• 52 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 19, 2020

help-circle
rss

Quotes -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8

“…[Engels] is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an ‘aristocracy among the working class’, of a ‘privelaged minority of the workers’, in contradistinction to the ‘great mass of working people’. ‘A small, privelaged, protected minority’ of the working class alone was ‘permanently benefitted’ by the privelaged position of England in 1848-1868, whereas ‘the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement’; In the nineteenth century the ‘mass organisations’ of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism; But we know for certain that the ‘defenders of the fatherland’ in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices” - V.I. Lenin

“Imperialism is as much our mortal enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not our duty to support every struggle against imperialism. We will not support the struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism: We will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism” - V.I. Lenin

“On the one hand, there is the tendency of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists to convert a handful of very rich and privileged nations into ‘eternal’ parasites on the body of the rest of mankind, to ‘rest on the laurels’ of the exploitation of Negroes, Indians, etc., keeping them in subjection with the aid of the excellent weapons of extermination provided by modern militarism. On the other hand, there is the tendency of the masses, who are more oppressed than before and who bear the whole brunt of imperialist wars, to cast off this yoke and to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The fact that is that ‘bourgeois labour parties,’ as a political phenomenon, have already been formed in all the foremost capitalist countries, and that unless determined and relentless struggle is waged all along the line against these parties - or groups, trends, etc., it is all the same - there can be no question of a struggle against imperialism, or of Marxism, or of a socialist labour movement” - V.I. Lenin

“Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain the ultimate goal - socialism. Why are the conditions for the democratic struggle not the same as those for the socialist struggle? Because the workers will certainly have different allies in each of those two struggles. The democratic struggle is waged by the workers together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can be properly waged” - V.I. Lenin

“Capitalism in its imperialist phase is a system which considers war to be a legitimate instrument for settling international disputes, a legal method in fact, if not in law” - J.V. Stalin

“The United States has set up hundreds of military bases in many countries all over the world. China’s territory of Taiwan, Lebanon and all military bases of the United States on foreign soil are so many nooses around the neck of U.S. imperialism. The nooses have been fashioned by the Americans themselves and by nobody else, it is they themselves who have put these nooses round their own necks, handing the ends of the ropes to the Chinese people, the peoples of the Arab countries and all the peoples of the world who love peace and oppose aggression. The longer the U.S. aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses around their necks will become” - Mao Zedong

“No matter what classes, parties or individuals in an oppressed nation join the revolution, and no matter whether they themselves are conscious of the point or understand it, so long as they oppose imperialism, their revolution becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and they become its allies” - Mao Zedong

“The basic cause of development in a thing is not external, but internal, and lies in internal contradictions. Everything has its internal contradictions, hence motion and development. Contradictions within a thing are the basic cause of its development, while its relationship with other things, their interconnection and interaction, is a secondary cause; There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions. For instance, in capitalist society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions, such as those between the remnant feudal class and the bourgeoisie, between the peasant petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the peasant petty bourgeoisie, between the non-monopoly capitalists and the monopoly capitalists, between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois fascism, among the capitalist countries and between imperialism and the colonies, are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction. In a semi-colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture. When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. So it was in China in the Opium War of 1840, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and the Yi Ho Tuan War of 1900, and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese War. But in another situation, the contradictions change position. When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war, but by milder means - political, economic and cultural - the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people” - Mao Zedong

“Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food and replace it with American style thievery called ‘capitalism,’ but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world and the people suffer” - Muammar Gaddafi


Engels himself referred to bourgeois socialists (which he distinguished from us Communists) as one type of socialist in the ‘The Principles of Communism’:

“[Bourgeois Socialists:] The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it. To this end, some propose mere welfare measures - while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organising society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow” - Friedrich Engels

Martin Luther King Jr. also referred to the concept of socialism for the rich:

“We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor” - Martin Luther King Jr.

It is up to the Communist party to seize power and scientifically (serve social ends) guide this process of socialisation in the interests of the proletariat (gear society towards the implemention of serving the working masses), as either way we are heading into some kind of bourgeois socialism (or arguably have been for a long time since the Wall Street Crash due to the falling rate of profit).

As Lenin said:

“Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation” - V.I. Lenin

Michael Hudson in his work ‘Super Imperialism’ states that through the institutions of the IMF and the World Bank that the Western elite effectively plan the economies of the third world for the benefit of themselves. The states of today are planned by the bourgeoisie for their own benefit directly, profit is no longer the primary determinant of society. The anarchy of production does not exist to the dominating degree it once did, and as Lenin stated, imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism, a transitional phase between capitalism and what came next, we have passed to that new social order and it is socialism, albeit bourgeois socialism. James Connolly spoke all the way back in 1916 as living in the “last days of capitalism”. Rosa Luxemburg stated that it would either be “barbarism or socialism”. Since the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash the system we live under has been synarchy, bourgeois socialism or simply put barbarism. This has been a gradual process which actually was completed in 1971 with the diminishing of profit and the start of the neoliberal era which effectively brings imperialism home to the developed countries. There is no free market, for example BlackRock manage assets worth over a total of $21 Trillion with it’s Aladdin portfolio management tool, it effectively is planning these assets on a rational level. Amazon is also known for it’s internal planning and has been unprofitable since it’s founding and is heavily subsidised by the government while effectively being an oligopoly of ecommerce, nor can companies just do what they want, they have to go along with government sanctions even if that means loss, as social ends of the capitalist elite dominate. Economically the system is (bourgeois) socialist but it is politically capitalist (as in led by the bourgeoisie), whereas China is both economically and politically socialist (as it is led by the proletariat and is ruled by a Communist system). What we need is to seize power for our class and scientifically address the contradictions of our society.

In this bourgeois socialism the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist mode of production still dominates, carries on from the old system:

The contradiction between socialised production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie; With this recognition, at last, of the real nature of the productive forces of today, the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual. Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production: upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production - on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment” - Friedrich Engels

We need to overcome this bourgeois socialist system and establish proletarian socialism (Communism) and scientifically guide society towards social ends for our class.

“With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history - only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” - Friedrich Engels


Quotes -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

“Something is aufheben when it is superseded by something else. ‘Supersede’ and ‘transcend’ do not carry the same connotation however as ‘abolish,’ in which the old is actually terminated and got rid of by that which supersedes it; ‘sublation’ carries the connotation of ‘including’ the old in the new, but is altogether too platonic and misses the sense of ‘abolish.’ Engels authorised the use of ‘abolish’ in the English translation of The Communist Manifesto where it talks of the aufheben of the family; this however gives leeway to those who would simply ban the institutions of religion, or dismiss the very existence of spiritual needs. The translators of the Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right variously used ‘abolish’ and ‘supersede’ according to context. Generally speaking, when reading English translations of Marx and Engels, the words ‘abolish,’ ‘supersede’ and ‘sublate’ are most likely translations of aufheben, and should be understood in that sense, as something being made obsolete by means of resolving the problems that gave rise to it in some new way” - (Encyclopedia of Marxism)


“Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its highflown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The Communists do not preach morality at all. They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the Communists by no means want to do away with the ‘private individual’ for the sake of the ‘general’, selfless man. That is a statement of the imagination” - Karl Marx

“I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating; in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year; and are forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400” - Karl Marx

“…Now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It’s a type of operation that makes demands on one’s time, [but] it’s worthwhile running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money” - Karl Marx

“The minor panic in the money market appears to be over, consols [a type of government bond] and railway shares are again rising merrily, money is easier… I don’t believe that the crisis will this time be preceded by a rage for speculation; crucial ill-tidings from overstocked markets must surely come soon. Massive shipments continue to leave for China and India; Calcutta is decidedly overstocked; I don’t believe prosperity will continue beyond October” - Friedrich Engels

“Firstly, he saves himself the trouble of explaining the various forms of distribution which have hitherto existed, their differences and their causes; taken in the lump, they are simply of no account–they rest on oppression, on force. We shall have to deal with this before long. Secondly, he thereby transfers the whole theory of distribution from the sphere of economics to that of morality and law, that is, from the sphere of established material facts to that of more or less vacillating opinions and sentiments. He therefore no longer has any need to investigate or to prove things; he can go on declaiming to his heart’s content and demand that the distribution of the products of labour should be regulated, not in accordance with its real causes, but in accordance with what seems ethical and just to him, Herr Dühring" - Friedrich Engels

“From a scientific standpoint, this appeal to morality and justice does not help us an inch further; moral indignation, however justifiable, cannot serve economic science as an argument, but only as a symptom” - Friedrich Engels

“The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter” - Karl Vörlander

“I am closely following the situation in Russia. I try to get testimonies from eyewitnesses, not from newspapers that lie non-stop. I approve of the Russian revolution because it proclaimed the principle of honesty on one-sixth of the earth’s surface. The Soviet Union is facing incredible temptations, but the state is ready to overcome them. The Russians were lucky - they have socialism and Stalin. Happy people with a wise leader. I envy the Russians and pity my compatriots who are ruled by three random people (after the assassination of Alexander, a three-member governorship took over the role of king). Only under the leadership of a wise and strong leader are the people capable of feats. If I could go back half a century, I wouldn’t think for a second, I would go to Moscow and send Bechelor and Edison to hell. In my small library, I keep a collection of texts about the October Revolution, which was given to me by Skvirski (Soviet Ambassador to the United States). I often return to the collection and think with sympathy about the country I cannot visit. Age has many advantages, but also two disadvantages - poor health and thinking in the spirit: ‘I will never succeed in this.’ If I had children or grandchildren, I would probably, for their happiness, decide to go to the USSR. To go alone, at this age, I will not. I remember saying to Skvirski on one occasion: ‘There is no point in transporting old bones across the ocean. You need to move while you are young so that the new homeland can benefit as much as possible. My departure to the USSR would be just a burden for you’” - Nikola Tesla

“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all” - John M. Keynes

“[On the industrialisation of the Soviet economy] The result is impressive” - John M. Keynes

“It is said that in that ‘will’ Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s ‘rudeness’ it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post. What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey” - J.V. Stalin

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole education system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals” - Albert Einstein

“The Russians have proved that their only aim is really the improvement of the lot of the Russian people; There are increasing signs the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot among those who look upon Stalin as a stupid reactionary who has betrayed the ideas of the revolution” - Albert Einstein

“Anyone who loves freedom owes such a debt to the Red Army that it can never be repaid” - Ernest Hemingway

“It was here that in 1919 he brought Nadya Alleluiev, the daughter of his old friend of early Bolshevik days, and now grown into a beautiful woman. He was at this time forty and she seventeen, but for her he was still the same hero who had once come from afar and taken refuge in her parents’ home. This was Stalin’s great love affair. He was by nature monogamous. Those in search of sexual scandal in his life will search in vain. I recall Radek speaking to me of Stalin’s reaction to the vagaries and often abominable aberrations in the sexual life of modern civilisation. Several illustrated German books dealing with the subject lay on Radek’s table, which was as usual piled with volumes newly arrived from Europe and America. Stalin was just about to leave Radek’s room when he noticed these books and began thumbing over their pages. Turning to Radek he asked: ‘Are there really people in Europe who do these kinds of things?’ ‘Yes, of course,’ answered Radek. ‘Stalin,’ Radek said to me, ‘looked utterly disgusted, shrugged his shoulders, and walked away without saying another word.’ To Stalin they reflected a diseased way of life, and he was a normal healthy man in his reactions to disease whether of the mind or of the body” - J.T. Murphy

“I think there are two swords: one is Lenin and the other is Stalin” - Mao Zedong

“Communism is not love. Communism is the hammer we use to destroy the class enemy” - Mao Zedong

“First, Stalin is disowned, now, little by little, it gets to prosecute socialism, the October Revolution, and in no time they will also want to prosecute Lenin and Marx” - Lazar Kaganovich

“There were a large number of Christian churches in our country before the outbreak of the Fatherland Liberation War against the U.S. imperialists. These churches were destroyed by the planes of Americans who they themselves professed to be the so-called ‘apostles of God.’ The crucifixes, icons, Bibles, as well as their worshippers - all destroyed by U.S. bombs. And thus, it were the Americans who destroyed our churches and killed our religious. No god rescued us from this disaster. So after the war, our religious did not hurry to rebuild their churches and temples. Instead they focused their efforts on their survival, first rebuilding what they needed most: dwellings, homes, factories, schools” - Kim Il-sung


Quotes -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

“It is the business of the International Working Men’s Association to combine and generalise the spontaneous movements of the working classes, but not to dictate or impose any doctrinary system whatever. The Congress should, therefore, proclaim no special system of co-operation, but limit itself to the enunciation of a few general principles. (a.) We acknowledge the co-operative movement as one of the transforming forces of the present society based upon class antagonism. Its great merit is to practically show, that the present pauperising, and despotic system of the subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers. (b.) Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. to convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves. (c.) We recommend to the working men to embark in co-operative production rather than in co-operative stores. The latter touch but the surface of the present economical system, the former attacks its groundwork. (d.) We recommend to all co-operative societies to convert one part of their joint income into a fund for propagating their principles by example as well as by precept, in other words, by promoting the establishment by teaching and preaching. (e.) In order to prevent co-operative societies from degenerating into ordinary middle-class joint stock companies (societes par actions), all workmen employed, whether shareholders or not, ought to share alike. As a mere temporary expedient, we are willing to allow shareholders a low rate of interest” - Karl Marx

“[How do communists differ from socialists?] The so-called socialists are divided into three categories. [Reactionary Socialists:] The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end. This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons: (i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible. (ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests - a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution. (iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians. [Bourgeois Socialists:] The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it. To this end, some propose mere welfare measures - while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organising society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow. [Democratic Socialists:] Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society. These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat. It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them - provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences” - Friedrich Engels

“There is no place yet in America for a third party, I believe. The divergence of interests even in the same class group is so great in that tremendous area that wholly different groups and interests are represented in each of the two big parties, depending on the locality, and almost each particular section of the possessing class has its representatives in each of the two parties to a very large degree, though today big industry forms the core of the Republicans on the whole, just as the big landowners of the South form that of the Democrats. The apparent haphazardness of this jumbling together is what provides the splendid soil for the corruption and the plundering of the government that flourish there so beautifully. Only when the land - the public lands - is completely in the hands of the speculators, and settlement on the land thus becomes more and more difficult or falls prey to gouging - only then, I think, will the time come, with peaceful development, for a third party. Land is the basis of speculation, and the American speculative mania and speculative opportunity are the chief levers that hold the native-born worker in bondage to the bourgeoisie. Only when there is a generation of native-born workers that cannot expect anything from speculation any more will we have a solid foothold in America. But, of course, who can count on peaceful development in America! There are economic jumps over there, like the political ones in France - to be sure, they produce the same momentary retrogressions. The small farmer and the petty bourgeois will hardly ever succeed in forming a strong party; they consist of elements that change too rapidly - the farmer is often a migratory farmer, farming two, three, and four farms in succession in different states and territories, immigration and bankruptcy promote the change in personnel, and economic dependence upon the creditor also hampers independence - but to make up for it they are a splendid element for politicians, who speculate on their discontent in order to sell them out to one of the big parties afterward. The tenacity of the Yankees, who are even rehashing the Greenback humbug, is a result of their theoretical backwardness and their Anglo-Saxon contempt for all theory. They are punished for this by a superstitious belief in every philosophical and economic absurdity, by religious sectarianism, and by idiotic economic experiments, out of which, however, certain bourgeois cliques profit” - Friedrich Engels

“‘If you take food, fuel and housing out of the equation, inflation has been quite moderate’ To be sure, and if you remove a few other major items, it disappears altogether. A key reason why the United States is becoming increasingly like the Third World is because corporate America is going Third World, literally, not only downgrading jobs and downsizing, but moving whole industries to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The aim of modern imperialism is not to accumulate colonies nor even just to provide outlets for capitalist investment and access to natural resources. The economist Paul Sweezy noted that the overall purpose is to turn Third World nations into economic appendages the industrialised countries, encouraging the growth of those kinds of economic activities, that complement the advanced capitalist economies and thwarting those kinds that might compete with them; Perhaps Sweezy relies too much on the nation-state as the unit of analysis. The truth is, the investor class also tries to reduce its own population to a client-state status. The aim of imperialism is not a national one but an international class goal, to exploit and concentrate power not only over Guatamalans, Indonesians, and Saudis, but Americans, Canadians, and everyone else” - Michael Parenti


“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity” - V.I. Lenin

“Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism ‘definitely’ became established” - V.I. Lenin

“Unless the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and its political and social significance is appreciated, not a step can be taken toward the solution of the practical problem of the communist movement and of the impending social revolution” - V.I. Lenin

“Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other. The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena” - J.V. Stalin

“Whether or not one’s consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not; For it is this leap alone that can prove the correctness or incorrectness of the first leap in cognition, i.e., of the ideas, theories, policies, plans or measures formulated in the course of reflecting the objective external world; Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge, the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. Among our comrades there are many who do not yet understand this theory of knowledge. When asked the sources of their ideas, opinions, policies, methods, plans and conclusions, eloquent speeches and long articles they consider the questions strange and cannot answer it. Nor do they comprehend that matter, can be transformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, although such leaps are phenomena of everyday life” - Mao Zedong

“Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organisation and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organisations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organisational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well - they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution” - Mao Zedong


“Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself had become in essence socialised. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests. This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all decisive fields of production and in all economically decisive countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residium, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialised production with capitalistic appropriation; The first capitalists found, as we have said, wage-labour ready-made for them. But it was exceptional, complementary, accessory, transitory wage-labour. The agricultural labourer, though, upon occasion, he hired himself out by the day, had a few acres of his own land on which he could at all events live at a pinch. The guilds were so organised that the journeyman of today became the master of tomorrow. But all this changed, as soon as the means of production became socialised and concentrated in the hands of capitalists. The means of production, as well as the product, of the individual producer became more and more worthless; there was nothing left for him but to turn wage-worker under the capitalist. Wage-labour, aforetime the exception and accessory, now became the rule and basis of all production; aforetime complementary, it now became the sole remaining function of the worker. The wage-worker for a time became a wage-worker for life. The number of these permanent wageworkers was further enormously increased by the breaking-up of the feudal system that occurred at the same time, by the disbanding of the retainers of the feudal lords, the eviction of the peasants from their homesteads, etc. The separation was made complete between the means of production concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, on the one side, and the producers, possessing nothing but their labour-power, on the other. The contradiction between socialised production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie; With this recognition, at last, of the real nature of the productive forces of today, the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual. Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production: upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production - on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment” - Friedrich Engels

“With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history - only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” - Friedrich Engels

“‘Materialism’ as a term and as a concept is booby-trapped by its functional association with the eighteenth-century bourgeois Enlightenment and with nineteenth-century positivism. Whatever precautions are taken, it always fatally ends up projecting a determinism by matter (that is to say, the individual body or organism in isolation) rather than - as in historical materialism - a determination by the mode of production. It would be better to grasp Marxism and the dialectic as an attempt to overcome not idealism by itself, but that every ideological opposition between idealism and materialism in the first place. The work of both Sartre and Gramsci is there to argue for some position ‘beyond idealism and materialism,’ and if one does not like the projected new solution - called ‘praxis’ - then at least it would be desirable to search for something more adequate” - F. Jameson


“We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I’m talking about the white masses, I’m talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses too. We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism. We’re stood up and said we’re not going to fight reactionary pigs and reactionary state’s attorneys like this and reactionary state’s attorneys like Hanrahan with any other reactions on our part. We’re going to fight their reactions with all of us people getting together and having an international proletarian revolution” - Fred Hampton

“There are no socially significant inherited characteristics among different ethnic groups or nations. Blacks are in no way inherently more lazy, less creative, more musical or cooperative, Jews or Chinese are in no way inherently more crafty, sly, or intelligent; whites are in no way inherently antagonistic to people of dark skin; and no members of any socially defined ‘race’ or ethnic group have any inherent predisposition to identify or feel solidarity with other members of the same group and hostility to, or lack of solidarity with, members of other groups. All manifest differences between different people’s, ethnic groups, nations, etc., are a product of the logic of the mode of production that generates ‘races’; The relationship between capital and especially exploited menial workers (such as Blacks and Hispanics) in the U.S. is the essence of racism. This antagonist relationship is a source of considerable profit for capital. Such exploitative relationships can only be dissolved through revolutionary activity which destroys such antagonistic relationships. Capitalism generates a racist ideology which is not only used to legitimate the special exploitation of ethnic minorities and nations in the eyes of the exploiters, but also to convince the members of the majority ethnic group workers that it has ‘white skin privilege,’ i.e., that it has more in common with ‘white capitalists’ than it does with Black or Hispanic workers. This ideology is implanted both by control of the education and mass media which perpetuates racist ideologies, and by the ability of the capitalist class to structure the labour force in such a way as majority group workers have slightly better jobs, slightly better pay than minority group workers, and further receive somewhat better treatment by the police, in the courts, by welfare agencies etc. The illusion that all whites benefit from racist structures is thus created in both the majority group workers. But in reality, the ability of the capitalists to turn the different segments of the working class against each other seriously hurts the condition of all the working class, both its majority and minority members (although of course it hurts the minority group workers relatively more). The only beneficiaries of racist structures are those that employ minorities and thus make extra profits from: the special exploitation of minorities and, the weak class consciousness, lack of strong unions, absence of a militant socialist movement, etc., which racial divisiveness brings to the majority group. It should be remembered that white workers in the U.S. are the best off in states such as Michigan where their relative advantage over Black workers is the least in the country (and which have a strong militant interracial union tradition) and worse off in Mississippi where whites are at the same time the best off vis-a-vis Blacks. Where racist Ideology is strongest, working class solidarity is the weakest and all workers, white and Black are in much worse shape than where racist ideology has been overcome enough to allow multi-ethnic/national forms of class organisation to emerge and improve the conditions of the working class as a whole; It is the obligation of leftists to educate white workers about how they are being ‘suckered’ by the ‘white skin privilege’ argument of the capitalist class and how their own interests coincide with their fellow minority group workers” - Albert Szymanski

“The race question is subsidiary to the class question in politics, and to think of imperialism in terms of race is disastrous. But to neglect the racial factor as merely incidental [is] an error only less grave than to make it fundamental” - C.L.R. James

“If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem… Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you’re anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude” - Kwame Ture

“Referring to SDS’s agreement to support the petition in the ‘colonies’ (black and brown communities) but not in the ‘oppressor country’ (white America), Hilliard wrote in the Black Panther: ‘How abstract and divorced from the reality of the world around them they must be to think that the Black Panther party would allow them to leave their communities and begin to organise the colony; to control the fascists in the oppressor country is a very definite step towards white people’s power, because James Rector was not shotgunned to death in the black community. It seems they prefer to allow the already legitimate reactionary forces to take roost or sanctuary in the white communities.’ Stating that the ‘Black Panther party will not be dictated to by people who are obviously bourgeois procrastinators,’ Hilliard went on to imply that SDS, among other groups, was ‘at best national socialist’ (i.e., fascist)” - Jack A. Smith


“If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed. Nationalism without Socialism - without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy” - James Connolly

“One after another, these ‘nations’ used the freshly granted freedom to ally themselves with German imperialism against the Russian Revolution as its mortal enemy, and, under German protection, to carry the banner of counter-revolution into Russia itself. The little game with the Ukraine at Brest, which caused a decisive turn of affairs in those negotiations and brought about the entire inner and outer political situation at present prevailing for the Bolsheviks, is a perfect case in point. The conduct of Finland, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic lands, the nations of the Caucasus, shows most convincingly that we are dealing here not with an exceptional case, but with a typical phenomenon. To be sure, in all these cases, it was really not the ‘people’ who engaged in these reactionary policies, but only the bourgeois and petit bourgeois classes, who - in sharpest opposition to their own proletarian masses - perverted the ‘national right of self-determination’ into an instrument of their counter-revolutionary class policies. But - and here we come to the very heart of the question - it is in this that the utopian, petit bourgeois character of this nationalistic slogan resides: that in the midst of the crude realities of class society, especially when class antagonisms are sharpened to the uttermost, it is simply converted into a means of bourgeois class rule; Or take the Ukraine. At the beginning of the century, before the tomfoolery of ‘Ukrainian nationalism’ with its silver rubles and its ‘Universals’ and Lenin’s hobby of an ‘independent Ukraine’ had been invented, the Ukraine was the stronghold of the Russian revolutionary movement. From there, from Rostov, from Odessa, from the Donetz region, flowed out the first lava streams of the revolution (as early is 1902-1904), which kindled all South Russia into a sea of flame, thereby preparing the uprising of 1905. The same thing was repeated in the present revolution, in which thc South Russian proletariat supplies the elite troops of the proletarian phalanx. Poland and the Baltic lands have been, since 1905, the mightiest and most dependable hearths of revolution, and in them the socialist proletariat has played an outstanding role. How does it happen then, that in all these lands the counter-revolution suddenly triumphs? The nationalist movement, just because it tore the proletariat loose from Russia, crippled it thereby, and delivered it into the hands of the bourgeoisie of the border countries; To be sure, without the help of German imperialism, without ‘the German rifle butts in German fists,’ as Kautsky’s ‘Neue Zeit’ put it, the Lubinskys and other little scoundrels of the Ukraine, the Erichs and Mannerheims of Finland, and the Baltic barons would never have gotten the better of the socialist masses of the workers in their respective lands. But national separatism was the Trojan horse inside which the German ‘comrades,’ bayonets in hand, made their entrance into all those lands. The real class antagonisms and relations of military force brought about German intervention; Ukrainian nationalism in Russia was something quite different from, let us say, Czechish, Polish or Finnish nationalism in that the former was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty-bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture, except for the reactionary-romantic poems of Shevschenko. It is exactly as if, one fine day, the people living in the Wasserkante should want to found a new Low-German (Plattdeutsche) nation and government! And this ridiculous pose of a few university professors and students was inflated into a political force by Lenin and his comrades through their doctrinaire agitation concerning the ‘right of self-determination including etc.’ To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness - not as a serious national movement for which, afterward as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution! At Brest, out of this addled egg crept thc German bayonets” - Rosa Luxemburg

“The British are as cunning as the fox and as changeable as the weather and they are not ashamed of themselves… Britain seeks friendship only with those which can render her services, and when her friends are too weak to be of any use to her, they must be sacrificed in her interests. Britain’s tender regard for her friends is like the delicate care usually shown by farmers in the rearing of silkworks; after all the silk has been drawn from the cocoons, they are destroyed by fire or used as food for the fish. The present friends of Britain are no more than silkworms; When England befriends another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial relationship for the sake of friendship but to utilise that country as a tool to fight a third country. When an enemy has been shorn of his power, he is turned into a friend, and the friend who has become strong, into an enemy. England always remains in a commanding position; she makes other countries fight her wars and she herself reaps the fruits of victory; The key policy of England is to attack the strongest enemy with the help of the weaker countries and join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of a third country. The British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries” - Sun Yat-sen

“Sometimes the emergence of independent states means the strengthening of imperialism” - (N. Bukharin, The Politics and Economics of the Transition Period)

“This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question” - J.V. Stalin

“The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such ‘desperate’ democrats and ‘Socialists,’ ‘revolutionaries’ and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British ‘Labour’ Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are ‘for’ socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step” - J.V. Stalin


“What kept production in true, or more or less true, proportions? It was demand that dominated supply, that preceded it. Production followed close on the heels of consumption. Large-scale industry, forced by the very instruments at its disposal to produce on an ever-increasing scale, can no longer wait for demand. Production precedes consumption, supply compels demands” - Karl Marx

“Not as with the instrument, which the worker animates and makes into his organ with his skill and strength, and whose handling therefore depends on his virtuosity. Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil etc., just as the worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion. The worker’s activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through themachine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself” - Karl Marx

“If the whole working day were to shrink to the length of its necessary component, surplus labour would vanish, something which is impossible under the regime of capital. Only the abolition of the capitalist form of production would permit the reduction of the working day to the necessary labour-time. But even in that case the latter would expand to take up more of the day, and for two reasons: first, because the worker’s conditions of life would improve, and his aspirations become greater, and second, because a part of what is now surplus labour would then count as necessary labour, namely the labour which is necessary for the formation of a social fund for reserve and accumulation” - Karl Marx

“The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the Middle Ages” - Karl Marx

“Let us take, first of all, the words ‘proceeds of labour’ in the sense of the product of labour; then the co-operative proceeds of labour are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called poor relief today. The ‘undiminished’ proceeds of labour have already unnoticeably become converted into the ‘diminished’ proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society” - Karl Marx

“Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention” - Karl Marx

“It seems that every worker’s party in a great country can grow only through internal strife, this is based on the general law of dialectical development. The German Party became what it is in the struggle between the Eisenachers and the Lassalleans” - Friedrich Engels

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time” - Friedrich Engels

“The Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with ‘his own’ nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty” - V.I. Lenin

“This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means in preventing the rise of an independent working class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party” - V.I. Lenin

“The Executive Committee of the Third International must, in my opinion, positively condemn, and call upon the next congress of the Communist International to condemn both the policy of refusing to work in reactionary trade unions in general (explaining in detail why such refusal is unwise, and what extreme harm it does to the cause of the proletarian revolution)” - V.I. Lenin

“It is impossible fully to grasp Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, if you have not studied through and understood the whole of Hegel’s logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists for the past half century have understood Marx!” - V.I. Lenin

“Without surplus product you cannot build the new system. It is necessary that the workers understand that under capitalism they are interested in what it is that they are getting. But under socialism they take care of their own society and this is what educates the worker. Income remains but it acquires another character. The surplus product is there, but it does not go to the exploiter, but towards increasing the welfare of the people, strengthening defence etc. The surplus product gets transformed” - J.V. Stalin

“In our country distribution takes place according to labour. We have qualified and unqualified labour. How should we define an engineer’s work? It is multiplied simple labour. With us incomes are distributed according to labour. It cannot be that this distribution happens independently of the law of value. We think that the entire economy is run according to the plan, but it does not always happen this way. There is a lot of spontaneity with us also. We knowingly, and not spontaneously, make calculations according to the law of value. In their system the law of value operates spontaneously, bringing in its wake destruction, and demands huge sacrifices. In our system the character of the law of value undergoes a change, it acquires a new content, a new form. We knowingly, and not spontaneously, set prices. Engels speaks of leaps. It is a risky formula, but it can be accepted, if we correctly understand the leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom. We must understand freedom of will as necessity recognised, where the leap means a transition from spontaneous inevitability to the recognition of necessity. In their system the law of value operates spontaneously and it leads to large-scale destruction. But we should conduct things in such a way that there are fewer sacrifices. The necessity resulting from the operation of the law of value must be used by us consciously” - J.V. Stalin

[Surplus product in a socialist society - the term is embarrassing] “On the contrary, we have to educate the worker that the surplus product is needed by us, there is more responsibility. The worker must understand that he produces not only for himself and his family, but also for creating reserves and strengthening defence etc. [In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx did not write about surplus product] If you want to seek answers for everything in Marx you will get nowhere. You have in front of you a laboratory such as the U.S.S.R. which has existed now for more than 20 years but you think that Marx ought to be knowing more than you about socialism. Do you not understand that in the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx was not in a position to foresee!” - J.V. Stalin

“The Nazi party is the party of big business, on the same principle, if not in the exact form, that the Democratic and Republican parties are the parties of big business in the U.S.A.” - William Z. Foster

“First of all, the vanguard will divorce itself from the masses when it fails to perform its obligations as the vanguard of the people, when it fails to represent at all times and in all circumstances the maximum interests of the broadest possible sections of the people, when it fails to define correct tasks, policies and methods of work at the right time and when it fails to stick to the truth and correct its mistakes in good time. In other words, tailism and negligence willl lead to our estrangement from the masses; Secondly, the vanguard divroces itself from the masses when it fails to adopt a correct attitude and correct methods to lead them, when it fails to help them recognise in their own experience the correctness of the Partys slogans and act accordingly, when the slogans it adopts are too radical and the policies ultra-Left, or when the forms of struggle and organisation it advocated are impossible to carry out at the time or unacceptable to the masses. In other words, commandism, adventurism and closed-doorism will lead to isolation from the masses” - Liu Shaoqi


“Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the ‘defenders of the fatherland’ in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privelages of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices” - V.I. Lenin

“[…] Bishop Nikon, quoting a letter from a peasant, does write: ‘The land, bread and other important questions of our Russian life and of the region do not appear to reach either the hands or the hearts of the authorities or the Duma. These questions and such solution of them as is possible are regarded as ‘utopian’, ‘hazardous’, untimely. Why do you keep silent, what are you waiting for? For moods and revolts for which those same ‘undernourished’, hungry, unfortunate peasants will be shot down? We are afraid of ‘big’ issues and reforms, we limit ourselves to trivialities and trifles, good though they may be.’ That is what Bishop Nikon writes. And that is what very many Black-hundred peasants think. It is quite understandable why Bishop Nikon had to be removed from Damn affairs and Duma speeches for such statements. Bishop Nikon expresses his Black-Hundred democracy in arguments that are, in essence, very far from correct. The land, bread and all other important questions do reach the hands and hearts (and pockets) of the ‘authorities’ and the Duma; Under such circumstances, the cries about the Black-Hundred danger are the result either of absolute ignorance or of hypocrisy. And it is those who conceal their real aims and act behind the scenes that must play the hypocrite. The Mensheviks are raising an outcry about the Black-Hundred danger in order to divert the workers’ attention from the game they, the Mensheviks, are playing, or did play recently, by joining the petty-bourgeois bloc and bar gaining with the Cadets” - V.I. Lenin

“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarising it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now ‘Marxists’ (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the ‘national-German’ Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organised for the purpose of waging a predatory war!” - V.I. Lenin

“However, the Bernsteinian and ‘critical’ trend, to which the majority of the legal Marxists turned, deprived the socialists of this opportunity and demoralised the socialist consciousness by vulgarising Marxism, by advocating the theory of the blunting of social contradictions, by declaring the idea of the social revolution and of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, by reducing the working-class movement and the class struggle to narrow trade-unionism and to a ‘realistic’ struggle for petty, gradual reforms. This was synonymous with bourgeois democracy’s denial of socialism’s right to independence and, consequently, of its right to existence; in practice it meant a striving to convert the nascent working-class movement into an appendage of the liberals” - V.I. Lenin

“But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism” - V.I. Lenin

“Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It would be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything” - V.I. Lenin

“The task devolving on Communists is to convince the backwards elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with artificial and childishly ‘Left’ slogans” - V.I. Lenin

“How should we judge whether a youth is a revolutionary? How can we tell? There can only be one criterion, namely, whether or not he is willing to integrate himself with the broad masses of workers and peasants and does so in practice. If he is willing to do so and actually does so, he is a revolutionary; otherwise he is a nonrevolutionary or a counter-revolutionary” - Mao Zedong

“As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them - but should befriend them - unite with them, and convince them and encourage them to go forward” - Mao Zedong

“The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible” - Mao Zedong

“All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked” - Mao Zedong

“If you don’t study the negative stuff, you won’t be able to refute it. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin was like that. They made great efforts to learn and study all sorts of things, contemporary and past, and taught other people to do likewise” - Mao Zedong

“Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth… They understand nothing of the Marxist theory of knowledge” - Mao Zedong

“If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticised, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it” - Mao Zedong

“We cannot mechanically apply what Comrade Mao Zedong said about a particular question to another question, what he said in a particular place to another place, what he said at a particular time to another time, or what he said under particular circumstances to other circumstances” - Deng Xiaoping

“All sense of dialectics is lost when someone believes that today’s economy is identical to the economy of 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, or that it is identical to the one in Lenin’s day or to the time when Karl Marx lived” - Fidel Castro

“In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the U.S.S.R. were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum” - Michael Parenti


“It is necessary that our cadres have a thorough knowledge of Marxist economic theory. The first, old generation of Bolsheviks were very solid theoretically. We learnt Capital by heart, made conspectuses, held discussions and tested each others’ understanding. This was our strength and it helped us a lot. The second generation was less prepared. They were busy with practical matters and construction. They studied Marxism from booklets. The third generation is being brought up on satirical and newspaper articles. They do not have any deep understanding . They need to be provided with food that is easily digestible. The majority has been brought up not by studying Marx and Lenin but on quotations. If matters continue further in this way people would soon degenerate. In America people argue: We need dollars, why do we need theory? Why do we need science? With us people may think similarly: ‘when we are building socialism why do we need Capital?’ This is a threat for us - it is degradation, it is death. In order not to have such a situation even partially we have to improve the level of economic understanding” - J.V. Stalin

“‘Firmly establish the new-democratic social order.’ That’s a harmful formulation. In the transition period changes are taking place all the time and socialist factors are emerging every day. How can this ‘new-democratic social order’ be ‘firmly established’? It would be very difficult indeed to ‘establish’ it ‘firmly’! For instance, private industry and commerce are being transformed, and if an order is ‘established’ in the second half of the year, it will no longer hold ‘firm’ next year. And changes are taking place in mutual aid and co-operation in agriculture from year to year too. The period of transition is full of contradictions and struggles. Our present revolutionary struggle is even more profound than the revolutionary armed struggle of the past. It is a revolution that will bury the capitalist system and all other systems of exploitation once and for all. The idea, ‘Firmly establish the new-democratic social order’, goes against the realities of our struggle and hinders the progress of the socialist cause” - Mao Zedong

“‘Don’t you want to abolish state power?’ Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country; Our present task is to strengthen the people’s state apparatus - mainly the people’s army, the people’s police and the people’s courts - in order to consolidate national defence and protect the people’s interests; The foreign reactionaries who accuse us of practicing ‘dictatorship’ or ‘totalitarianism’ are the very persons who practice it. They practice the dictatorship or totalitarianism of one class, the bourgeoisie, over the proletariat and the rest of the people. They are the very persons Sun Yat-sen spoke of as the bourgeoisie of modern states who oppress the common people; The state apparatus, including the army, the police and the courts, is the instrument by which one class oppresses another. It is an instrument for the oppression of antagonistic classes, it is violence and not ‘benevolence.’ We definitely do not apply a policy of benevolence to the reactionaries and towards the reactionary activities of the reactionary classes” - Mao Zedong

“The behaviour of the police in China was a revelation to me. They are there to protect and help the people, not to oppress them. Their courtesy was genuine; no division or suspicion exists between them and the citizens. This impressed me so much that when I returned to the United States and was met by the Tactical Squad at San Francisco airport (they had been called out because nearly a thousand people came to the airport to welcome us back), it was brought home to me all over again that the police in our country are an occupying, repressive force. I pointed this out to a customs officer in San Francisco, a Black man, who was armed, explaining to him that I felt intimidated seeing all the guns around. I had just left a country, I told him, where the army and police are not in opposition to the people but are their servants” - Huey P. Newton

“We shall not forget that the idea [of socialism] is not dead, but rather in a few countries the socialist society actually exists. Here, I am thinking of the People’s Republic of China, which especially in current days has reinforced its determination to continue the successful development of socialism. After all, this is a country of 1.2 billion people. As you know, I’ve been to China [in 1986], and I can say with deep conviction that the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao Zedong will keep getting realised with success. We have the valiant Vietnam, which fares the socialist path, and refused to be brought to its knees by the U.S. imperialists. And we have the beacon in Latin America: the brave Cuba under Fidel Castro. So socialism as such still actually exists; however the idea of course is in existence since Marx and Engels, founded on the basis of science, and it cannot be shaken by temporary setbacks” - Erich Honecker

“The course of China’s successful revolution and national construction is inextricably linked to Mao Zedong Thought. Mao Zedong, throughout the course of his life, sacrificed greatly and has made profound contributions and achievements that would, fundamentally, remain eternal for the hearts of the Chinese people. But, Mao Zedong just like any other human being, had his weaknesses and has made mistakes. When we analyse and explore Mao Zedong’s mistakes, it is obvious that we should recognise who and which individual is responsible, but at the same time we should always recognise the sheer complexity of historical background and the conditions of which these very mistakes were made. It is only through this that we can objectively, scientifically, and which is ultimately the correct Marxist method of handling history, approach important historical figures like Chairman Mao; The traits, character and essence of Mao Zedong’s errors and the issues of Lin Biao and the ‘Gang of Four’ are not the same. Chairman Mao throughout the majority of his life has done innumerable great things. He has, in multiple occasions, lead, guided and ultimately saved our party and our country during dire conditions and times of crises. Without Chairman Mao, to the very least, we, the Chinese people, would be still left astray in a far darker state of chaos for a far more longer time. Chairman Mao’s greatest contribution is his efforts to blend, link and unite Marxist theory with the conditions of China, which ultimately led to the successful path of China’s revolution; The Communist Party of China’s ‘left’ errors can be traced back to the late 1950s. But these errors are not solely Chairman Mao’s responsibility or fault” - Deng Xiaoping

“The aim of Socialism is to make all our people prosperous, not create polarisation. If our policies lead to polarisation, it would mean that we had failed; if a new bourgeoisie emerged, it would mean we had strayed from the right path” - Deng Xiaoping

“China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one. If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it” - Deng Xiaoping

“Ours is an economically backwards country with a population of one billion. If we took the capitalist road, a small number of people in certain areas would quickly grow rich, while the overwhelming majority of the people would remain in poverty, scarcely able to feed and clothe themselves. Only the socialist system can eradicate poverty” - Deng Xiaoping

“Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership” - Deng Xiaoping

“China is no longer the China of the feudal lords, nor the constant victim of the aggressions of colonial and imperial powers. Henceforth, no one will be able to scorn and humiliate China. This is the new China that emerges with the victorious national liberation struggles and the socialist revolution. Everything was forged through feats of heroism and long marches, which were exploits unsurpassable in human history. Everything was carried out under the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism and their wise application [words indistinct] of China. Eternal glory to the Communist Party, to its founders and leaders, and to the heroic population capable of such a feat. Glory and honor, too, and most rightfully so, to the great revolutionary strategist, Mao Zedong. The path China has had to travel following liberation has been long, difficult, and risky in a world where imperialism exercised and still exercises power and hegemonic influence. The Chinese Communists, as they themselves admit, also had to struggle against their own mistakes. It is up to them, not us, to judge that. What is an unquestionable and certain fact is that the Chinese people are indissolubly united around their revolutionary vanguard today. Colossal successes have been attained. The era of disasters and famines has been left behind. Only socialism could have been capable of the miracle of feeding; clothing; providing with footwear, jobs, education, and healthcare; raising life expectancy to 70; and providing decorous shelter for more than 1 billion human beings in a minute portion of the planet’s arable land. Thanks to such a feat at this difficult and critical time for the world’s peoples, in China over one-fifth of humanity remains under the banner of socialism” - Fidel Castro


As a class, it is the working class themselves who are the revolutionary subject because they work and toil and if they organise and come together they can halt production. Whereas the professionals such as teachers and engineers not doing something will not result in gains for us (nor should we be focusing on their organising as there was an actual working class strike wave that got ignored in Winter 2021) because they are trying to maintain their professional status when they organise (usually tends to not have a working class nature, but we need to make it such and organise them to ally with the working class). While if we look at the petit bourgeoisie (and peasantry) if they organise it is just for individual benefit even if they are really poor (which the majority are as they are a dying class, but they do need to be mobilised as well). While the lumpen is almost impossible to organise as a whole because they are the criminal elements at the bottom of society. As this is a ‘dog eat dog world’, this manifests most harshly at the bottom because they are the people in society who are oppressed by their position to society under which they go unnoticed and lurk in the shadows of society. This reflects on their worldview and the lumpen as a class are highly individualised, atomised and are act ‘dog eat dog’ towards everyone else in their position unless in an organised gang, or in rare cases, enlightened lumpen (can be organised) who are in the minority (but have no influence over the class). It is the working class, the proletariat who are the revolutionary subjects, who made the revolutions of the 20th century and will make the revolutions of the 21st century!

The capitalist class WILL use violence to stop the revolution. The only way to effectively counter violence is violence. Revolutionaries do not want violence, but they must be prepared to defend the revolution from the assaults of counter-revolutionary forces. Violence in revolutions must be used as self-defense when necessary. Excesses of violence must be avoided, the kind arising from anger, disgust and hatred. Torture, no quarter, physical/psychological/verbal/sexual abuse/harassment of POWs, deliberate use of lethal force against unarmed civilian populations, deliberate use of weapons of mass destruction, deliberate targetting of basic infrastructure such as water treatment facilities, power plants, farms, crop lands, food banks, hospitals and schools, posing as humanitarian aid workers and medical professionals to trick the enemy, deliberately devastating the enemy’s local ecosystem, deliberate killing of children and extrajudicial executions should be strictly forbidden and those guilty should be tried in the revolution’s own courts for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Finally with regard the so called ‘reformists’ who oppose us. Ironically, us Marxist-Leninists do reform better than the reformists, while building up a revolutionary movement as we are actually genuine. Fundamentally we abide by the Communist principle of taking up the gun to put down the gun.

We must focus on building a new, as opposed to focusing on tearing everything down. We must be optimistic, only then can we win the masses and be victorious.

“We must announce to the governments: We know you are the armed power which is directed against the proletarians; we will against you in peaceful way where it is possible, and with arms if it should become necessary” - Karl Marx

“You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries - such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland - where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognise the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor” - Karl Marx

“The working class would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully (we have already stated that this seizure of power can be carried out only by the organised working class which has passed through the school of the class struggle), but to renounce the revolutionary seizure of power would be madness on the part of the proletariat, both from the theoretical and the practical-political points of view; it would mean nothing but a disgraceful retreat in face of the bourgeoisie and all other propertied classes. It is very probable - even most probable - that the bourgeoisie will not make peaceful concessions to the proletariat and at the decisive moment will resort to violence for the defence of its privileges. In that case, no other way will be left to the proletariat for the achievement of its aim but that of revolution. This is the reason the programme of ‘working-class socialism’ speaks of the winning of political power in general without defining the method, for the choice of method depends on a future which we can not precisely determine. But, we repeat, to limit the activities of the proletariat under any circumstances to peaceful ‘democratisation’ alone is arbitrarily to narrow and vulgarise the concept of working-class socialism” - V.I. Lenin

“Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat” - V.I. Lenin

“In a country where the bourgeoisie will not offer such furious resistance, the tasks of the Soviet government will be easier; it will be able to operate without the violence, without the bloodshed that was forced upon us by the Kerenskys and the imperialists. We shall reach our goal even by this, more difficult, road. Russia may have to make greater sacrifices than other countries; this is not surprising considering the chaos that we inherited. Other countries will travel by a different, more humane road, but at the end of it lies the same Soviet power” - V.I. Lenin

“In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain particulars from what it would be in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces - and the basic forms of social economy - are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that the peculiarities can apply only to what is of lesser importance” - V.I. Lenin

“The history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes” - V.I. Lenin

“You are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption” - J.V. Stalin

“I don’t favour violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully” - Malcolm X

“Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down” - Malcoln X

“No revolutionary wants violence, if the ruling class were to lay down their arms tomorrow there would be no need for violence” - Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara

“Our enemies like to depict us Leninists as advocates of violence always and everywhere. True, we recognise the need recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society. It is this that distinguishes the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists, the opportunists. There is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle connected with this are inevitable. But the forms of social revolution vary. It is not true that we regard violence and civil war as the only way to remake society. It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peacefully" - N.S. Khrushchev

“We shall use peaceful means and not use any other type of method” - Zhou Enlai

“We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops; If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve. On the contrary, it would get worse. Our troops would have to struggle not only with an external aggressor, but with a significant part of your own people. And the people would never forgive such things” - Alexei Kosygin

“Revolutionaries didn’t choose armed struggle as the best path, it’s the path oppressors imposed [on] to people” - Fidel Castro

“In Nicaragua, an entire people is fighting for its independence. I would condemn revolutionary violence if I thought that a non-violent way existed” - Rev. Miguel D’Escoto


Quotes -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9

“The unity of the nation was not to be broken; but, on the contrary, to be organised by the Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the State power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excrescence; that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production; if the Commune was thus the true representative of all the healthy elements of French society, and therefore the truly national government, it was, at the same time, as a working men’s government, as the bold champion of the emancipation of labour, emphatically international. Within sight of that Prussian army, that had annexed to Germany two French provinces, the Commune annexed to France the working people all over the world” - Karl Marx

“It is a truth which at the very least teaches us to see the hollowness of our patriotism, the perverted nature of our state and to hide our faces in shame. I can see you smile and say: what good will that do? Revolutions are not made by shame. And my answer is that shame is a revolution in itself; it really is the victory of the French Revolution over that German patriotism which defeated it in 1813. Shame is a kind of anger turned in on itself. And if a whole nation were to feel ashamed it would be like a lion recoiling in order to spring” - Karl Marx

“Unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production” - Karl Marx

“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle” - Karl Marx

“It is altogether self evident that; the working class must organise itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle” - Karl Marx

“The workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word” - Karl Marx

"’For Mussulmans, there is no such thing as subordination’, Inequality is an abomination to ‘a true Mussulman’ (a Muslim), but these sentiments, (…) ‘will go to rack and ruin without a revolutionary movement” - Karl Marx

“‘No socialist,’ remarked the Doctor, smiling, ‘need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but by a nation’” - Karl Marx

“The English laughed heartily when I began my speech with the observation that our friend Lafargue, and others, who had abolished nationalities, had addressed us in ‘French’, i.e., in a language which nine-tenths of the audience did not understand. I went on to suggest that by his denial of nationalities he seemed quite unconsciously to imply their absorption by the model French nation” - Karl Marx

“The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth. This does not mean that the American people have an original sin that they must be cleansed of by fire and destruction. The illegitimate state shall be destroyed, not the people” - Karl Marx

“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world” - Karl Marx

“The biggest things that are happening in the world today are on the one hand the movement of the slaves in America started by the death of John Brown and, on the other, the movement of the serfs in Russia” - Karl Marx



The Biden Regime

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink

Russia is moving towards socialism out of necessity. It has long been said in Russia that there are only two paths that can be taken by the country. Either a return to socialism or capitulation to the West. Socialism is the only way forward if Russia want true sovereignty.

There has been real talk in the last couple of years about a Union State, this would provide a Chechen like arrangement (similar to the U.S.S.R.) for all countries that join, they would effectively be independent but the states would be united around the Union State. The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko recently said in December 2021 that Russia, Belarus and Ukraine would all be united soon. Belarus held a referendum in February 2022, the purpose of which was to make the Belarusian constitution become compatible with the Russian constution. The vote passed strongly with 65% support. The vote was also a litmus test of the popularity of Lukashenko showing that he is still popular. All of this was despite threats by the United States of of cybersecurity attacks and the forming of a ‘government in exile’ by the opposition on behalf of their Western masters. The passing of the vote opens up the establishment of the Union State as the official successor to the RF. Armenia also expressed a desire to join such a formation. As do Kazakhstan although for the time being their application has been rejected. Unity around the CSTO had been seen in early 2022 with the Central Asian republics all contributing to ridding Kazakhstan of the Western-backed terrorists.

There have been serious talks of a union state uniting the former Soviet States, since 1991 there has been the CIS as well as the CSTO peacekeeping force, which we recently saw prevent a colour revolution succeeding in Kazakhstan. More recently the Shanghai Pact includes, Russia, China and the central asian republics. These countries all have close economic ties.

Three things unite the former Soviet Union - communism, religion (Orthodox Christianity and Islam) and language (Russian) - principally communism could be said to be the greatest common denominator, so it is no suprise that the Soviet flag could be seen atop Russian tanks. Given that the breakway Donbass republics, of the Lugansk Peoples Republic (LPR) and the Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) (as well as Transnistria) are led by Communists it should be assumed that the ideology of Communism will continue to more and more be brought to the forefront. In fact it was actually the KPRF’s bill to recognise the republics, no matter what government was in power in Russia it would have had to intervene militarily in Ukraine. Had the KPRF been in power, they would have intervened all the way back in 2014. It is very likely that more people’s republics will be created by the people themselves in Ukraine (in 2014 the Kharkhiv People’s Republic was crushed) and as they become more and more important we will see Communism become more relevant. The KPRF are likely to become even more and more popular and we could see the pressure they put on Putin continue. To all Communists who claim that the KPRF are controlled by United Russia, you just have to look at the pressure they put on them (such as with the bill to recognise the Donbass republics) to see that they are a thriving, independent party representative of a broad section of the Russian masses. They are currently the most popular party and I only expect them to become more popular as the Soviet Union becomes closer to being revived.

The Soviet Union still lives on, it is engrained in the Russian civilisation and collective national consciousness. It has left a permanent mark that remains, Russia has for the last two decades taken on the mantle of the main anti-imperialist power, this was supported by the national bourgeoisie. When there was effectively no resistance to the uni-polar world order there was Russia resisting, whether it be in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, they have had and are having an objective net positive effect, unlike the West which trys to keep countries poor and divided, Russia on the otherhand has been a force of stability. Russia is a far more collective civilisation and out of all of the Former Soviet Republics it has recovered well from shock therapy, while Turkmenistan, Belarus and Tajikistan never really opened up or privatised in the same way, while Ukraine is a state that still has not surpassed the GDP the country had in 1990 due to all the corruption and looting by foreign powers. What we will see in the next few years as Russia moves towards a socialist system and the union state unites the former Soviet Union is the old returning in new way, the dialectic coming to it’s fruition. The sanctions following the Russian intervention in Ukraine have caused Russia to move even closer to (Socialist) China. When the Nordstream 2 pipeline was cancelled by Biden, straight away a new deal was made to redirect the export of gas to China instead, and when sanctions banned the importing of Russian grain into the West, it was China who made a new deal. We are seeing China and Russia develop a strong and resolute alliance. With the fruition of the Union State and the construction of socialism in Russia we will have two strong Socialist superpowers side by side.

Ironically the Western sanctions could cause the collapse of the West themselves rather than Russia as Russia has effectively made themselves immune to their worst effects. All that is left for the West to do is decouple Russia from SWIFT, however that would backfire even more spectacularly than the current sanctions as it would lead to the anti-imperialist bloc creating their own alternative.

Recently we saw Communists in America of the Center for Political Innovation (CPI) openly celebrate the breakaway republics in the Donbass and state how there is no contradiction between being patriots of their own country (despite the U.S. causing the whole conflict) and supporting the revolutionary movements of the world. American Communists should desire the victory of Russia against Ukraine as any victory of an anti-imperialist state against their own ruling class is a victory not just for Russia but for the American working class. Russia has a long history of supporting the American working class, from the Russians sending ships to prevent the British supplying the confederates to the solidarity and internationalism of the CPSU and CPUSA towards each other for decades.

As Russell Bentley, a proud American fighting on the frontlines of the Donbass against the Ukrainian neo-nazis said:

“I’m a patriotic American. I love the American people, but I hate the American government. It is the Fourth Reich. It is the equivalence of Nazi Germany today” - Russell ‘Texas’ Bentley

To all the detractors to this post (to which I expect many), Russia unlike most of the Eastern Bloc is erecting statues to Stalin, a majority of Russians see the Soviet Union as the greatest period in Russian history. Majority also regret the collapse, Putin himself states that it was the greatest geopolitical disaster and celebrates the Red Army and victory in WW2 unlike other countries of the Former Eastern Bloc (such as Ukraine, Latvia and other Neo-Nazi infested countries). To conclude we should support Russia on anti-imperialist grounds, have critical support for the government and be supportive of efforts in recent years towards a return to the socialist past, which we now see being accelerated. I have high hopes that in the coming years we will see the emergence of a strong, socialist Union State.



Russia is Marching Towards Socialism

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink

“Thus in the field of private property, morality teaches that theft is to be condemned; While communists do not believe in the sacredness of private property, they do not approve of stealing; It is true that communists by no means recognise the inviolability of private property; the nationalisation of factories is an expropriation of the bourgeoisie; the working class appropriates “the property of others”, trangresses the right of private property, undertakes a ‘despotic intervention in the right of property’ But communists condemn stealing, for the reason that individual thefts by each worker from the capitalists, for his own advantage, would not result in common struggle, but would make the worker a petty bourgeois. Horse-thieves and swindlers will not fight in the class struggle, even though they may be offspring of the proletariat. If many members of the proletariat should become thieves, the class would break down and be condemned; Therefore communists condemn stealing, not in order to protect private property, but in order to maintain the integrity of their class, to protect it from ‘demoralisation’ and ‘disintegration’, without which protection the proletariat can never be transformed into the next following stage. We are therefore dealing witth a class standard in the conduct of the proletariat. It is obvious that the rules we have considered are determined by the economic conditions of society” - Karl Marx

“One could just as well have said that only in society can useless and even socially harmful labour become a branch of gainful occupation, that only in society can one live by being idle, etc., etc. - in short, once could just as well have copied the whole of Rousseau” - Karl Marx

“Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars - in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10. A ‘benevolent society’ - insofar as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of the labouring nation. This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognises in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally, is the real Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sans phrase. An old, crafty roué, he conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to mask the pettiest knavery” - Karl Marx

“The ‘dangerous class,’ the lumpenproletariat, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue” - Karl Marx

“The same relation holds for all services which workers exchange directly for the money of other persons, and which are consumed by these persons. This is consumption of revenue, which, as such, always falls within simple circulation; it is not consumption of capital. Since one of the contracting parties does not confront the other as a capitalist, this performance of a service cannot fall under the category of productive labour. From wh*re to pope, there is a mass of such rabble. But the honest and ‘working’ lumpenproletariat belongs here as well; e.g. the great mob of porters etc. who render service in seaport cities etc” - Karl Marx

“The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the decaying elements of all classes, which establishes headquarters in all the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. It is an absolutely venal, an absolutely brazen crew. If the French workers, in the course of the Revolution, inscribed on the houses: Mort aux voleurs! (Death to the thieves!) and even shot down many, they did it, not out of enthusiasm for property, but because they rightly considered it necessary to hold that band at arm’s length. Every leader of the workers who utilises these gutter-proletarians as guards or supports, proves himself by this action alone a traitor to the movement” - Friedrich Engels

“Rosa acted and felt as a communist when in an article she championed the cause of the prostitutes who were imprisoned for any transgression of police regulations in carrying on their dreary trade. They are, unfortunately, doubly sacrificed by bourgeois society. First, by its accursed property system, and, secondly, by its accursed moral hypocrisy. That is obvious. Only he who is brutal or short-sighted can forget it. But still, that is not at all the same thing as considering prostitutes - how shall I put it? - to be a special revolutionary militant section, as organising them and publishing a factory paper for them. Aren’t there really any other working women in Germany to organise, for whom a paper can be issued, who must be drawn into your struggles? The other is only a diseased excrescence. It reminds me of the literary fashion of painting every prostitute as a sweet Madonna. The origin of that was healthy, too: social sympathy, rebellion against the virtuous hypocrisy of the respectable bourgeois. But the healthy part became corrupted and degenerate” - V.I. Lenin

“For example. In the eighties of the last century a great controversy flared up among the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. The Narodniks asserted that the main force that could undertake the task of ‘emancipating Russia’ was the petty bourgeoisie, rural and urban. Why? - the Marxists asked them. Because, answered the Narodniks, the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie now constitute the majority and, moreover, they are poor, they live in poverty. To this the Marxists replied: It is true that the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie now constitute the majority and are really poor, but is that the point? The petty bourgeoisie has long constituted the majority, but up to now it has displayed no initiative in the struggle for ‘freedom’ without the assistance of the proletariat. Why? Because the petty bourgeoisie as a class is not growing; on the contrary, it is disintegrating day by day and breaking up into bourgeois and proletarians. On the other hand, nor is poverty of decisive importance here, of course: ‘tramps’ are poorer than the petty bourgeoisie, but nobody will say that they can undertake the task of ‘emancipating Russia.’ As you see, the point is not which class today constitutes the majority, or which class is poorer, but which class is gaining strength and which is decaying” - J.V. Stalin


“It is a strange transition from the states to Canada. First one imagines that one is in Europe again, and then one thinks one is in a positively retrogressing and decaying country. Here one sees how necessary the feverish speculative spirit of the Americans is for a rapid development of a new country (if capitalist production is taken as a basis); and in ten years this sleepy Canada will be ripe for annexation - the farmers in Manitoba, etc., will demand it themselves. Besides the country is half-annexed already socially - hotels, newspapers, advertising, etc., all of the American pattern. And they may tug and resist as much as they like; the economic necessity of an infusion of Yankee blood will have its way and abolish this ridiculous boundary line - and when the time comes, John Bull will say ‘Amen’ to the matter” - Friedrich Engels

“The tendency of the Capitalist system towards the ultimate splitting-up of society into two classes, a few millionaires on the one hand, and a great mass of mere wage-workers on the other, this tendency, though constantly crossed and counteracted by other social agencies, works nowhere with greater force than in America; and the result has been the production of a class of native American wage-workers, who form, indeed, the aristocracy of the wage-working class as compared with the immigrants, but who become conscious more and more every day of their solidarity with the latter and who feel all the more acutely their present condemnation of life-long wage-toil, because they still remember the bygone days, when it was comparatively easy to rise to a higher social level. Accordingly the working class movement, in America, has started with truly American vigor, and as on that side of the Atlantic thigns march with at least double the European speed, we may yet live to see America take the lead in this respect too” - Friedrich Engels

“At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the work-people of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them… It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes” - Friedrich Engels

“A country like America, when it is really ripe for a socialist workers’ party, certainly cannot be hindered from having one by the couple of German socialist doctrinaires” - Friedrich Engels

“In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat - that is, with the agrarian National Reformers” - Friedrich Engels

“This party is called upon to play a very important part in the movement. But in order to do so they will have to doff every remnant of their foreign garb. They will have to become out and out American. They cannot expect the Americans to come to the them; they, the minority and the immigrants, must go to the Americans” - Friedrich Engels

“[The] War the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed America and held her in colonial slavery; 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 [which] 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!” - V.I. Lenin

“The history of modern, civilised 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” - V.I. Lenin

“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…” - V.I. Lenin

“We have to give life to Indo-American socialism with our own reality, in our own language. Here is a mission worthy of a new generation” - José Carlos Mariátegui

“I owe my allegiance to the working class; we want to build a society where our children can live in peace and prosperity, a society where they will control the wealth of this country” - Seamus Costello

“Washington, Jefferson and others made the revolution against Britain because of British oppression and exploitation of the Americans, and not because of any over-population in America” - Mao Zedong

“Washington [has] a bad ‘reputation’, and we can ratify him as the ‘Communist Party’; Not being able to join the Communist Party is one thing. At that time there was no Communist Party. The revolutionary role played by Washington we should admit that he played a very advanced role at that time and was very progressive. And Lincoln is the same; [The American people] I wish them progress. If I wish them liberation, some of them might not approve of it. I wish those who realise that they have not yet been liberated, and those who have difficulties in life, be liberated; The Americans need to be liberated again. This is their own business. Not liberated from British rule, but liberated from monopoly capital” - Mao Zedong

“The whole world, Britain included dislikes the United States. The masses of the people dislike it; The people are dissatisfied and in some countries so are the authorities. All oppressed nations want independence. Everything is subject to change. The big decadent forces will give way to the small new-born forces. The small forces will change into big forces because the majority of the people demand this change. The U.S. imperialist forces will change from big to small because the American people, too, are dissatisfied with their government” - Mao Zedong

“Now U.S. imperialism is quite powerful, but in reality it isn’t. It is very weak politically because it is divorced from the masses of the people and is disliked by everybody and by the American people too. In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of, it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger; We have to destroy it piecemeal; If we deal with it step by step and in earnest, we will certainly succeed in the end” - Mao Zedong

“The Japanese nation is a great nation. It will never allow U.S. imperialism to ride on itself for a long time. Over the years, the patriotic united front of the people of all strata of Japan against U.S. imperialist aggression, oppression, and control has continued to expand. This is the most reliable guarantee for the victory of the Japanese people’s anti-American patriotic struggle. The Chinese people are convinced that the Japanese people will be able to expel the U.S. imperialists from their homeland” - Mao Zedong

“All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are powerful” - Mao Zedong

“The only ones who crave war and do not want peace are certain monopoly capitalist groups in a handful of imperialist countries that depend on aggression for their profits” - Mao Zedong

“As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them - but should befriend them - unite with them, and convince them and encourage them to go forward” - Mao Zedong

“The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible” - Mao Zedong

“…In applying Marxism to China, Chinese communists must fully and properly integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, or in other words, the universal truth of Marxism must be combined with specific national characteristics and acquire a definite national form if it is to be useful, and in no circumstances can it be applied subjectively as a mere formula” - Mao Zedong

“The Revolution had therefore set the benchmark against which future generations of Americans - men and women, white and black, rich and poor - would measure their standing. Not only that: in its own time, it proved to be the curtain-raiser on a new epoch of world revolution. For, in the year following ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the people of Paris stormed the Bastille, defeated a military coup, and unleashed the French Revolution” - (Neil Faulkner, Chapter 8: The Second Wave of Bourgeois Revolutions, pp 123, A Marxist History of the World)

“Portraying German history as a line of uninterrupted misery is a reactionary and anti-national concept which serves objectively to destroy national self-respect and the national consciousness of the German people” - Victor Grossman

“Some of the left think that patriotism is in itself proto-fascist. I say no, it means you have a strong trust in your culture and don’t need xenophobia; Patriotism is socialism” - Slavoj Žižek


“The Socialist does not cease to love his country when he tries to make that country the common property of its people; he rather shows a greater love of country than is shown by those who wish to perpetuate a system which makes the great majority of the people of a country exiles and outcasts, living by sufferance of capitalists and landlords in their native land. Under Socialism we can all voice the saying of the poet; at present ‘our’ native land is in pawn to landlords and capitalists” - James Connolly

“What is Patriotism? Love of country, someone answers. But what is meant by ‘love of country’? ‘The rich man,’ says a French writer, ‘loves his country because he conceives it owes him a duty, whereas the poor man loves his country as he believes he owes it a duty.’ The recognition of the duty we owe our country is, I take it, the real mainspring of patriotic action; and our ‘country’, properly understood, means not merely the particular spot on the earth’s surface from which we derive our parentage, but also comprises all the men, women and children of our race whose collective life constitutes our country’s political existence. True patriotism seeks the welfare of each in the happiness of all” - James Connolly

“…Not the rack-renting, slum-owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman - the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the Irish upon whom the future depends. Not these, but the Irish working class, the only secure foundation upon which a free nation can be reared. The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered” - James Connolly

“After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland (- Karl Marx); We are told that the English people contributed to help our enslavement. It is true. It is also true that the Irish people have contributed soldiers to duly crush every democratic movement of the English people from the deportation of Irish soldiers to serve the cause of political despotism under Charles to the days of Featherstone under Asquith. Slaves themselves the English people helped to enslave others; slaves themselves the Irish people helped to enslave others. There is no room for recrimination. We are only concerned now with the fact - daily, becoming more obvious - that the English workers who have reached the moral stature of rebels are now willing to assist the working class rebels of Ireland, and that those Irish rebels will in their turn help the rebels of Ireland, and that those Irish rebels will in their turn help the rebels of England to break their chains and attain the dignity of freedom. There are still a majority of slaves in England - there are still a majority of slaves in Ireland. We are under no illusions as to either country. But we do not intend to confound the geographical spot on which the rebels lie with the political government upheld by the slave. For us and ours the path is clear. The first duty of the working class of the word is to settle accounts with the master class of the world - that of their own country at the head of the list. To that point this struggle, as all such struggles, is converging” - James Connolly

“The socialist of another country is a fellow patriot; the capitalist of my own country is a natural enemy” - James Connolly

“I am not a world refugee, I am a German with great national, but also international experiences. My nation, to which I belong and which I love, is the German people, and my nation, which I honour with great pride, is the German nation, a chivalrous, proud and hard nation. I am blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the German workers and therefore, as their revolutionary child, I later became their revolutionary leader. My life and work knew and knows only one thing: to use my spirit and my knowledge, my experience and my energy, indeed my whole personality, for the victorious socialist struggle for freedom in the new springtime of the German nation!” - Ernst Thälmann

“…Who therefore is a patriot? They or us? Capital doesn’t have a country and seeks profit in whatever country it is able to. That is why it isn’t concerned for the existence of borders and the state. But all we own are our hats and the small kerb in front of us… So, who can be interested more in their country? They, who remove the capital from the country, or us who are stuck on our doorsteps here?..” - Aris Velouchiotis

“The internationalism of the Communist Party was expressed by the Communist Timbaud, who was killed at Chateaubriant shouting ‘Long Live the German Communist Party!’ adding ‘Vive la France!’; There is no left or right wing in our party. The Communist Party has never been as united around its Central Committee as it now is in the task that it is accomplishing - together with all patriots - to wrest victory over Hitlerite Germany as quickly as possible” - Maurice Thorez

“Something new has happened: For the first time in history our fatherland is guided by a plan that considers only the needs of the people, and aims at building prosperity and reconstructing of our fatherland” - Walter Ulbricht

“On the question of whether we are nationalists or not I can say the following: we are nationalists to the exact degree necessary to develop a healthy socialist patriotism among our people, and socialist patriotism is in its essence internationalism. Socialism does not require of us that we renounce our love for our socialist country, that we renounce our love for our own people. Socialism does not require of us that we should not make every possible effort to build up our socialist country as quickly as possible, in order that we may so create the best possible living conditions for our working people. Our creative drive in building up our country, that is the creative drive of our workers, our youth, our people’s intelligentsia, and all our working peasants and citizens, who are voluntarily contributing their share to the work of construction within the People’s Front, - none of these things need, or indeed can, be stigmatised as some sort of nationalist deviation. No, this is socialist patriotism, which in its essence is profoundly international, and for that reason we are proud of it” - Josip Broz Tito

“In Cambodia, the Cambodian people, communists and patriots, have risen against the barbarous government of Pol Pot, which was nothing but a group of provocateurs in the service of the imperialist bourgeoisie and of the Chinese revisionists, in particular, which had as its aim to discredit the idea of socialism in the international arena… The anti-popular line of that regime is confirmed, also, by the fact that the Albanian embassy in the Cambodian capital, the embassy of a country which has given the people of Cambodia every possible aid, was kept isolated, indeed, encircled with barbed wire, as if it were in a concentration camp. The other embassies, too, were in a similar situation. The Albanian diplomats have seen with their own eyes that the Cambodian people were treated inhumanly by the clique of Pol Pot and Yeng Sari. Pnom Pen was turned into a deserted city, empty of people, where food was difficult to secure even for the diplomats, where no doctors or even aspirins could be found. We think that the people and patriots of Cambodia waited too long before overthrowing this clique which was completely linked with Beijing and in its service” - Enver Hoxha

“I ask every Communist individually to set an example, by deeds and without pretense, a real example worthy of a man and a Communist, in restoring order, starting normal life, in resuming work and production, and in laying the foundations of an ordered life; only with the honour thus acquired can we earn the respect of our other compatriots as well” - Janos Kadar

“Workers! Farmers! Anti-fascists! Spanish Patriots! Confronted with the fascist military uprising, all must rise to their feet, to defend the Republic, to defend the people’s freedoms as well as their achievements towards democracy” - Dolores Ibárruri

“It is a lie that I made the people starve. A lie, a lie in my face. This shows how little patriotism there is, how many treasonable offenses were committed… At no point was there such an upswing, so much construction, so much consolidation in the Romanian provinces. I guaranteed that every village has its schools, hospitals and doctors. I have done everything to create a decent and rich life for the people in the country, like in no other country in the world” - Nicolae Ceaușescu

“I may be a German patriot, but if unification comes with McDonalds the class-traitors can keep it” - Erich Honecker

“France is one country, one nation, one people. We protest indignantly against such ridiculous and odious allegations. For us, as for all the citizens of our country, every man and woman of French nationality is French. Every attempt using hazardous criteria which borders on racism in an ill-defined way, seeking to define as not purely French such and such members of the French community, is offensive to the national consciousness. Nobody here can accept that, our Party least of all” - (Georges Marchais, Letter to the Secretariat of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R., February 1984)

“We (Russians) are the last power on this planet that is capable of mounting a challenge to the New World Order - the global cosmopolitan dictatorship. We must work against our destroyers, using means as carefully thought out and as goals oriented as theirs are: the unity of all nationalist forces is as necessary to this end as air” - Gennady A. Zyuganov


Quotes -1 -2 -3

“‘In the Romanian capital of Bucharest, at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties (November 1960), Mao and Khrushchev respectively attacked the Soviet and the Chinese interpretations of Marxism-Leninism as the wrong road to world socialism in the U.S.S.R. and in China. Mao said that Khrushchev’s emphases on consumer goods and material plenty would make the Soviets ideologically soft and un-revolutionary, to which Khrushchev replied: ‘If we could promise the people nothing, except revolution, they would scratch their heads and say: ‘Isn’t it better to have good goulash?’’

‘In the context of the tri-polar Cold War, Khrushchev doubted Mao’s mental sanity, because his unrealistic policies of geopolitical confrontation might provoke nuclear war between the capitalist and the communist blocs. To thwart Mao’s warmongering, Khrushchev cancelled foreign-aid agreements and the delivery of Soviet atomic bombs to the P.R.C.’"

“Our enemies like to depict us Leninists as advocates of violence always and everywhere. True, we recognise the need recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society. It is this that distinguishes the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists, the opportunists. There is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle connected with this are inevitable. But the forms of social revolution vary. It is not true that we regard violence and civil war as the only way to remake society. It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peacefully" - N.S. Khrushchev

“Liberation wars will continue to exist as long as imperialism exists, as long as colonialism exists. These are revolutionary wars. Such wars are not only admissible but inevitable since the colonialists do not grant independence voluntarily… We recognise such wars, we help and will help the people striving for their independence… These uprisings must not be identified with wars among states, with local wars, since in these uprisings the people are fighting for implementation of their right for self-determination, for independence social and national development” - N.S. Khrushchev

“The stated provisions of the Marxist-Leninist theory are they also overturn the notorious formulation of the question of ‘ex-port of the revolution’. It is Marxism, in contrast to all bourgeois ideological concepts, proved that revolutions occur do not occur by order, not because of the desires of individuals, but due to the natural course of the historical process. ‘Of course,’ Lenin pointed out, ‘there are people who think that a revolution can be born in a foreign country by order, by co-announcement. These people are either madmen or provocateurs… We know that they cannot be made either by order or by agreement that they grow when tens of millions of people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live like this any longer” - N.S. Khrushchev

“To strengthen the cause of peace in the entire world it would be of great importance to establish strong friendly relations between the two major powers of the world, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. We believe that if the basis of relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. was based on the known five principles of peaceful coexistence, it would be truly a remarkable value for all of humanity and it would certainly be healthy to the people of America, no less than the peoples of the Soviet Union and all other nations. The principles are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation are now shared and supported by two dozen states” - N.S. Khrushchev

“In advocating peaceful coexistence, we of course have no intention of saying that there are no contradictions between socialism and capitalism, that complete ‘harmony’ can be established between them, or that it is possible to reconcile the communist and bourgeois ideologies. Such a viewpoint would be tantamount to retreating from Marxism-Leninism. The ideological differences are irreconcilable and will continue so” - N.S. Khrushchev

“Berlin is the testicles of the West… Every time I want to make the West scream, I squeeze on Berlin” - N.S. Khrushchev

“The system under which some states sell arms to others is not for our invention. France, Britain and the United States have long since been supplying arms to very many countries, and particularly to the countries whose governments take the most hostile attitude towards the Soviet Union. Therefore we have nothing else to do but to act in the same way. We sell arms to countries which ask us to do so and want to be friendly with us. Apparently they buy arms because they fear the countries which you supply with arms. Thus we are doing only the same thing which you have been doing for a long time. If the Western powers want to come to agreement on this score, we are willing to do so. We said this as far back as 1955 in London and made a statement to this effect. The Soviet Union is prepared to reach agreement that no country should sell its arms to any other country” - N.S. Khrushchev

“Our enemies like to depict us Leninists as advocates of violence always and everywhere. True, we recognise the need recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society. It is this that distinguishes the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists, the opportunists. There is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle connected with this are inevitable. But the forms of social revolution vary. It is not true that we regard violence and civil war as the only way to remake society. It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peacefully… Leninism teaches us that the ruling class will not surrender their power voluntarily. And the greater or lesser degree of intensity which the struggle may assume, the use or the non-use of violence in the transition to socialism, depends on the resistance of the exploiters, on whether the exploiting class itself resorts to violence, rather than the proletariat. In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over to socialism by using parliamentary means. No such course was open to the Russian bolsheviks… Since then, however, the historical situation has undergone radical changes which make possible a new approach to the question. The forces of socialism and democracy have grown immeasurably throughout the world, and capitalism has become much weaker… In these circumstances the working class, by ralling around itself the working peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the interests of the people, to capture a stable majority in parliament, and transform the latter from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people’s will… In the countries where capitalism is still strong and has a huge military and police apparatus at its disposal, the reactionary forces will, of course, inevitably offer serious resistance. There the transition to socialism will be attended by a sharp class, revolutionary struggle. Whatever the form of transition to socialism, the decisive and indispensible factor is the political leadership of the working class headed by its vanguard. Without this there can be no transition to socialism” - N.S. Khrushchev


The 'Nazbol' Vortex

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink

Definition of Socialism

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink

SwAC

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink

Caleb Maupin

Part of This Series of Posts: …

fedilink