutions start with strikes in the transportation industry. From there, they quickly spread to other parts of the country. If that takes place, then the Midterm Elections will no longer be an issue.

We will know that the strikes are indeed revolutionary, when the signs and posters read:

Workers of the World, Unite!

Soviet Power! 

Scientific Socialism!

Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Allow me to start this article, by stressing the fact that now is the time for revolutionary actions, not reformist actions. The current ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, technically referred to as the bourgeoisie, are determined to abolish the democratic republic, and establish the rule of ‘’those most qualified to rule’’, an ‘’Oligarchy’’, by whom they of course mean themselves. They must be overthrown, the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a different state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Absolutely and without doubt, that calls for revolutionary action, and not the paltry reforms which so many social chauvinists are demanding. 

Having said that, it is also a fact that there is a time and a place for reforms. That time is after the Scientific Socialist revolution, as the victorious proletariat attempts to build a new socialist society. 

Lenin covered this in an article written in November of 1921, four years after the successful Scientific Socialist October Revolution of 1917. It was titled:

THE IMPORTANCE OF GOLD NOW AND AFTER THE COMPLETE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM

Lenin: ‘’What is new for our revolution, at the present time, is the need for a ‘reformist’, gradual, cautious and roundabout approach, to the solution of the fundamental problems of economic development. This ‘novelty’ gives rise to a number of questions, perplexities and doubts, in both theory and practice.

‘’A theoretical question. How can we explain the transition from a series of extremely revolutionary actions, to extremely ‘reformist’ actions, in the same field, at a time when the revolution as a whole is making victorious progress? Does it not imply a ‘surrender of positions’, an ‘admission of defeat’, or something of that sort? Of course, our enemies… say that it does. They would not be enemies if they did not shout something of  the sort on every pretext, and even without any pretext. The touching unanimity that prevails on this question among all parties, from the feudal reactionaries to the Mensheviks, is only further proof that all these parties constitute ‘one reactionary mass’, opposed to the proletarian revolution…

‘’But there is ‘perplexity’, shall we say, among friends, too. 

‘’Restore large scale industry, organize the direct exchange of its goods for the produce of small peasant farming, and thus assist the socialization of the latter. For the purpose of restoring large scale industry, borrow from the peasants a certain quantity of foodstuffs and raw materials by requisitioning- this was the plan (or method, system) that we followed for more than three years, up to the spring of 1921. This was a revolutionary approach to the problem- to break up the old social economic system completely, at one stroke, and to substitute a new one for it.’’

In the preceding, Lenin documented a revolutionary approach to the problem of ‘restoring large scale industry’. As I have documented in a previous article, it was necessary, immediately after the October Revolution, to separate the family farmers of all their surplus, and even part of their necessities, in order to provide the workers and army with the bare necessities. But once the White Army was defeated, the Civil War was over, so that the situation had changed dramatically. That, in turn, called for a different approach, one that was not revolutionary, but reformist.

Lenin: ‘’Since the spring of 1921, instead of this approach, plan, method, or mode of action, we have been adopting… a totally different approach, a reformist type of method: not to break up the old social economic system- trade, petty production, petty proprietorship, capitalism- but to revive trade, petty proprietorship, capitalism, while cautiously and gradually getting the upper hand over them, or making it possible to subject them to state regulation, only to the extent that they revive.

‘’That is an entirely different approach to the problem.

‘’Compared to the previous revolutionary approach, it is a reformist approach (revolution is a change which breaks the old order to its very foundations, and not one that cautiously, slowly and gradually remodels it, taking care to break as little as possible).’’ (italics by Lenin)

Under the exceptional circumstances which existed, within Soviet Russia, immediately after the successful Scientific Socialist October Revolution of 1917, it was necessary to ‘’revive capitalism’’, while making sure it was ‘’subject to state regulation’’. That called for certain reforms.

Lenin: ‘’The question that arises is this. If, after trying revolutionary methods, you find they have failed, and adopt reformist methods, does it not prove that you are declaring the revolution to have been a mistake in general? Does it not prove that you should not have started with the revolution, but should have started with reforms and confined yourselves to them?

‘’That is the conclusion which the Mensheviks and others like them have drawn. But this conclusion is either sophistry, a mere fraud perpetrated by case hardened politicians, or it is the childishness of political tyros. The greatest, perhaps the only danger to the genuine revolutionary, is that of exaggerated revolutionism, ignoring the limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate, and can be successfully employed. True revolutionaries have mostly come a cropper when they began to write ‘revolution’ with a capital R, to elevate ‘revolution’, to something almost divine, to lose their heads, to lose the ability to reflect, weigh and ascertain, in the coolest and most dispassionate manner, at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere of action you must act in a revolutionary manner, and at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere, you must turn to reformist action. True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner, under all circumstances, and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain.

‘’Whoever gets such ideas into his head is lost, because he has foolish ideas about a fundamental problem; and in a fierce war (and revolution is the fiercest sort of war) the penalty for folly is defeat.’’

Here we have another example of ‘’Left Wing Communism’’, in which well meaning communists ‘’exaggerate the importance of revolutionism’’, while ignoring the ‘’limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate, and can be successfully employed’’. There are times when reformist methods are called for, especially after the revolution, under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Yet the deep passions aroused by revolutions can give rise to sentiments which cloud their ‘’sober outlook’’, resulting in misguided beliefs in ‘’revolutionary actions’’, as a solution to all problems. This invariably leads to ‘’defeat’’. 

In my opinion, this was one of the mistakes committed by the Chinese Communists, which led to their defeat, and the return to power of the capitalists. We must be careful not to become too infatuated with revolution, not to spell it with a capital R, not to consider revolution as something ‘’divine’’, but as a tool to be used, when appropriate.

On the other hand, certain words and expressions should be emphasized, with capital letters, when appropriate. Bear in mind that in 1891, Engels wrote an introduction to the work by Marx, titled The Civil War In France. He chose to write the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, with that capitalization, as a means of stressing the importance of that fundamental tenet of Marxism. May I suggest that a similar punctuation be adopted with Soviet Power and Scientific Socialism, as a means of stressing their importance. This may help to raise the level of awareness of the working class.

Lenin: ‘’What grounds are there for assuming that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution, can and must employ only revolutionary methods? There are none at all. The assumption is a pure fallacy; this can be proved by purely theoretical propositions, if we stick to Marxism. The experience of our revolution also shows that it is a fallacy. From the theoretical point of view- foolish things are done in time of revolution, just at any other time, said Engels, and he was right. We must try to do as few foolish things as possible, and rectify those that are done as quickly as possible, and we must, as soberly as we can, estimate which problems can be solved by revolutionary methods, at any given time, and which cannot. From the point of view of our practical experience, the Brest peace was an example of action that was not revolutionary at all; it was reformist, and even worse, because it was a retreat, whereas as a general rule, reformist action advances slowly, cautiously, gradually, and does not move backward. The proof that our tactics in concluding the Brest peace were correct is now so complete, so obvious to all and generally admitted, that there is no need to say any more about it.’’

The ‘’Brest peace’’ is a reference to the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk, by which Soviet Russia secured a peace treaty with Germany and the Central Powers, and exited the First World War. It came at a very high price, in that Russia lost a third of her population, half of her industry and almost all of her coal mines. Yet the alternative was complete defeat. 

Lenin: ‘’It is not enough to be a revolutionary and an adherent of socialism or communism in general. You must be able, at each particular moment, to find the  particular link in the chain, which you must grasp, with all your might, in order to hold the whole chain, and to prepare for the transition to the next link; the order of the links, their form, the manner in which they are linked together, their difference from each other in the historical chain of events are not as simple and not as senseless as those in an ordinary chain, made by a smith’’.

This is referred to as the ‘’key link’’ in the chain. Of course, the ‘’chain’’ is a reference to the political situation, which changes constantly, so that the key link also changes. Incidentally, the preceding paragraph is one which I would like to see in poster form, as I consider it to be of the utmost importance. 

This ‘’begs the question’’: What is the current ‘’key link’’? As our current situation closely resembles the situation in Russia, immediately before the October Revolution of 1917, it stands to reason that the ‘’key link’’ today, is the same as the ‘’key link’’ of Russia, at that time.

In the article by Lenin, titled Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, written three years after the October Revolution of 1917, he stressed the importance of certain fundamental tenets of Marxism: ‘’The chief thing- though, of course, far from everything- the chief thing, has already been achieved: the vanguard of the working class has been won over, has ranged itself on the side of Soviet government and against parliamentarianism, on the side of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and against bourgeois democracy.’’

The ‘’chief thing’’ now, or the ‘’key link’’, is to ‘’win over’’ the ‘’vanguard of the proletariat’’, to the side of ‘’Soviet Power’’ and the ‘’Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, against ‘’bourgeois democracy’’. At the same time, it amounts to drawing a clear distinction between ourselves, communists, and all utopian socialists. The best way to do that is to stress the fact that we are Scientific Socialists, hence the capitalization.

It is only after the ‘’vanguard of the proletariat’’ is ‘’won over’’, so that they embrace Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that we can proceed to the ‘’next step’’. In that same article, Lenin outlined the ‘’next step’’. Allow me to stress the fact that this article was written three years after the October Revolution.

Lenin: ‘’All efforts and all attention should now be concentrated on the next step, which may seem- and from a certain viewpoint actually is- less fundamental, but on the other hand, is actually closer to a practical accomplishment of the task. That step is: the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution.

‘’The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position, either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it, and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the  broad masses of the working people, those oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand. For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions….To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary…to realize from their own bitter experience, the absolute impotence and spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie…they had to realize that a dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries…is inevitably the only alternative to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. (italics by Lenin)

As regards our current situation, it is reasonable to assume that the most advanced workers are certainly at least open to the ideas of Scientific Socialism, even if they have not embraced those basic tenets of Marxism. But then they have not been exposed to those revolutionary theories. It is up to intellectuals, whether working class or middle class, to bring the awareness of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, to the working class. Or to phrase it in popular terms, ‘’the ball is in our court’’. 

On the other hand, it is also ‘’reasonable to assume’’ that the ‘’less advanced workers’’, the ‘’broad masses’’, are not in ‘’direct support of the vanguard’’, or even in a ‘’position of sympathetic neutrality’’. For the vast majority of common people, ‘’propaganda and agitation’’ alone, are ‘’not enough’’. They require their own ‘’political experience’’. 

Lenin: ‘’As long as it was (and inasmuch as it still is) a question of winning the proletariat’s vanguard over to the side of communism, priority went and still goes to propaganda work….But when it is a question of practical action by the masses, of the disposition, if one may so put it, of vast armies, of the alignment of all the class forces in a given society for the final and decisive battle, then propagandist methods alone, the mere repetition of the truths of ‘pure’ communism, are of no avail. In these circumstances, one must not count in thousands…one must count in millions and tens of millions. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes- positively of all classes in a given society, without exception- are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at hand- in such a way that: 1) all the class forces hostile to us have become sufficiently entangled, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle which is beyond their strength; 2) all the vacillating and unstable, intermediate elements- the petty bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeois democrats, as distinct from the bourgeoisie- have sufficiently exposed themselves in the eyes of the people, have sufficiently disgraced themselves, through their practical bankruptcy, and 3) among the proletariat, a mass movement favouring the most determined, bold and dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie, has emerged and begun to grow vigourously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarized above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Now it is a matter of convincing the vast majority of working people, and not merely the most advanced workers, of the correctness of our position. That requires ‘’practical action’’, on the part of ‘’millions and tens of millions’’ of workers, as such people are not impressed by propaganda alone. In previous articles, I have suggested such ‘’practical action’’, in great detail, to there is no need to go into it here, in any great detail. But perhaps a brief summary is in order. 

I have identified twelve huge species, which the scientists insist are extinct. They are not extinct, and the directions for locating those animals are clear and simple. Workers who take part in proving their existence, will take part in a major scientific breakthrough, thus building up their confidence and exposing the incompetence of the scientists, those who take great delight in kowtowing to the members of the Oligarchy class.

Several of these animals are commonly referred to as ‘’Lake Monsters’’. Perhaps the most famous such ‘’Monster’’ is that of ‘’Nessie’’, the ‘’Loch Ness Monster’’. As well, the most famous ‘’Monster’’ in North America is commonly referred to as ‘’Ogopogo’’, the animal in Okanagan Lake. As there is a reported two million dollar reward for proving the existence of this animal, that should provide more than sufficient motivation for proving that it exist.

This brings us to an animal which is most wide spread, located on all six continents. In most parts of the world, it is referred to as a ‘’dragon’’. The Chinese have even named a year after this animal. Quite reasonably, they call it the Year of the Dragon. It is also mentioned in the bible, and for hundreds of years, scholars have speculated on the identity of this animal. They can quit speculating, as the animal in question is a pterosaur, commonly referred to as a pterodactyl. It is also famous for releasing a so called ‘’cloud of smoke’’, which is not smoke, but poison gas. It uses this poison gas to kill livestock, including cattle and horses. It then rips the flesh from the face, genitals and tears out the large intestine. It prefers to prey upon the males, for obvious reasons. 

In America, the FBI has seen this so often, they refuse to respond to any such complaints. Not that it is a matter for any law enforcement agency, as no laws have been broken, but this does not resolve the problem. So I am suggesting that workers draw out a sample of blood, from the carcass of an animal which has been killed and mutilated, and send that sample to a lab, to determine the poison gas that was used to kill the animal. As well, swab around the wound sites, and send those swabs to the lab also, for a DNA test. Or better yet, three labs, as the results will certainly be contested. Those labs will confirm that it is the DNA of a reptile, an animal not known to science. Then it is a matter of opening up an old logging road, referred to as the ‘’Ten Thousand Road’’, because the caves in those mountains, which are the nesting ground of the pterodactyl, open up onto that Road. 

In this way, workers will take part in a major scientific breakthrough. Their self confidence will increase, as well as their class awareness, as they realize that the scientists are aware of the existence of these animals, but remain silent, so as not to offend the monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, the members of the Oligarchy class. 

This brings us to ‘’Gigantopithecus’’, the largest species of ape ever to walk the earth, and still does. They are bipedal apes, which means that they walk on two legs, and have the opposable thumb, which means that they are able to touch their finger tips, with their thumb. As all species of human have been, and are now, bipedal apes, complete with the opposable thumb, it means that they are human. What is more, they live among us, here in North America.

They are commonly referred to as ‘’Sasquatch’’ or ‘’Bigfoot’’, although I refer to them as ‘’Giants’’, for obvious reasons. They generally make a supreme effort to avoid us, because they know what a vicious bunch we are. 

The exception is that of the First Nations people, whom they trust. For that reason, the Giants go onto the beaches of the Reserves on the West Coast, after sundown. At that time, the people who live on the Reserves stay off the beach. 

My suggestion is that workers get in touch with the Chief and Council of a Reserve, arrange a meeting with the Elders, and explain that we want to prove the Giants exist, so as to pass laws to protect them. The best way to do this is to place food and gifts on the beach, just before sundown. Gifts can include steel mirrors, cosmetics, and burlap bags. As they trust the First Nations people, we can expect them to respond, sooner rather than later. 

On the ‘’political front’’, so to speak, may I suggest that workers join the two mainstream political parties, as card carrying members, and run for office, if only against themselves. The experience gained will convince them, and their supporters, that the ruling class of monopoly capitalists are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge.

Also on that same ‘’political front’’, may I suggest that workers hire, or better yet persuade, an attorney, an expert on Constitutional law, to challenge the 2024 Presidential Election, on the grounds that it was Unconstitutional, as it did not follow the procedure outlined in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. Bear in mind that our goal is to raise the level of awareness of the working class. Should this challenge result in the removal from office of Trump and Pence, that is to be regarded as a mere bonus.

It is also a fact that Councils, otherwise known as Soviets, have also made an appearance. These Councils are a spontaneous creation of the working class, and make a point in assisting working people, in various ways. Not all of these ways are strictly within the ‘’letter of the law’’. In fact, some of them are down right illegal. These may include arming, equipping and training workers, for the approaching insurrection, which will ‘’kick off’’ the Second American Revolution.

In the interests of learning the fundamentals of Scientific Socialism, may I suggest either buying or downloading, from the internet, the Essential Works of Marx and Lenin. A careful perusal of those works, either alone or as a member of a group, will provide all advanced workers with a fine grounding in communism.

Finally, it is imperative that workers take part in the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The preceding was a brief summary of tasks that workers can attempt, as a means of raising their level of awareness. Granted, these suggestions are somewhat unconventional. Yet each and every one of them is well within the ability of all advanced workers. Allow me to stress the fact that the main thing is to raise their level of awareness. Any scientific breakthrough is to be viewed as merely a bonus, just as any ruling, by the Supreme Court, to the effect that Trump is a fraudulent President, can also be seen as a bonus.

As soon as the level of awareness of the vast majority of workers is raised to that of ‘’direct support for the vanguard’’, which is to say the most advanced workers, or even of ‘’sympathetic neutrality’’, then the ‘’stage is set’’ for the next ‘’act’’ in our revolution, that of the overthrow of the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the smashing of the existing state apparatus, and the establishment of a new state apparatus, that of Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. At that point, we can begin to build a new, more equitable society, through a process of gradual, reformist measures. 

With Most Sincere Communist, Scientific Socialist Greetings, Gerald McIsaac  

As is well known, it was the Russian Great Soviet Socialist Revolution of October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, 1917, new style calendar, which gave birth to the first Soviet Socialist Republic. Yet Soviet Russia remained at war with Germany and the Central Powers, until March 3 of 1918, at which time, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. 

This was followed by a three year civil war, in which various ‘’counter revolutionary’’ armies, otherwise known as the ‘’Whites’’, tried to restore the rule of the capitalists, nobility and landlords. They were opposed by the Soviet Red Army. The ‘’wits’’ of the day joked that the ‘’White Army was an army of officers, but without enlisted men, while the Red Army was an army of enlisted men, but without officers’’. There was an element of truth to this joke! The White Army was composed mainly of former officers of the Russian Army, as it existed under the rule of the Tsar. All of these men were members of one of the ‘’propertied classes’’, which is to say the landlords, nobility or capitalists. Each was determined to restore the rule of their respective class. By contrast, the Red Army was composed of the former enlisted personnel, of that same Russian army, all of whom were members of the class of either the family farmers or workers. They were determined to maintain the Soviet Socialist Republic, if only because the farmers owned the land they tilled, and the workers were allowed to work a mere eight hours a day, instead of the usual eleven to twelve. 

As those efforts were unsuccessful, the leaders of the Allied countries changed tactics. In 1919, the British Minister Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons boasted, ‘’that a campaign of fourteen nations against Soviet Russia had been organized, and that this would result in victory over Russia by the New Year.’’ Of course, this never happened, as those forces were defeated. Yet the fact remains that after seven years of war, Soviet Russia was in very bad shape. To phrase it in popular terms, ‘’Desperate times call for desperate measures’’. 

For that reason, in March 15 of 1921, Lenin wrote an article titled, 

REPORT ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF A TAX IN KIND FOR THE SURPLUS-GRAIN APPROPRIATION SYSTEM

Lenin: ‘’Russia emerged from the war in a state that can most of all be likened to that of a man beaten to within an inch of his life; the beating had gone on for seven years, and its a mercy she can hobble about on crutches! That is the situation we are in! To think that we can get out of this state without crutches is to understand nothing! So long as there is no revolution in other countries, it would take us decades to extricate ourselves, and in these circumstances we cannot grudge hundreds of millions’ or even thousands of millions’ worth of our immense wealth, our rich raw material sources, in order to obtain help from the major capitalists. Later we shall recover it all and to spare. The rule of the proletariat cannot be maintained in a country laid waste as no country has ever been before- a country where the vast majority are peasants who are equally ruined- without the help of capital, for which, of course, exorbitant interest will be extorted. This we must understand. Hence, the choice is between economic relations of this type and nothing at all. He who puts the question otherwise, understands absolutely nothing in practical economics and is side stepping the issue by resorting to gibes. We must recognize the fact that the masses are utterly worn out and exhausted. What can you expect after seven years of war in this country, if the more advanced countries still feel the effects of four years of war?!’’

In the preceding statement, Lenin faced the fact that Soviet Russia, at that time, was not only severely mauled, but also one hundred years behind the most highly industrialized country of the world, which is to say, the United States. The industrial level of Soviet Russia was at the level of development of America, at the time of Jefferson! Lenin further faced the fact that the ‘’rule of the proletariat’’, which is to say the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, within Soviet Russia, ‘’cannot be maintained’’, without the ‘’help of capital’’. That was because the country was surrounded by enemies, those who were determined to crush the first Scientific Socialist Republic in the world. They were afraid that the ‘’contagion might spread’’. Their fears were well grounded! 

Yet Lenin called for ‘’economic relations’’ with the ‘’major capitalists’’, which is to say the countries of Britain, France, Italy, Germany and America, the same countries which were so determined to destroy Soviet Russia. He did this by appealing to their sense of greed. As a return on their invested capital, they would charge ‘’exorbitant interest rates’’, and make a great fortune. But as Soviet Russia had ‘’immense wealth’’, in the form of ‘’raw material resources’’, this they could afford, and ‘’down the road’’, they would ‘’recover it all to spare’’. There was no other way!

This brings us to the question of ‘’concessions’’, and an article Lenin wrote in December of 1921:

REPORT ON CONCESSIONS DELIVERED TO THE R.C.P.(B) GROUP AT THE EIGHTH CONGRESS OF SOVIETS 

Lenin: ‘’To the best of our knowledge, the question of concessions has everywhere aroused considerable concern and even anxiety….we have driven out our own capitalists, and now we want to admit others. I believe that this apprehension, this widespread interest in concessions….is a good sign….Yet I think that we shall come to the conclusion that, in the question of concessions, we cannot be guided by this revolutionary instinct alone.’’

Lenin clearly found it most encouraging, that so many common people were afraid of a return to capitalism. So it was necessary to explain to them that concessions was a necessary form of ‘’retreat’’, as so often happens in war, in order to ‘’regroup’’ and once again, go on the offensive.

Lenin: ‘’Any war is merely the continuation of peacetime politics by other means, and second, that the concessions which we are giving, which we are forced to give, are a continuation of war in another form, using other means. To prove these two premises, or rather to prove only the second because the first does not require any special proof, I shall begin with the political aspect of the question. I shall dwell on those relations existing between the present day imperialist powers, which are important for an understanding of present day foreign policy in its entirety, and of our reasons for adopting this policy.’’

The ‘’war’’ to which Lenin was referring, is the class war, between the common people, both workers and family farmers, against the monopoly capitalists, the imperialists. He was also careful to specify the ‘’present day’’ conditions, which called for that particular policy. The point is that such conditions are constantly changing, which frequently calls for a change in tactics.

This was followed by the report of a letter by the ‘’American Vanderlip’’, a well known imperialist, who was convinced of an approaching ‘’clash with Japan’’. So the Americans wanted oil, but they also wanted to make sure that the Japanese did not get any. For that reason, they wanted concessions near Kamchatka. 

Lenin: ‘’Vanderlip’s letter is quite outspoken; with unparalleled cynicism he outlines the point of view of an imperialist who clearly sees that war with Japan is imminent, and poses the question openly and directly- enter into a deal with us and you will get certain advantages from it.’’

It is not very often that the imperialists are so openly cynical. They are generally more ‘’bashful’’, trying to hide their predatory motives. Lenin then explained that the area in question was under the control of the Japanese.

Lenin: ‘’Nevertheless, we cannot go to war with Japan, and must make every effort, not only to put off a war with Japan but, if possible, to avert it because, for reasons known to you, it is beyond our strength….we are a Socialist Republic surrounded by imperialist countries that are far stronger than us in the military sense, are using every means of agitation and propaganda to increase hatred for the Soviet Republic, and will never miss an opportunity for military intervention, as they put it, e.g., to strangle Soviet power….we have been able to hold out and have been able to defeat the Entente powers- an alliance of unparalleled might that was supported by our White Guards- only because there has been no unity among these powers….The deeper and more formidable the communist movement grows, the greater will be the number of new attempts to strangle our Republic. Hence our policy of utilizing the discord among the imperialist powers so as to hamper an agreement or to make one temporarily impossible. This has been the fundamental line of our policy for three years….This political line of conduct enjoins us to grasp at a proposal on the granting of concessions. Today we are giving America Kamchatka, which in any case is not actually ours, because it is held by Japanese troops. At the moment, we are in no condition to fight Japan. We are giving America, for economic exploitation, a territory where we have absolutely no naval or military forces, and where we cannot send them. By doing so, we are setting American imperialism against Japanese imperialism….Thus, our main interests were political at the concessions negotiations….It follows, therefore, that in this matter the economic interest is secondary, its real value lying in its political interest.’’

Remarkably enough, the tactic of granting a certain concession, served a dual purpose, the primary purpose being political, the secondary purpose being economic. This led to that which Lenin referred to as a ‘’terrific aggravation of the enmity between Japan and America, and thus an undoubted slackening of both Japanese and American pressure on us’’. 

This led to a rather strange question, but one which I suspect is rather common place, so it must be addressed:

Lenin: ‘’At the meeting of executives in Moscow, where I had to mention the fact, the following question was asked. ‘It appears,’ one of the comrades wrote, ‘that we are driving Japan and America to war, but it is the workers and peasants who will do the fighting. Although these are imperialist powers, is it worthy of us socialists to drive two powers into a war against each other, which will lead to the shedding of workers’ blood?’ I replied that  if we were really driving workers and peasants to war, that would be a crime. All our politics and propaganda, however, are directed towards putting an end to war, and in no way towards driving nations to war. Experience has shown sufficiently that the socialist revolution is the only way out of eternal warfare. Our policy, therefore, is not that of involving others in a war. We have not done anything justifying, directly or indirectly, a war between Japan and America….Socialists should think, not of defending their respective countries, but of overthrowing the power of the capitalists; they should think of the workers’ revolution. Is it the correct policy for us to use the discord between the imperialist bandits, to make it more difficult for them to unite against us, who are doing everything in our power to accelerate that revolution, but are in the position of a weak socialist republic, that is being attacked by imperialist bandits? Of course, it is the correct policy.’’ 

That explanation is perfectly clear, and requires no further comment. Concerning trade negotiations with Britain, Lenin had the following to say:

‘’We are, however, proposing maximum concessions, and we believe it to be in our interests to sign a trade pact and purchase with all possible dispatch some of the essentials for the restoration of the railways (e.g., locomotives), for the rehabilitation of industry, and for electrification. This is more important to us than anything else. If we achieve that, we shall become so strong in a few years that even, if the worst comes to the worst and there is armed intervention in a few years time, it will fail, because we are stronger than we are now.’’

History has proven the previous statement to be most emphatically true! The highly industrialized, capitalist countries of Western Europe were unable to withstand the Nazi juggernaut of 1939 and 1940. They were crushed with relative ease. Yet the Soviet Union was able to rise to the occasion, to withstand the Nazi invasion and emerge victorious, in part because they were highly industrialized, as a result of the concessions granted to the foreign capitalists. This brings us to the labour laws.

Lenin: ‘’The fifth clause in the agreement deals with the code of labour laws. In the original draft of the agreement, which was discussed with Vanderlip, provision was made for the withdrawal of the application of the labour code in localities inhabited by under developed tribes, we cannot say which. In such places, no code of labour laws is possible. The labour code was to be replaced in such areas by a special agreement on guarantees for the workers.’’

This calls for a little clarification. In a speech Lenin gave earlier, on April 11, 1921, titled, ‘’Report On Concessions’’, Lenin stated that:

‘’1. The concessionaire shall improve the condition of the workers employed at the concession enterprises (as compared with that of other workers employed at similar enterprises in the area) up to the average standard abroad.’’

Clearly, in most cases of concessions, the workers stand to receive a rather handsome wage. Areas in which ‘’underdeveloped tribes’’ existed, were exceptional. 

This is followed by a listing of the three main groups of concessions, timber concessions in the Far North, mining concessions in Siberia, and agricultural concessions. 

Lenin: ‘’Our economic interest in timber concessions in the Far North of European Russia is obvious; there are tens and even hundreds of millions of dessiantines of forest land which we are quite unable to exploit, because we lack the railways, the means of production, and the possibility of providing the workers there with food, but which could be exploited by a country that owns a big merchant fleet, and could fell and saw timber properly, and export it in tremendous quantities.’’

Instead of allowing all that timber to rot, the Soviets offered a great deal of it as concessions to foreign capitalists. And in return:

Lenin: ‘’Our chief interest is in obtaining as quickly as possible, from the capitalist countries, the means of production (locomotives, machinery and electrical equipment) without which we cannot more or less seriously rehabilitate our industry, or perhaps may even be unable to do so at all, because the machinery needed by our factories cannot be made available. It is with the motive of extra profit that we must attract the capitalist. He will get surplus profit- well, let him have that surplus profit; we shall obtain the fundamentals that will help strengthen us; we shall stand firmly on our own feet, and shall win in the economic field.’’

Soviet Russia set themselves the goal of doing in ten years, that which it took the highly industrialized countries of the world, one hundred years! By and large, they succeeded in this goal! In no small part due to the New Economic Policy which Lenin had initiated, years before. But then industry needs electricity:

Lenin: ‘’You will see from the special plan for the electrification of Russia, drawn up for several decades, that this plan, together with the additional work for the rehabilitation of industry, will involve an approximate expenditure of something like 17,000 million gold rubles. Electrification alone will require the direct expenditure of more than 1,000 million rubles in gold. We cannot cover this with our gold reserves.’’

Clearly, the electrification of Russia, which was absolutely essential for such industries as mining and factories, was made possible, at least in part, through timber concessions.

Lenin: ‘’The second type is agricultural concessions. With the exception of West Siberia with its vast expanses of excellent land, inaccessible to us because of its great distance from railways, there are in European Russia and along the River Ural alone…excellent lands that must be brought under the plow, but which we cannot cultivate because of the shortage of draught animals and our weakened productive forces…. At present, we have two tractor plants functioning, in Moscow and Petrograd, but in consequence of the difficult conditions that obtain, they cannot produce tractors in large numbers. We could ease the situation by purchasing a greater number of tractors. Tractors are most important means of effecting a radical change in the old farming methods, and of extending the area cultivated. By such concessions, we shall show a large number of countries that we are able to develop the world economy on a gigantic scale.’’

Tractors can cultivate far more land than any draught animal. The more land cultivated, the more crops grown, the more food for people. 

Lenin: ‘’Mining concessions are the third type. These are indicated on the map of Siberia, with details of each area in which concessions are being considered. Siberia’s mineral wealth is literally boundless, and at best, even given significant progress, we cannot exploit even a hundredth part of it for many years. The minerals are to be found in conditions that demand the best machinery. There are such products as copper ore, which the capitalists need badly for their electrical industry, because it is in such short supply. It is possible to rehabilitate the world economy, and improve the world’s technology, if they enter into regular relations with us.’’

As mining equipment must be of the ‘’best machinery’’, it stands to reason that it is exceptionally expensive. Or as the capitalists would state, it requires a ‘’major capital investment’’. Far beyond the limited ability of Soviet Russia, at that time. But well within the financial range of concessions.

Of course, there was strong opposition to the New Economic Policy, so that Lenin had to argue passionately for its necessity. On December 21, 1920, at the Eighth All Russia Congress of Soviets, he addressed certain concerns, as expressed by a non Party peasant, who was afraid that the granting of concessions would result in ‘’selling out Mother Russia’’. 

Lenin: ‘’I heartily welcome such sentiments, which are very wide spread. I think it is highly indicative that during these three years, the masses of non Party working people- not only industrial workers but peasants as well- have acquired the political and economic experience, which enables and compels them to value their liberation from the capitalists above all else, which compels them to exercise redoubled caution, and to treat with extreme suspicion, every step that involves the possibility of new dangers of the restoration of capitalism. Of course, we give the greatest consideration to all declarations of this kind, but we must say that there is no question of selling out Russia to the capitalists. It is a question of concessions; any concession agreement is limited to a definite period and by definite terms. It is hedged around with all possible guarantees, by guarantees that have been carefully considered, and will be considered and discussed with you again and again, at the present Congress and at various other conferences. These temporary agreements have nothing to do with any selling out. There is not a hint in them of selling Russia. What they do represent is a certain economic concession to the capitalists, the purpose of which is to enable us, as soon as possible, to secure the necessary machinery and locomotives, without which we cannot effect the restoration of our economy. We have no right to neglect anything that may, in however small a measure, help us to improve the conditions of the workers and peasants.’’

The key wording here involves ‘’limited’’ to a ‘’definite period’’ and by ‘’definite terms’’. The capitalists were bound by contract, allowed to build their factories, mills, mines and electric generating plants, while employing local workers, in order to make their huge profits, while paying a certain rent, and then at a certain time, to vacate the premises, leaving behind all their equipment. It was only in this way that Soviet Russia was able to become highly industrialized, within a few short years. 

Lenin went into more details, concerning the New Economic Policy, in his article of April 21, 1921, titled The Tax In Kind, (The  Significance of  the  New Policy and  Its  Conditions)

Under the section titled, Tax In Kind, Freedom to Trade and Concessions

Lenin: ‘’In a very large number of cases, the peasant ‘poor’ (proletarians and semi proletarians) have become middle peasants. This has caused an increase in the small proprietor, petty bourgeois ‘element’. The Civil War of 1918-20 aggravated the havoc in the country, retarded the restoration of the productive forces, and bled the proletariat more than any other class. ….

‘’As a result, the political situation in the spring of 1921 was such that immediate, very resolute and urgent measures had to be taken to improve the condition of the peasants, and to increase their productive forces.

‘’Why the peasants and not the workers?

‘’Because you need grain and fuel to improve the conditions of the workers. This is the biggest ‘hitch’ at the present time, from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. For it is impossible to increase the production and collection of grain, and the storage and delivery of fuel, except by improving the condition of the peasantry, and raising their productive forces. We must start with the peasantry. Those who fail to understand this, and think this putting the peasantry in the forefront is ‘renunciation’ of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or something like that, simply do not stop to think, and allow themselves to be swayed by the power of words. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the direction of policy by the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading and ruling class, must be able to direct policy in such a way as to solve first the most urgent and ‘vexed’ problem. The most urgent thing, at the present time, is to take measures that will immediately increase the productive forces of peasant farming. Only in this way will it be possible to improve the condition of the workers, strengthen the alliance between the workers and peasants, and consolidate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The proletarian, or representative of the proletariat, who refused to improve the condition of the workers in this way would in fact prove himself to be an accomplice of the white guards and the capitalists….(italics by Lenin) 

The ‘’tax in kind’’ was a ‘’retreat’’ from Scientific Socialism, but a necessary retreat. The one and only way, in which the living conditions of the common people, the workers and farmers could be improved, was by enacting this tax in kind. This would serve to motivate the farmers to grow more crops, as well as raise more draught animals, so that more food and fuel could be delivered to the workers in the cities. Yet in precisely what manner would the farmers be effected? Lenin addressed this in the same article

Lenin: ‘’Thus, the first thing we need is immediate and serious measures to raise the productive forces of the peasantry.

‘’This cannot be done without making important changes in our food supply. One such change was the replacement of the surplus appropriation system by the tax in kind, which implies a free market, at least in local economic exchange, after the tax has been paid.

‘’What is the essence of this change?….Under this peculiar War Communism, we actually took from the peasant all his surpluses- and sometimes even a part of his necessaries- to meet the requirements of the army and sustain the workers.’’

Immediately after Soviet Russia secured peace with Germany and the Central Powers, there ensued a three year civil war. This gave birth to that which Lenin refers to as a ‘’War Communism’’, in that all of the surplus crop of the farmer, and sometimes a little more, was taken and given to the workers and the army. What choice did they have? Yet the farmer had no reason to grow more than he needed, as he knew that he would merely lose it all.

Lenin: ‘’The correct policy of the proletariat exercising its dictatorship, in a small peasant country, is to obtain grain in exchange for the manufactured goods the peasant needs. That is the only kind of food policy that corresponds to the tasks of the proletariat, and can strengthen the foundations of socialism and lead to its complete victory.

‘’The tax in kind is a transition to this policy. We are still so ruined and crushed by the burden of war….that we cannot give the peasant manufactured goods in return for all the grain we need. Being aware of this, we are introducing the tax in kind, that is, we shall take the minimum of grain we require (for the army and the workers) in the form of a tax, and obtain the rest in exchange for manufactured goods.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is significant that, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in a ‘’small peasant country’’, the ‘’correct policy’’ is to ‘’exchange grain for the manufactured goods the peasant needs’’. Yet under the conditions that existed in Soviet Russia, after seven years of war, this was simply not possible. So a ‘’transitional’’ measure was adopted,  which is to say a temporary measure, in the form of a ‘’tax in kind’’, in that a portion of the grain the farmer grows was taken as a tax, and the remainder was ‘’exchanged for manufactured goods’’. Not money! Yet that ‘’remainder’’ served as an inducement to grow a surplus, so that it could be exchanged for manufactured goods. Yet where were those manufactured goods to be produced?

Lenin: ‘’There is something else we must not forget. Our poverty and ruin are so great, that we cannot restore large scale socialist state industry at one stroke. This can be done with large stocks of grain and fuel in the big industrial centres, replacement of worn out machinery, and so on. …Hence, it is necessary, to a certain extent, to help to restore small industry, which does not demand of the state machines, large stocks of raw materials, fuel and food, and which can immediately render some assistance to peasant farming and improve its productive forces right away. 

‘’What is to be the effect of all this?

‘’It is the revival of the petty bourgeoisie and of capitalism on the basis of some freedom of trade (if only local). That much is certain, and it is ridiculous to shut our eyes to it.

‘’Is it necessary? Can it be justified? Is it not dangerous?

‘’Many such questions are being asked, and most are merely evidence of simple mindedness, to put it mildly.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Certain individuals, those who might be classified as ‘’Ultra Left’’, were quick to object that the ultimate goal of Scientific Socialism is a ‘’classless society’’, and that this ‘’tax in kind’’, as part of the ‘’New Economic Policy’’, which included a return to ‘’small industry’’, to ‘’local capitalism’’, was completely unacceptable. 

As if we live in an ideal world! We most certainly do not! We have to start with what we have on hand, and proceed from there. To even suggest that we should attempt to ‘’skip over’’ various stages of development, is at best, ‘‘simple minded’’. 

Lenin: ‘’What is the policy the socialist proletariat can pursue in the face of this economic reality? Is it to give the small peasant all he needs of the goods produced by large scale socialist industries in exchange for his grain and raw materials? This would be the most desirable and ‘correct’ policy- and we have started on it. But we cannot supply all the goods, very far from it…

‘’The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit, or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists- in varying forms and degrees- wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general.’’ (italics by Lenin)

To think that under a state of Scientific Socialism, which is to say Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we could also have  ‘’state capitalism’’. Remarkable! Even if only under the conditions of a ‘’small peasant country’’. 

In a ‘’small peasant country’’, as was Russia, immediately after the Revolution, with no highly industrialized neighbouring socialist countries to offer assistance, there was no alternative to ‘’state capitalism’’. It is very likely that after the approaching World Scientific Socialist Revolution, the highly developed countries will offer assistance to the agrarian countries, which will also be experiencing revolution, thus eliminating the need for state capitalism, in those countries.

Lenin: ‘’Can the Soviet state and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat be combined with state capitalism? Are they compatible?

‘’Of course they are. …Those who compare state capitalism only with socialism commit a host of mistakes, for in the present political and economic circumstances, it is essential to compare state capitalism also with petty bourgeois production.

‘’The whole problem- in theoretical and practical terms- is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure transformation into socialism, in the near future.’’ 

Lenin made it quite clear that, under the conditions then existing, within Soviet Russia, state capitalism held no terrors for him. It was simply a matter of ‘’directing the development’’ of that capitalism, while surrounding it with ‘’conditions’’, or controls, if you prefer, to ‘’ensure its transformation into socialism’’. Under no circumstances was state capitalism to be allowed to evolve into monopoly capitalism!

This is followed by a rather lengthy section concerning the ‘’cooperatives’’, which are also a form of state capitalism, ‘’but a less simple one’’, ‘’more intricate’’.  

Lenin: ‘’Take the cooperatives. It is not surprising that the tax in kind decree immediately necessitated a revision  of the regulations governing the cooperatives and a certain extension of their ‘freedom’ and rights. The cooperatives are also a form of state capitalism, but a less simple one;  its outline is less distinct, it is more intricate and therefore creates greater practical difficulties for the government. The small commodity producers’ cooperatives (and it is these, and not the workers’ cooperatives, that we are discussing as the predominant and typical form in a small peasant country) inevitably give rise to petty bourgeois, capitalist relations, facilitate their development, push the small capitalists into the foreground and benefit them most. It cannot be otherwise, since the small proprietors predominate, and exchange is necessary and possible. In Russia’s present conditions, freedom and rights for the cooperative societies mean freedom and rights for capitalism. It would be stupid or criminal to close our eyes to this obvious truth.

‘’But, unlike private capitalism, ‘cooperative’ capitalism, under the Soviet system is a variety of state capitalism, and as such it is advantageous and useful for us at the present time- in certain measure, of course. Since the tax in kind means the free sale of surplus grain (over and above that taken in the form of the tax), we must exert every effort to direct this development of capitalism- for a free market is development of capitalism- into the channels of cooperative capitalism. It resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision and the establishment of contractural relations between the state (in this case the Soviet state) and the capitalist. Cooperative trade is more advantageous and useful than private trade, not only for the above mentioned reasons, but also because it facilitate the association and organization of millions of people, and eventually of the entire population, and this in its turn is an enormous gain from the standpoint of the subsequent transition from state capitalism to socialism….

‘’Cooperatives are based on small, handicraft, and partly even on patriarchal industry….Cooperative societies embrace many thousands of and even millions of small proprietors….The transition from small proprietor cooperatives to socialism is a transition from small to large scale production, i.e., it is more complicated, but, if successful, is capable of embracing wider masses of the population, and pulling up the deeper and more tenacious roots of the old, pre socialist and even pre capitalist relations, which most stubbornly resist all ‘innovations’. …The cooperative policy, if successful, will result in raising the small economy and in facilitating its transition, within an indefinite period, to large scale production, on the basis of voluntary association.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Allow me to stress the fact that the New Economic Policy of Lenin, was necessary and exceptional. The concessions, the tax in kind and the cooperatives, were forced upon Soviet Russia. The country was vast, largely agrarian, and surrounded by capitalist countries, all of whom were determined to crush this upstart Soviet Socialist Republic. It was absolutely necessary to become highly industrialized, and quickly, as otherwise, they were sure to be defeated. It is highly unlikely that such an event will take place again.

The current revolutionary motion, which is sweeping the world, is bound to give rise to Scientific Socialist revolutions, in numerous countries, and not just those which are highly industrialized. Equally without doubt, the more developed socialist countries will assist the common people in the less developed socialist countries. For that reason, there will be no need to develop ‘’state capitalism’’ in those countries.

As for those who may suggest that I am being wildly optimistic, in that I am predicting successful Scientific Socialist revolutions, in so many countries of the world, allow me to respond that I am merely basing my opinion upon the writings of Marx and Lenin. In those people, I have complete confidence.

Now it is up to us, Scientific Socialists, Communists, true followers of Marx and Lenin, to do our part, by raising the level of awareness of the common people, both workers and family farmers, making them aware of those revolutionary theories. Of course, this requires the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As well, the existence of the internet makes our task so much easier. 

With Most Sincere Scientific Socialist Greetings, 

Gerald McIsaac

Even after the two successful Scientific Socialist Revolutions, in Russia and China, the capitalists were able to return to power. No one in his right mind is about to argue that point. It is also a fact that the capitalists in Russia, or more accurately the Soviet Union, were able to return to power after the death of Stalin, in 1953. It is to the credit of the Chinese Communist Party, that they conducted a proper criticism of Stalin, at that time, and concluded that Stalin was a fine Communist, but had made some serious mistakes. Yet as best I can gather- because I have been unable to get my hands on that ‘’proper criticism’’, due to the unofficial censorship by the capitalists- the Chinese made no mention of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

I consider this to be a significant oversight, which needs to be addressed. As Lenin stated, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, written in 1920:

‘’In Russia today, the connection between leaders, Party, class and masses, as well as the attitude of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its Party to the trade unions, are concretely as follows: the Dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organized in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks….The Party, which holds annual Congresses.…is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the Congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by still smaller bodies, known as the Organizing Bureau and the Political Bureau, which are elected at plenary meetings of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each Bureau. This, it would appear, is a full fledged ‘oligarchy’. No important political or organizational question is decided by any state institution in our republic, without the guidance of the Party’s Central Committee’’.

The astute reader may well have noticed that Lenin made no mention of the role of any ‘’President’’ or ‘’Prime Minister’’, if only because there was none! In fact, as the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and as the head of the government of the Soviet Union, his title was that of ‘’Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars’’. He was no doubt a Member of the Central Committee, and possibly also a Member of the Political Bureau, or of the Organizing Bureau, if not both. Yet he held no office independent of the Central Committee. Further, all Members of the Central Committee are elected ‘’annually’’, including the Chairman!

This brings us to his successor, Josef Stalin. Officially, his title was ‘’General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’’, as well as ‘’Premier of the Soviet Union’’, and ‘’Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars’’.

After the Nazi invasion of 1941, he was referred to as ‘’Supreme Leader of the USSR’’, as well as ‘’Marshall of the Soviet Union’’. It is very likely that these titles were ‘’honorary’’, for purposes of negotiating with foreign powers, which is to say Britain and America, in the interests of winning the ‘’Great Patriotic War’’, as that is the official name by which the Soviet Union referred to the Second World War.  

This in no way changes the fact that Stalin was a Member of the Central Committee, and as such, was subject to a vote, held ‘’annually’’, which means once a year, at the Congress of the Communist Party. It also means that the other Members of the Central Committee were his ‘’closest advisors’’. It was the duty of all Members of the Central Committee, to point out any serious mistakes being made, by the ‘’General Secretary’’. Further, it is also the duty of all Members of the Central Committee, to remove from office any General Secretary, who persists in such inappropriate behaviour. Clearly, this never happened, and the Central Committee was never held accountable.

It is also a fact that upon the death of Stalin, in 1953, it was Khrushchev who became General Secretary of the Communist Party, and promptly restored capitalism in the Soviet Union. Here too, the Central Committee failed to perform their duty.

As is well known, the Chinese Communist Party responded to this, by launching the Chinese Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. As a result of that Cultural Revolution, the common people were well schooled in the class struggle. As well, the capitalists who were hiding in various fields of culture, were ‘’rooted out’’. Yet as the Cultural Revolution was largely confined to culture, merely touching upon science, the capitalists who were hiding in various fields of science, remained hidden, biding their time.

The members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, were negligent in their duty to advise their Chairman, Mao Tse Tung, that the Cultural Revolution should have expanded to include all fields of science! As well, they should have further advised him to conduct a proper purging of the Party. 

The reason I mention this lack of a proper purging of the Party, is because Mao chose to ‘’patiently struggle’’ with the revisionists, those who had ‘’weaselled’’ their way into the Party, pointing out to them the ‘’error of their ways’’. Not that there was any need to point out these ‘’errors’’, as they were deliberate revisions! This was generally followed by a fake ‘’self criticism’’, possibly complete with ‘’waterworks’’, which is to say ‘’tears of repentance’’, and a ‘’return to duty’’.

As a result, numerous revisionists remained embedded within the Party, even within the Central Committee. The true Communist Members of the Central Committee should never have allowed this to happen. They should have pointed out to Mao his mistakes, and if he persisted, they should have removed him from office, a true purging. The periodic purging of the Communist Party, as recommended by Lenin, must not be limited to the low ranking members of that Party.

Yet this never happened, and as a result, after the death of Mao, the revisionists ‘’made their move’’, and were able to restore capitalism in China. As I have documented this, in a previous article, there is no need to repeat it here.

As for those who may object, quite reasonably, that there is ‘’strength in numbers’’, may I suggest that applies to such mass organizations as trade unions and ‘’Associations’’, not to the Communist Party. 

In the interests of stressing the importance of a proper periodic purging of the Communist Party, I have chosen to include a related article, by Lenin.

In June of 1919, Lenin wrote an article titled, A Great Beginning, Heroism of the Workers In the Rear, ‘’Communist Subbbotniks’’

For the benefit of those who have just recently become politically active, I should mention that it was only in June of 1919, almost two years after the successful October Revolution of 1917, that Soviet workers felt motivated to volunteer to go to work, generally on a weekend, on their own time. This was referred to as a ‘’subbotnik’’. They did this in the interests of building a proper Scientific Socialist Republic. Hence, the title of the article. 

I mention this for a reason. The fact of the matter is that certain advanced workers will soon be taking part in the creation of a Scientific Socialist Communist Party. As that is the case, it is necessary to bring them ‘’up to speed’’, to the level of ‘’Conscious People’’, at least in regard to Party activity, and this must be done immediately. As well as becoming aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, a certain knowledge of our revolutionary history is helpful. 

Lenin: ‘’The heroism of the workers in the rear is no less worthy of attention. In this connection, the communist subbotniks, organized by the workers on their own initiative, are really of enormous significance. Evidently, this is only a beginning, but it is a beginning of exceptionally great importance….for it is a victory over our own conservatism, indiscipline, petty bourgeois egoism, a victory over the habits left as a heritage to the worker and peasant by accursed capitalism.’’ (italics by Lenin)

In honour of that ‘’momentous occasion’’, Lenin called for the purging of the Communist Party:

‘’In the early period following the revolution…when the bourgeois intellectuals ….played the lackeys to the bourgeoisie and carried on sabotage, it was absolutely inevitable that adventurers and other pernicious elements, should hitch themselves, to the ruling party. There has never been, and there never can be, a revolution without that. The whole point is that the ruling party should be able, relying on a strong and advanced class, to purge its ranks….The mobilization of Communists for the war helped us in this respect; the cowards and scoundrels fled from the Party’s ranks. Good riddance! Such a reduction in the Party’s membership means an enormous increase in its strength and weight. We must continue the purge, and that new beginning, the ‘communist subbotniks’, must be utilized for this purpose.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Such a purging is commonly referred to as ‘’clearing out the deadwood’’. We need dedicated Scientific Socialists, true Communists, in our Communist Party, not people who are merely trying to ‘’get ahead’’. Such ‘’career seekers’’, tend to view membership in the Party as merely a ‘’stepping stone’’, as part of ‘’climbing the ladder of success’’. Then too, there are loyal, dedicated, die hard flunkies of the Oligarchy, technically referred to as ‘’sycophants’’, who will join the Party, in an effort to sabotage any and all revolutionary work. They seem to take great delight in degrading themselves, as they make every effort to serve the Oligarchy. Both types must be purged from the Party, at the earliest opportunity. 

As for those who consider it important to ‘’struggle’’ with those who are considered to be ‘’centrists’’, who tend to ‘’vacillate’’, I can only respond that you should struggle with such people outside the Communist Party! We need dedicated revolutionaries, not members who are unreliable. Bear in mind that the Chinese capitalists were able to return to power in China, partly because many of their agents had infiltrated the Party, and succeeded in rising to high ranking positions. 

Now to return to Soviet Russia, at the time of Lenin. An individual, by the name of Karl Kautsky, earned the dubious distinction of incurring the wrath of Lenin. In fact, Lenin referred to Kautsky as his ‘’bitterest enemy’’. He said that there was no point in fighting with Kautsky, it was merely a matter of ‘’exposing his apostasy’’. 

I should mention, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the term- as I was not- that an ‘’apostasy’’ is defined as ‘’an abandonment of a religious or political belief’’. There can be no doubt that, at one time, Kautsky was a fine Marxist theoretician. His early writings leave no room for doubt, in that department. Yet once he ‘’turned his coat’’, and became a traitor, a renegade, he became a superb revisionist! To this day, the capitalists are ‘’singing his praises’’! His distortions of the revolutionary theories of Scientific Socialism remain a masterpiece of deception.

It has been suggested, by various well meaning Communists, that Kautsky was a centrist, and that Lenin never broke with him, but patiently struggled with him. Such is hardly the case. Kautsky was a master of ‘’illusion’’. He ‘’appeared’’ to ‘’take a stand’’, he ‘’implied’’, he ’’led people to believe’’ something, which was not true. For example, he would say, ‘’If that were true…’’, which is not a denial, nor is it an admission! Yet people would tend to believe that it was a denial!

In 1918, Kautsky wrote an article titled, ‘’The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, in which he distorted and revised this key revolutionary theory of Marx. Lenin responded to this in 1919, with his own article, ‘’The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky’’. As Lenin stated, in his Preface to that article, ‘’By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is recognized in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of these methods, and the education of the masses in this direction’’. (italics by Lenin)

As we take part in the creation of a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party, we can expect ‘’career seekers’’ and ‘’revisionists’’, to attempt to ‘’weasel’’ their way into the Party. It is best to ‘’stop them cold’’, to ‘’nip this in the bud’’. Those who do succeed in penetrating, must be purged, at the earliest opportunity. Party members who insist in ‘’struggling with centrists’’, with a view to ‘’bringing them into the fold’’, must also be purged. The members of the Central Committee must also be held responsible for advising the General Secretary, assuming that is the title given. Any and all members of the Party must be held responsible for their actions. In this way, we can ensure that the Oligarchy will never return to power.

With Most Sincere Scientific Socialist Communist Greetings, Gerald McIsaac