Revisionism: An Anti-Working Class Tendency

(Originally published in Workers Unite, journal of the Communist Labor Organization)

Introduction

Revisionism is a phenomenon which has existed for nearly as long as Marxism has. The ramifications and damages of revisionism which have been inflicted on to revolutionary movements and organization has been incalculable, and the ideological and political struggle against revisionists and other opportunists in the working class movement has, for the longest time, constituted an integral element to the struggle against the capitalist system as a whole.

And so, with the immense importance of this topic, there are many new Marxists who are compelled to raise this question: What is revisionism?

There are three main responses which result. Firstly, the scientific, Marxist–Leninist answer is that revisionism is the seeping of capitalist, bourgeois ideology into proletarian ideology; the distortion (revision) of revolutionary theory to favor the interests of the capitalists and abate socialist revolution.

Secondly, the trivializers' answer, very often produced by revisionists themselves. They will deny the many forms revisionism has assumed and assumes presently, they regard revisionism not as a threat to the socialist movement and form of class struggle on the part of the bourgeoisie, but as very narrow, “historic” phenomena which did not manifest anywhere beyond the most clear of traitors in the revolutionary movement; the followers of Kautsky, Bernstein, etc. and other figures whose apex was over a century ago.

To the trivializers, to say revisionism is prevalent today and that many contemporary revisionists veil themselves as “Leninists” is to be sectarian, dogmatic, and so forth. They will assert with the most potent conviction that major questions such as supporting the inter-imperialist conflict between Russia and the Western countries and upholding China as a model of “socialism” are not the dividing lines between revolutionary communists and opportunists, but mere “tactical” disagreements, and will demand unity between the communists and opportunists for the sake of unity itself!

In short, those who propagate the second answer are at the very least in alignment with the revisionists themselves. They deny the need for anti-revisionist struggle, rejecting its inherent relation to anti-capitalist struggle, and in turn harm our movement.

Lastly, the third answer is one produced most often by many new “Marxists”. They will deny the damages of revisionism and the distortion of principles, arguing that revisionism represents a “positive” element in that any developments of theory to modern conditions (e.g. the development of Marxism into the age of imperialism; Leninism) is “revisionism”. Hence, they proudly proclaim themselves revisionists!

Despite the fallacious nature of the third position, it doubtlessly raises important questions which must be answered. The scientific development of Marxism into Marxism–Leninism must be distinguished from the revisionist deviations of Mao Zedong,1 Nikita Khrushchev, and other opportunist figures who veil their distortions to deceive the working class.

We must first enumerate the character of revisionism in the clearest way feasible, then address the tendencies of revisionism in order to concretely demonstrate the need for anti-revisionist struggle.

What is the Basis for Revisionism?

As stated previously, revisionism has stood as an enemy of Marxism for as long as Marxism was developed in the 19th century. In the time of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, their scientific theory was contested by a vast number of unscientific, utopian socialist tendencies which sought idealist, fantastical methods to introduce their envisioned society, largely without concern for class struggle.

Throughout the initial conflicts waged by the proletarian and bourgeoisie throughout the 19th century, the theories of Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, Robert Owen, and others were firmly repudiated by most of the working class in favor of communism. These anti-materialist tendencies were exposed as not being in service of the interests of the workers, but the backwards peasantry and petite-bourgeoisie, strata whose modus operandi was under threat by nascent industrial capitalism. An element of the declining utopians persisted in their only anti-Marxist attitudes in the form of anarchism and other “libertarian” tendencies, but many other realized that to fulfill their aims, they would have to distort Marxism from the inside in order to bend it to comply with the desires of the exploiters:

“Pre-Marxist socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism.”
--Vladimir Lenin, Marxism and Revisionism

Hence, the basis for revisionism was born — movements which seek to infiltrate the working class movement and provide the presentation of Marxism in rhetoric and symbols, while concurrently being anti-Marxist and bourgeois in essentials.
From this, it can be discerned that revisionism serves as a powerful weapon on the part of the bourgeoisie in class struggle against the proletariat.

Revisionism verses Theoretical Development

A confusion exists regarding the matter of what separates revisionism from a progressive development of theory prevalent among new socialists. This confusion results in the inability to disambiguate between a development of theory as seen with Lenin and a deviation from it, particularly as revisionists in the past and present have attempted to distract from this critical distinction; asserting their deviations represent an “evolution” of Marxism in the same vain as Leninism is to classical Marxism.

In short, to revise Marxism (e.g. as done by Kautsky, Mao, Khrushchev, etc.) is to weaken it, falsify it, and remove its revolutionary content in accord with the desires of the exploiters. Revisionism injects idealism, mysticism, and superstition into a science (Marxism). On the contrary, to make a progressive advancement of Marxist theory (e.g. that made by Lenin and Stalin) is to preserve its revolutionary contents if not make them more empowering to the working class movement.
It is commonly stated, particularly amongst followers of revisionism, that aspects of Marxism must in fact be revised or otherwise omitted due to temporal developments; that since the time of Marx and Engels, or even Lenin and Stalin, are so distant from our own, that their words and ideas no longer hold meaning to the proletarian movement. This could not be further from reality:

"Consequently, when we speak of 'subjugating' natural forces or economic forces, of 'dominating' them, etc., this does not mean that man can 'abolish' or 'form' scientific laws. On the contrary, it only means that man can discover laws, get to know them and master them, learn to apply them with full understanding, utilize them in the interests of society, and thus subjugate them, secure mastery over them."

--Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR

In this context, even if it were the case that the words of Marx and Engels are so archaic that they lack pertinence in our modern society, it is not the case that their words were incorrect. It is rather the case that the economic laws which governed the age of Marx and Engels have simply become inapplicable to our modern conditions; those laws have not disappeared from reality, they still exist, yet we have moved beyond them. But if we were to return to the relatively primitive capitalism as seen by Marx, those laws would be noticed again and would be applicable.

However, the understanding of capitalism as held by Marx and Engels has not become inapplicable to even our present condition. The development of our understanding as provided by Lenin and Stalin regarding imperialism and other concepts do not negate or replace the core content of Marxism, they rather augment it; build on to it.

How does Revisionism Take Hold?

The nature of revisionism as a counter-revolutionary tendency within revolutionary movements remains consistent between all contexts. Yet, its practical goals differs mainly in two ways. These are, firstly, revisionism which arises in movements in pre-revolutionary, capitalist countries, and, secondly, revisionism which takes hold of a revolutionary, socialist country.

Revisionism in capitalist countries

In pre-revolutionary countries of capitalism, by encouraging deviations which detach the communist party from the workers, by fostering reformism over revolution, and by propagating class collaboration and truce over struggle, revolutionary organizations are made impotent and harmless to the ruling class. If it fully takes hold of a country's communist movement, revisionism and opportunism have the capacity to bring a crippling halt to a socialist revolution in its infancy.

In the first wave of socialist revolutions at the end of the First World War, their potency and effectiveness was heavily negated by the prevalence of social-chauvinists and opportunists — the Kautskys, Bernsteins, Scheidemanns and others belonging to the Second International. These revisionist figures led the working class of their countries away from revolution and in support of the vicious imperialist war under the justification of “defense of the fatherland” and similar capitulations to bourgeois nationalism.

Less than two decades later, the working class resistance to the rise of fascism in countries such as Germany and Italy was rendered impotent in the face of social democrats and other reformists whose doctrine was inspired by an awfully revised body of Marxist theory, fully tailored to bourgeois interests. The efforts of the Communist Party of Germany to form an anti-fascist united front were willingly countered by the Social Democrats, in harmony with Adolf Hitler. As a result, socialist revolution in Germany sputtered out before it even truly began and the country was plunged into over a decade of Nazi tyranny.

Thus, the aims of the revisionists and opportunists in the countries which have not yet underwent a socialist revolution and establishment of a workers' state are clear — introduce pugnacious separations (national, ethnic, political, etc.) within the working class which detract from class struggle, isolate the party from the people, divert sentiments which would otherwise be revolutionary and class conscious into those which uphold capitalist wage-slavery and imperialism, and ultimately liquidate worker-led socialist organizations which are politically independent from the capitalist state and bring them under the yoke of bourgeois interests and politics, depriving the working class of the ability to operate outside of the confines of bourgeois democracy, in the process abating the prospect of revolution.

Revisionism in socialist countries

In the countries where the working class has already overthrown the capitalist state, established a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and initiated the process of socialist construction, the revisionists' tasks diverge from their counterparts in capitalist countries. Rather then seeking to preserve capitalism in the ways detailed prior, they must restore it, regressing socialism back to capitalism. There are two primary angles through which the forces of revisionism assails the socialist state; internal and external.

Firstly, we address the internal methods of revisionism. The nature of socialism in its early phase — just following the revolution — is one in which the exploiters, being overthrown and on the verge of extinction, intensify their struggle against the working class forces a thousand-fold to preserve their endangered property and status:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat means a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in a single country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

--Vladimir Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder

This counter-revolutionary struggle may be explicit in its capitalist aims or concealed. The moribund exploiters — in unison with the petite-bourgeoisie and peasantry whose class interests are not yet definitively proletarian — may seek to encourage and propagate deviations within the communist party and state apparatus, support opportunist bureaucrats, and broadly campaign to overturn the Leninist line with a revisionist line of exploiter “socialism”.

Revisionism which springs up within the socialist state ultimately has its basis in small production; the mass of semi-proletarian, agrarian middle peasants and petite-bourgeois proprietors who possess a tendency to vacillate in class struggle and whose interest in socialism is submerged in doubt in even the best of times in the course of the revolution:

“The social basis of the deviations is the fact that small-scale production predominates in our country, the fact that small-scale production gives rise to capitalist elements, the fact that our Party is surrounded by petty-bourgeois elemental forces, and, lastly, the fact that certain of our Party organisations have been infected by these elemental forces.

There, in the main, lies the social basis of the deviations. All these deviations are of a petty-bourgeois character”

--Joseph Stalin, Industrialization of the Country and the Right-Deviation in the CPSU(B)

Secondly, we now move to the external methods of revisionism. It is an indisputable fact that the initial socialist states will have to bear with an encirclement of capitalist-imperialist states whose ruling class seeks pugnaciously to destroy the stronghold of people's power on its borders. The capitalist states may pursue a route of overt military aggression and war against the socialist states. However, they may recognize the potential value of revisionism and opportunism in the socialist state as agents of capitalist restoration; a Trojan horse by which their goal of defeating the revolution will be realized without the need for brutal warfare and aggression (and from it, the potential of their defeat).

Thus, the bourgeoisie of the capitalist countries will sponsor the revisionists of the socialist countries by any and all means available to them, sponsor the petite-bourgeois elements which oppose revolution, etc. For instance, in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin’s leadership, various deviationist and factionalist elements such as the Trotskys, Bukharins, Zinovievs, and others within the Bolshevik party conspired to destroy the proletarian state from within, or at the least weaken so as to ensure future aggression by surrounding imperialist powers would be feasible:

“Trotsky, supposed originally to have inspired the formation of the ‘bloc’, had long since been linked with the … the British intelligence service! On Trotsky’s orders, Krestinsky, former Deputy People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, had been in the German service since 1921. Rozenholz, former People’s Commissar of Foreign Trade, joined the British service in 1926 and the German service in 1932. Rakovsky, one of the big figures of the Revolution, had served the British intelligence service since 1924, and the Japanese since 1934. And so on. All this Bukharin and Rykov had connived at, since they too were foreign agents.”

--Grigori Tokaty, Trotskyist Conspiracy and the Deaths in the 1937-1938 period

On this topic, it must be stated that the internal and external methods of revisionism are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a revisionist movement which arose from the domestic petite-bourgeoisie and large peasantry may receive a considerable portion of its funding from foreign imperialists. It is more so the case of how these two sources of revisionism amalgamate to devastate a revolution.

Socialist countries under Revisionism

Once a socialist country has fallen under the rule of revisionist elements in the manner detailed previously, its ruling clique has one omnipresent goal to which it, consciously or subconsciously, pursues with the utmost determination — the reversal of all gains made by the revolutionary proletariat and the full restoration of capitalism.

Yet to attain this objective, the aims of the revisionists must be concealed under a mountain of deceit and fabrications so as to throw sand into the eyes of the people who, despite experiencing a reversal from the dictatorship of the proletariat, still maintain the potential to overthrow the distorters and revitalize the revolution.

The process by which the revisionists begin the restoration of capitalism is not inherently spontaneous. In the Soviet Union, the revisionist clique of Nikita Khrushchev refrained for a whole three years after their seizure of power in 1953 to, at the infamous 20th congress of the CPSU in 1956, openly disband the proletarian state and deviate from the socialist construction led by Joseph Stalin.

In place of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet revisionists installed a so-called “state of the whole people”,2 wherein the proletariat was to share power with the bourgeoisie and large peasants. In truth, this “whole people state” was a dictatorship of the revived bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union, and its creation marked the process by which the newly-capitalist state assaulted the socialist economy.

The nature of revisionist governance is two-fold; its domestic and foreign pursuits.

Domestically, the revisionists pursue a policy of social-fascism. They sow and aggravate national and ethnic divisions within the working class, replace the state of the armed workers with a state of detached functionaries servile to bourgeois interests, and restore old economic relations and from it power and privilege of the capitalist exploiters. The revisionists will still maintain the symbols and to a certain degree rhetoric of the previous revolutionary state as part of their efforts to deceive the masses, comparable to the pseudo-socialist demagogy employed by Hitler and Mussolini.

Internationally, the revisionists pursue the policy of social-imperialism. They will force smaller, previously socialist nations into subjugated peripheries. They will exploit their neighbors, often under the veil of “internationalist” aid and solidarity, all the while devolving them into economic dependencies and military outposts for future aggression.

These two pursuits — social-fascism and social-imperialism — are maintained by the revisionists in power until their goal of capitalist restoration is fully realized and the class consciousness and vigor of the people has been eroded. At this stage, the veil of “socialist” symbols and rhetoric is no longer needed for the revived bourgeoisie in the revisionist countries. Their counter-revolution is concluded with the final destruction of even the fainest remains of the old socialist project, and their rule is now that of an open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Returning to the example of the Soviet Union, the Khrushchevite-Brezhevite group ruled the country for a period of roughly forty years, introducing regression after regression, attack after attack, upon the socialist mode of production. The revisionists destroyed the people’s democracies of Eastern Europe and forced them into the social-imperialist Warsaw Pact and Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, turning countries such as Cuba into little more than sugar colonies operating in the sole interest of Soviet bourgeois profits.

The gradual process of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and elsewhere finally reached its sudden end with the dissolution of the Union itself in 1991 against the wishes of the Soviet people. At present, revisionists continue to rule other states which most notably includes the People’s Republic of China, which has grown to represent one of the largest imperialist powers in the world.

Tendencies of Revisionism

To truly understand the features of revisionism requires an understanding of its various tendencies, both present and historical. To detail exhaustively all the many forms of revisionism would be too herculean a task for this work. However, meaning can still be gained from studying first of all the major tendencies of revisionism, the ones whose influence persists directly or indirectly into the socialist movement to the modern day.

Soviet revisionism

The Soviet Union — previously a bulwark of socialism — constituted one of the first revisionist states alongside Mao’s China and Tito’s Yugoslavia. After the defeat of the initial wave of Soviet revisionism as represented in the tendencies of Trotskyism and Bukharinism, the deviationists and opportunists took on a more concealed approach, seeking to slowly detach the Communist Party from the people and provide power to a bureaucratic clique without the knowledge of the administration of Stalin who fought pugnaciously for further democratization.

Under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet revisionists introduced various deviation and distortions, declaring the proletarian dictatorship obsolete in favor of the “state of the whole people”, rejecting class struggle and revolution in favor of a “peaceful transition” to socialism, collaborating with the imperialist powers under the guise of “peaceful coexistence”, and so forth.

These revisionist fabrications were propagated at the same time as capitalism was being restored and the socialist past discarded with campaigns of “de-Stalinization”. The Khrushchevite-Brezhevite line was enforced on the parties of the Soviet social-imperialist bloc in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, most of which would met a similar fate to the Soviet Communist Party in the late 1980s and early 1990s, totally abandoning any remaining vestiges of revolutionary communism in favor of openly capitalist ideology.

Chinese revisionism

Chinese revisionism begins most clearly with the rise to power of Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China to power in 1949. Mao’s doctrine of “Mao Zedong Thought” eclectically amalgamated various traditions of idealist Chinese philosophy with only scant influences from Marxism. The Chinese revisionists’ theories were developed in accord with the “tastes” of their national bourgeoisie and large peasantry, with fundamental aspects of socialist revolution such as the proletarian dictatorship being omitted in place of “New Democracy” with all “progressive” strata of China. Under Mao’s leadership, the proletariat was merely allocated one-third control of the government!

"Places in the organs of political power should be allocated as follows: one-third to the proletariat and the poor peasantry; one third to the petty-bourgeoisie, and the remaining one-third to the middle bourgeoisie and the enlightened gentry."

--Mao Zedong, Current Problems of Tactics in the Anti-Japanese United Front

The Maoist period in China would be dominated by various programs and efforts intended at mobilizing the peasantry to act in the interests of the opportunist Chinese leaders and their capitalist benefactors, the most major of which was the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” in the 1960s, seeing a large-scale liquidation of rival elements in the government. Mao further collaborated with imperialist states and their puppets in order to assert Chinese hegemony, concocting the “Three Worlds Theory” to justify these actions. This would result in China allying with American imperialism and becoming one of the first “socialist” states to establish diplomatic relations with fascist Spain and Chile.

Following Mao’s death in 1976, an explicitly bourgeois faction within the Communist Party of China led by Deng Xiaoping would seize control of the state and institute various fascistic and social-imperialist measures while intensifying Chinese collaboration with Western imperialism. A revisionist clique continues to control the People’s Republic of China into the present day, operating a fascist-corporatist economy and representing a massive social-imperialist power that competes with the United States for global influence.

Many nominal communist organization have capitulated to Chinese revisionism in some fashion. Organizations such as the “World Anti-Imperialist Platform” adhere to the theory of the modern Chinese state, regarding it as an exemplar of socialism. Others such as the Shining Path3 merely uphold Mao in particular yet reject his successors, many of whom regard him as a “classic” of Marxism and deem their tendency to be “Marxism–Leninism–Maoism”. Without few exceptions, the Maoists of the present have attained little success in their efforts, being detached from the people and reliant on terroristic methods to achieve their aims.

American revisionism

In the United States, various movements have fallen into revisionist deviations, the most notable of which includes Browderism and other distortions which emerged from the Communist Party of the United States.

In the 1940s, the American Communist Party fell under the influence of the distortions of Earl Browder, who advocated class collaboration, bourgeois nationalism, and otherwise reduced socialism to a distant prospect while replacing revolutionary ideals with American chauvinism and exceptionalism. Even following the liquidation of the American Communist Party, its reformation, and removal of Browder, the Party never restored its revolutionary outlook and would merely fall under the influence of Soviet revisionism during the leadership of Gus Hall throughout the later 20th century.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Hall’s death in 2000, the American Communist Party under Sam Webb’s and later Joe Sims’ tenure would regress into various reformist deviations, endorsing bourgeois parties and rejecting Marxist principles.
American revisionism continues on in various forms outside of the American Communist Party, particularly among the “Patriotic Socialists”4 and other social-chauvinists who reiterate the rhetoric of Earl Browder and others.

Anti-Revisionist Struggle is Essential!

That revisionism and opportunism represent major threats to the working class movement cannot be denied. This is a tendency which has seeped and removed the revolutionary desire and practice from socialist organizations, depriving them of the capacity to function independently of bourgeois politics. Revisionism fosters chauvinism, divisions among the exploited and oppressed, and in countless instances halted revolution altogether. In countries where socialism has already been attained, the rise to power of revisionists has culminated in the full restoration of capitalism and regression of class struggle by a matter of decades at the least.

Yet to look at revisionism without understanding its basis and causes would be futile. Only by understanding the basis of revisionism in aspects such as the party’s detachment from the working class, petite-bourgeois inclinations, bureaucracy, and so forth can this tendency be truly combated.

This does not change the situation in the workers’ movement — revisionism has taken hold of countless organizations and its propagandists deceive increasingly larger members of the proletariat who are seeking a truly revolutionary organization in this period of capitalist crisis. Thus, it is among the foremost tasks of communists to engage in anti-revisionist struggle; expose the distorters of revolutionary principles and reveal their nature as agents of the bourgeoisie and enemies of people.

Workers of the world, unite!

Notes
1. The distortions of Mao Zedong and Maoism in general are detailed in my work Against Maoism.
2. As this may result in confusion to those unfamiliar with these concepts, it must be noted that the socialist state is that of the sole rule of the proletariat in alliance with certain progressive elements such as the small and middle peasantry. A state cannot be “above-class” or “non-class”, for as Lenin stated in his work “Democracy” and Dictatorship:
“The Scheidemanns and Kautsky's speak about "pure democracy" and "democracy" in general for the purpose of deceiving the people and concealing from them the bourgeois character of present-day democracy. Let the bourgeoisie continue to keep the entire apparatus of state power in their hands, let a handful of exploiters continue to use the former, bourgeois, state machine! Elections held in such circumstances are lauded by the bourgeoisie, for very good reasons, as being "free", "equal", "democratic" and "universal". These words are designed to conceal the truth, to conceal the fact that the means of production and political power remain in the hands of the exploiters, and that therefore real freedom and real equality for the exploited, that is, for the vast majority of the population, are out of the question.”
Thus the Soviet revisionist theory of a “state of the whole people” could only ever be cover for what was truly a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
3. Commonly known in English as the “Shining Path”. Self-declared as the “Communist Party of Peru”.
4. A reactionary, social-fascist tendency which emerged in the United States in the 21st century that seeks to combine American chauvinism and nationalism with certain socialist symbols and rhetoric. A restoration of Browderism in many respects.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans — Revolution!

 

Introduction

As decisive developments in the United States political establishment take place and the 2024 presidential elections looms ever closer, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. From one direction, we see a reactionary, fascistic movement led by Donald Trump and the Republican Party make gains among the most backwards sections of the population. From the other direction, we see an impotent Democratic Party attempt to rally the progressive strata with deceptive rhetoric calling for stagnation in the current stage of capitalism, not change towards any new, progressive arrangement.
Further, we see that the Democratic Party of the United States is doing little to defend from the rising fascistic movements in the country, but is in fact taking impotent and permissive stances despite its grave danger.
 
The capitalist “democratic” system in the United States has shown itself to be nearing its end. It can only go into a deep mire of fascist tyranny or be made superfluous by the revolutionary movement of the working class.

To that extent, revolutionary socialists face many issues despite the clearly moribund nature of the United States. The Democratic Party and pseudo-radical forces associated with it have attempted for decades to deceive the United States working class into supporting their rule, and many have fallen to this effort, and have come to perceive working within the decaying, oppressive framework of election cycles as the predominate if not sole means to attain change in society.  To that extent, it is our duty to reverse this, expose the anti-work nature of these appeals, to show the regressive nature of electoralism in the United States class struggle. 

Background to the Crisis of American Capitalism

Capitalism has, for the entire span of its existence, has always constituted a system which trends towards decay, malaise, and volatility. As the United States of America represents one of the foremost capitalist powers in the world, it is no exception. 

The historical crisis of capitalism that was the Great Depression in the 1930s demanded the ruling class of the United States to install a president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who could save moribund capitalism from the prospect of socialist revolution in the form of social democratic programs such as the New Deal. Further attacks on the working class were made with the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947 and McCarthyism, which decimated organized labor and radical movements. For the next decades in the 20th century, American capitalism was saved.

However, the welfare system spawned from the New Deal was supplanted with the neoliberal reforms and excesses under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s onwards, the condition of American capitalist democracy has been consistently in decline, particularly after the events of September 11, 2001 and the resulting introduction of even more draconian policies under president Bush and his successors. 

The global capitalist crisis of 2008 generated fertile ground for the rise of reactionary, fascistic movements seeking to turn away the liberal democratic framework while still preserving capitalism. The Tea Party movement and other tendencies emerged, but soon were subverted and astroturfed by the most backwards sections of the bourgeoisie. The nascent discontentment within the petite-bourgeoisie in the United States expanded greatly, and the larger, ruling capitalists quickly exploited this. 

Thus, Donald Trump and his fascistic movement were born, premised on a platform of chauvinism, reactionary populism, supremacy, and so on.  This is the formula by which Trump won the 2016 presidential election. After the crisis of the 2020s began with a pandemic and recession, the capitalist system, to a greater extent, showed itself to be against the interests of the workers, and unrest took place following the murder of George Floyd by white supremacist police officers. Trump and his administration’s expansion of the already draconian police forces to quell these protests, negligent response to and denial of the pandemic, and so forth resulted in a widespread decrease in his popularity prior to the 2020 presidential election. After Trump’s potential in maintaining his leadership diminished, he began to vocally oppose the bourgeois democratic system in the country, and covertly plotted to ensure his position via illegal means. After Trump’s defeat in the election, he refused to accept the results, initiating a self-coup attempt in collaboration with multiple neo-fascist terrorist militias along with unorganized insurrectionists on January 6, 2021. However, Trump’s attempts to maintain power failed, and he was forced to resign from office and allow Joe Biden to succeed him as president.  Thus the present political context in the United States emerged.

Democrats — A Party for Democracy?

"[…] The distinction between the two parties has been diminishing. The fight between these two parties has been mainly over the height of customs duties. Their fight has not had any serious importance for the mass of the people. The people have been deceived and diverted from their vital interests by means of spectacular and meaningless duels between the two bourgeois parties. This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party."  –Vladimir Lenin, The Results and Significance of the U.S. Presidential Elections, 1912  Since the prelude to the 2024 presidential election began, the Democratic Party has attempted to appeal to workers in numerous ways to obscure their true class position as political representatives of the capitalist stratum. One such aspect of their rhetoric has been to pose as defenders of American “democracy” against the despotic Trumpists: “Too much of what is happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundation of our republic. […] MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you" –Joe Biden, speech delivered in 2022

However, despite this fallacious propaganda, the Democratic Party is as much a part of the falling bourgeois plutocratic system as the Republican Party is, both of which constitute the “two-party” system which suppresses working class and socialist political parties and cements capitalist rule.  We must ask ourselves, when president Biden speaks of the “foundations of our republic,” what constitute these foundations?  According to one of the “founding fathers” of the United States, James Madison: 

“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.] –James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10

Indeed, these were views nearly universal among the “founding fathers” of the United States. Their opposition to true democracy in favor of oligarchy is an aspect even their reactionary supporters will confess to. The foundations of the United States were premised on the ability of a small ruling class of rich landowners and slavers in a colonialist context to act freely without reference to popular rule. That is to say — exploitation, genocide, discrimination, minority rule, and unfettered property rights for a few.  These are what defined the foundations of the United States, and to that extent, the Republican Party is not opposed to these foundations but extreme defenders of it in a modern form.  A democracy constitutes the rule of the majority, rather than a powerful minority. Is the Democratic Party an organ for the rule of the people?

 
The Democratic Party is heavily funded by powerful institutions with millions of dollars each and every year such as Bloomberg LP, Charles Schwab Corp, and many others, a large amount of which concurrently fund the Republican Party. Nearly all of the powerful Democratic officials in the Senate and Congress are millionaires and otherwise very affluent.  The government of the United States, even under an administration aligned with the Democratic Party, have consistently permitted corruption in the form of “lobbying” and have been overwhelmingly more favorable to the interests of the capitalists (a class which much of its leadership belongs to!) while caring little for the interests of the people. 

This overwhelming evidence proves that the Democratic Party is not a party of democracy at all, but — as with their Republican counterparts — a party led by the rich, operating for the interests of the rich, and counter to the interests of the working class. The United States of the government of the capitalists, and the Democrats merely represent the political will of one faction of them. 

In short, the Democratic Party cannot be the defenders of a “democracy” when none exists for the vast majority of the population.

Are the Democrats a “lesser evil”?

There are many, some of whom self-described “socialists,” who will still provide some degree of support to the Democratic Party even after becoming cognizant of its bourgeois and anti-democratic character. This is the politics of following a “lesser evil.” This position of supporting a “lesser evil” is nearly omnipresent in the working class people who are deceived by the Democratic Party. In the 2020 presidential election, the majority of Democratic voters stated that their primary reason for their decision to vote for Joe Biden was because “he is not Trump.”  Much of the proletariat in the United States is not supportive of the Democratic Party and merely vote for it as they know no other valid forms of political struggle. They are lied to by the bourgeoisie in viewing bourgeois democracy as the only arena for political change; not yet knowing of socialist democracy and its infinitely more liberative nature.  The Democratic Party and its aligned corporate media are very much aware of this tendency among their voting base. During the initial stage of campaigning for the 2024 general election, a widespread trend emerged during the presidential primaries among Democratic voters not to cast their support for Biden, but to vote “uncommitted” largely as a measure of protest. In the State of Michigan, over 100,000 voters voted “uncommitted,” many of Arab, particularly Palestinian descent and felt discontented with the continued support and complicity of the Biden administration for the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. While detailing this information, Democrat-aligned academic Michael Traugott stated:

“[Selecting ‘uncommitted’] is not an option for the fall general election, where the only alternative to a Biden vote for Democrats will be to stay home or vote for Donald Trump. Given his past record and proposals to exclude Arabs from immigration to the United States, I don’t believe that will be a realistic alternative for many of Michigan’s uncommitted voters.” 
–Michael Traugott, “More than 100K Michigan voters pick ‘uncommitted’ over Biden − does that matter for November?”, February 27, 2024

This is a view common among the leadership of the Democratic Party as part of their previously mentioned emphasis on fighting to “maintain American democracy.” For the vast majority of the progressive people in the United States, they are faced with a decision: either vote for a right-wing candidate (Biden) who is actively supporting a genocide and is maintaining oppressive policies all while betraying their voting base, or vote for an openly fascistic candidate (Trump) who will not only persist in support for this genocide but expand it domestically against his own people.  Thus, in this case, the “lesser evil” of the Democrats still represents a monstrous, genocidal force. However, this supposedly “lesser” evil has adopted and maintains many aspects of the “greater” evil of Trumpism. Joe Biden has failed to deliver, in part or in full, on the majority of his campaign promises, yet maintained many of Trump’s draconian policies. His administration has continued the construction of a large “border wall” on the border with Mexico which was initiated under Trump and lessened regulations and laws to hasten its progress, continued mass deportations of migrants in large numbers, even surpassing Trump in the number of deportations, and persisted in separating immigrant families and placing children in cages.

Although Joe Biden had campaigned as a “pro-labor” candidate, he has quickly revealed himself as being as anti-working class as any prior president. During a strike by rail road workers suffering from abhorrent working conditions in late 2022, the Biden administration first refused their demand of two weeks worth of sick leave and instead suggested a single day, and then proceeded to enact repressive measures making the strike illegal.  Biden and the Democratic Party have done very little to end the suffering and hardships of the working class. His administration has done nothing to reduce inflation and its resulting consequences for the workers, made critical and negligent errors during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, failed to institute any sort of rent cap and other regulations during massive increases in eviction rates and homelessness, allowed continued police militarization and has done nothing to combat their infiltration by neo-fascists, implemented large-scale neoliberal privatization and austerity measures, and many other extremely anti-working class actions. In the instances where the Democratic leadership does propose certain nominally progressive legislation, such proposals never manifest into anything meaningful as they are quickly diluted, privatization schemes are including into the bill, etc. all the comply with the demands of the American ruling class.  In addition, under the administration of the Democratic Party, supposedly a “left-wing” party, mass repression of working class and progressive movement by police and other state agents have continued. The United States government has responded to nonviolent anti-Zionist protests which started in response to the ongoing Israeli genocide in the Gaza strip with brutal crackdowns and repression, deploying hundreds of militarized police onto college grounds to assault students and other protests and committing other gross violations of human rights in the name of defending a genocidal and colonialist regime at the behest of their corporate masters. Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidential election since late July 2024, is not at all distinct from Biden in these stances.  On July 24, 2024, when Benjamin Netanyahu, a war criminal and genocidal leader of the State of Israel, came to the United States to deliver a fascistic speech during a joint session of Congress, protests erupted against this blatant show of support for a genocidal fascist regime. In response, police again used brutal methods to quell the protests. A day later, Kamala Harris made a public statement:

“Yesterday, at Union Station in Washington, D.C. we saw despicable acts by unpatriotic protestors and dangerous hate-fueled rhetoric.  I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.  I condemn the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America. It should never be desecrated in that way.  I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.] –Kamala Harris, Statement on July 25, 2024

No matter if the politician it is Democrat or Republican, the same inhumane and vile beliefs are held; making use of democratic rights such as freedom of speech and expression are “unpatriotic,” opposing a blatant endorsement of an overseas fascist dictator in the chambers of the government is “hateful,” all of the millions of Palestinians are associated with “Hamas,” peace protests are not allowed if it contradicts capitalist-imperialist interests, and condemning one’s government for supporting an ongoing genocide is “antisemitism.” It is clear what sort of “lesser evil” the Democratic Party is. The Democratic Party is an anti-democratic, imperialist association made up of and operating for the interests of the capitalist ruling class. To support this “lesser evil” means to support police repression, mass deportations, genocide, imperialism, wars, austerity, and the continued exploitation of one class over another. There is nothing that the working class can attain from supporting this vile imperialist organization anymore so than the neo-fascist Republicans, a party which the Democrats are all too willing to collaborate with and empower.

​Supporting this “lesser evil” means to excuse any and all of their crimes and atrocities and absolve them from failing to make any meaningful change. Since the Democrats are “not Trump,” all of their actions or inactions become justified, and their responsibility to their voting base becomes irrelevant. This has been shown with the whole of Biden’s presidency, which has seen nothing but unimpeded hardship for the working class yet has acted as a prelude to the rise of American fascism in part due to the Democrats’ own impotence. 

What must be done?

The conditions which warranted working class movements operating within the capitalist electoral framework have long disappeared, and the recent events in the 2020s have shown this to be particularly true.  The “democratic” government of the United States only allows two political parties to exercise political power, the right-wing Democratic Party and the far-right Republican Party, both of which are simply the political arms of the capitalists to maintain their rule without any sort of democracy for the working class. The Democrats have no ambitions for the abolition of capitalism or any other working class interests. Rather, the Democrats are simply present to ensure division of the working class movements and progressive elements while the fascist Republicans dismantle bourgeois democracy itself. As the Republicans fall further into fascism, the Democrats need only to tail them and appear slightly more “moderate” to manipulate young voters eager for change yet fearful of fascism into supporting them. This is always the case even as the Democrats continually move to the right in tandem with the Republicans.  Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are to be supported in any capacity by revolutionary movements. Instead, communists in the United States must ensure the separation of socialist and otherwise working class organizations from the Democrats, expose the anti-working class and reactionary nature of this organization, and form a new revolutionary communist party which will not fight for the maintenance of this repressive capitalist system, but will bring about revolutionary change and a truly democratic socialist republic for the working class. 

Our goal for communists in the United States is, in short, neither Democrats nor Republicans — revolution!

Workers of the world, unite!

[original source]

The Class Struggle in Argentina and its Relevance to the World Proletariat

Preface

Capitalism assumes many political and ideological manifestations throughout its lifespan based on its ebbs and flows; the bourgeois revolutionaries of France and the liberal democrats in the United States and Western Europe during capitalism’s nascent period, all the way to the fascist and neoliberal demagogues seen during its moribund, imperialist conclusion.

What remains is that the state of the bourgeoisie requires an ideology to assist in upholding their power and influence over the exploited masses. This ideology, of course, changes based on the relative degree of consciousness and militancy of the working class and the condition of capitalism. 

In the country of Argentina, we have seen a dramatic shift in the ideology of its bourgeois state in recent months. The decades-long era of neoliberalism nominally ending in the face of a new, rising tide of libertarianism, preaching a new, “radical,” gospel of personal freedom, prosperity, and unfettered property rights, one proselytized by the nation’s new head of state, Javier Milei.

The rise of this extreme-right force is concurrent with the rise to power of other reactionary movements in the Western world, all largely within the span of the 2020s. The crises inherent to capitalism, the global economic slowdown has provided the optimal breeding group for these supposedly “radical” bourgeois movements. Argentina is at the forefront of this revival of extremist reaction, and its historic background which gave rise to these events must be understood as capitalism grows increasingly erratic in other countries.

The events in Argentina prior to Milei’s rise to power

The politics of Argentina have been dominated for decades by a movement known as Perónism. Its namesake, Juan Domingo Perón, was a high-ranking military official who exploited a military coup d’état in 1943 to gain political power and support among the lower strata of Argentine society, eventually seizing a despotic hold over the country by the 1950s. Perón himself was an open admirer of fascist regimes such as that in Italy, yet he never fully embraced that movement. Instead he implemented various, often contradictory, socioeconomic polices during his presidency inspired by center-left social democratic ideas. This was due to the geopolitical circumstances of the time. Perón sought to repress communist and workers’ movements to comply with the demands of the domestic bourgeoisie and his imperialist benefactors in the United States who were in the process of establishing other fascistic military regimes across Latin America to impede the growth of socialism, yet still in an era where the memory of Hitlerite Germany and fascist Italy had not been extinguished. 

​Yet these tendencies towards social democracy did not detract from the fascist character of the Perónist regime, for as Stalin stated:

“Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social Democracy.”
— J.V.Stalin, Concerning the International Situation, 1924

After the overthrow and eventual death of Perón in 1974, the Perónist movement was partitioned into multiple, contradictory factions, some more aligned with social democracy whereas others were more definitely right- wing.

​The Perónist government that had formed following the military dictatorship in 1989 was headed by Carlos Menem, who went on to implement numerous neoliberal policies, including austerity measures, countless concessions to foreign capitalists, assaults on organized labor, etc. These policies were highly regressive in their effects for Argentine society, and the Perónist movement generally began to decline in its popularity among the workers. Thus, as an effective requirement for political survival for the capitalist state, the next era of Perónist governance was that of “Kircherism” — the social democratic policies of Néstor Kircher and his successors.

​Although these actions assisted in preserving Perónism until the 2020s, they made workers dependent on the existence of the bourgeois government’s social programs for continued subsistence. Thus, when the Coronavirus pandemic and resulting global economic crisis began in the early 2020s, the Kircherist government suddenly lost much of its support base as its social programs became unsustainable — allowing various previously subterranean figures and demagogues to arise as the demands of failing Argentine capitalism began to change, most obviously the right-wing libertarians under Javier Milei and his party.

 

Argentina in the first months after becoming the first “libertarian” state in history

“[Reactionary ‘socialism’] 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. [...]”

"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.” [emphasis mine: S.W.]
— Frederick Engles, Principles of Communism, 1847

A notion that spread among the corporate media in the English-speaking world regarded the “radical” Milei’s rise to the post of head of state as an entirely unpredictable outcome, placing the blame on the Argentine workers themselves. However, this view is yet another example of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the United States and Western Europe attacking the proletariat of another country for attempting to find a solution to the issues they largely created. Yet, like Hitler, Pinochet, and Mussolini; the rise of Milei’s extremist movement has a distinct relationship with the collapse of capitalism in Argentina and globally.

The anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei’s electoral “upset” was not solely the result of the demands of the bourgeoisie, but was a further consequence of the increasing desperation of the petite-bourgeoisie, a stratum which is among the most unstable under capitalism — constantly at risk of being “reduced” to the level of the proletarian due to competition from the haute-bourgeoisie yet still maintaining ambitions to advance to the higher sub-strata of the capitalist class, while still consequently having sympathies towards both classes:

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.”

“Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.” 

— Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848 

​During such a militant capitalist crisis, the status of the petite-bourgeoisie was increasingly moribund, thus motivating them to support a pseudo-radical movement which promised a “new,” “better” capitalism which catered to the small owners and artisans from the days of yore.

There were also elements of the proletariat who found themselves providing some degree of support for Milei, with some merely voting for him during the country’s 2023 general election despite disagreeing with his rhetoric. They desired an alternative; anything to detach them from the corrupt government and failing economy they had under the Perónists.

Yet the Argentine people soon realized the extent of the demagogy and deceit on the part of the newly-empowered libertarians. 

The far-right government of Milei inherited a country with a dying economy and corrupt government, facing an extreme inflation rate of nearly 200% and a poverty rate exceeding 40% of the population. Yet instead of rectifying the hardships faced by the general population, the Milei government has instead taken every possible step to enlarge the socioeconomic crisis and implement their extremist, anti-proletarian political program.

Among the first actions performed by Javier Milei as head of state was to employ special emergency powers to sign a decree so totalistic in its attacks on the working class and organized labor movement that it has been termed a “mega-decree.” Using this “mega-decree”, the libertarian government has introduced widespread policy changes; severely reducing unemployment benefits, parental leave, assaulting fundamental democratic freedoms such as workers’ right to strike and organize unions.

Meanwhile, the conditions in Argentina continued to deteriorate, as the Milei government did virtually nothing to halt the rapidly-increasing cost of living and hyper-inflation, with them instead introducing absurd and discontented laws such as allowing employers to remunerate their workers in the American dollar, Bitcoin, milk, and beef. The regime has also taken highly discriminatory stances against marginalized groups, particularly the LGBTQ+ community.

 

The workers’ resistance to the reactionary regime 

The working class of Argentina has hastily begun to realize that Milei and his regime are not allies of the people as his demagogic propaganda would suggest, but the most committed enemies of the people and their class interests. Thus, large-scale protests were held in the immediate weeks of Milei’s presidency in response to the extremist, anti-worker policies introduced.

Yet, Milei, despite claiming to be a “libertarian” who would “break the shackles of the oppressive state,” decided to quell these demonstrations by employing brutal police force and terror and introducing draconian laws which made it far less cumbersome for police to arrest demonstrators. This is not to say that the repressive system in Argentina is fundamentally distinct from the bourgeois democracies in other countries:

“In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich.” 

— Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1917

The Argentine workers, however, were not discouraged by the reactionary regime’s repression and austerity, responding by banging pots and pans on protected balconies, articulating chants such as “Milei! You are garbage! You are dictatorship!” in the nation’s capital city, and similar acts of resistance. Argentina’s largest trade union, the General Confederation of Labor, cognizant of the fact that its very existence was endangered by the far-right government, called for a nation-wide general strike which was to be held in late January.

In the succeeding months of 2024, the Argentines workers have continued to fight for their interests with similar determination and gallantry, even after state repression expanded to the point of raiding soap kitchens, emergency canteens, and other places to assist the increasingly famished working class. General strikes took place, protesters struggling against the state’s increasing repression, and so forth. As a result of this, the reactionary government has been forced to delay its most extreme reforms and make certain concessions such as its plan to institute the U.S. dollar as the national currency, facing the prospect of a full working-class insurrection. However, the libertarian government have indicated they will continue with their anti-worker ambitions so long as they remain in power: 

“There is no strike that stops us, there is no threat that intimidates us, [the strikers and their leaders are] mafia unionists, poverty managers, complicit judges and corrupt politicians […]”

— Argentine Security Minister Patricia Bullrich

​The popular resistance will continue so long as Milei remains in power, and the Argentine people are becoming increasingly mobilized and class conscious.

 

Conclusion

“The working class must be able to take advantage of the antagonisms and conflicts within the bourgeois camp, but it must not cherish the illusion that fascism will exhaust itself of its own accord. Fascism will not collapse automatically. Only the revolutionary activity of the working class can help to take advantage of the conflicts which inevitably arise within the bourgeois camp in order to undermine the fascist dictatorship and to overthrow it.” [emphasis mine: S.W.]

—Georgi Dimitrov, The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism, 1935 

Within the span of a few months under the new libertarian regime, the poverty rate has risen from 40% of the population prior to Milei presidency to nearly 60%, with hyper-inflation taking hold even faster than before the libertarians took power, all of which results of the nascent government’s economic “shock- therapy” and other extreme policies. Concerning Milei’s foreign policy, he has done little more than devolve his country into a proxy for American interests, with the government rejecting plans to join the non-American-aligned economic bloc BRICS, expressing fanatical support for the State of Israel and its war against the Palestinian people, making concessions to the Western-led International Monetary Fund, etc.

Javier Milei, unlike what his pseudo-radical positions would suggest, is as much a part of the problems faced by Argentina as the previous social democratic government was. His “free market fundamentalist” policies have brought ruin to the already failing economy, his “anti-government” notions have been refuted by his heading of state terrorism, and he has made himself an enemy of his own people in the clearest manner. 

Argentina prior to the election of Javier Milei is analogous to the Weimar Republic and Kingdom of Italy before those countries’ fall into fascism. Milei — like Hitler and Mussolini, was chosen by the Argentine ruling class as a final means to protect capitalism from working-class revolution. Fascism is the that exists to repress radical movements, and it is clear Argentina is heading along this dark path. However, the Argentine people, understanding that the far-right government has never sided with their interests, are beginning to resist in increasingly large numbers. There is hope, and there is particularly hope that Milei’s government will soon fall due to its own betrayal of the Argentine proletariat. 

The libertarian movements outside of Argentina cannot be separated from the events in this country. Right-wing libertarians have revealed their true countenance as a modern fascist movement who will act as the shock-troops of the capitalist system. They will deceive the masses with their promises of a “better” economic system, yet when they are summoned by the bourgeoisie to power, they will implement merely an extreme form of neoliberalism we see in the present. 

​International Marxist–Leninists express the utmost support for the proletariat of this country against their fascistic regime. The revolutionary communist movement in Argentina will lead the people’s ongoing resistance and establish a country which is not a vassal of U.S., Russian, or Chinese interests, but a free, socialist Argentina.

Death to all forms of fascism and reaction! 

Workers of the world, Unite!

 

Image attribution: 

​Top Image: “ Represión frente al Congreso Nacional - Buenos Aires – Argentina” by Santiago Sito (CC BY-NC-ND)

 

Famous Fraudulent Stalin Quotes Debunked

 Alleged Quotation: 

 

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."

 

Refutation:

 

The only source for Stalin saying anything even approaching "it's not who counts the votes..." is Bazhanov's book (first published in 1980 and translation into English in 1990). But, even here, what Stalin is reputed to have said is quite different:

 

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

However, this quote seems to evidence Stalin's concerns to prevent electoral fraud. The exact opposite intention of the "who counts the votes..." quote.

Alleged Quotation:

"The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

 

Refutation:

Wrong again! This lie has been repeated enough to become fact!

The myth holds that Stalin, on being asked to win over Catholic support by French Premier Pierre Laval responded "How many divisions does the Pope have?". The source for this myth is "The Gathering Storm", by Winston Churchill, 1948, Widely quoted and repeated as fact. 

This myth is propagated to target religious individuals; meant to emphasis Stalin's cynicism and "might makes right" attitude. 

 

This quote was actually said by German Chancellor Otto von Bismark in 1872 to Prussian official Adalbert Falk when Falk was charged with enforcing Bismark's anti-Catholic laws. This was part of the Prussian "kulturkampf" against political Catholicism. 

 

No concrete evidence exists for it ever being said, and why would Stalin, in a majority Orthodox nation need to curry Catholic support?

 

Alleged Quotation:

"Death solves all problems — no man, no problem."

 

Refutation:

 

"No man, no problem." comes from a work of fiction, the novel Children of the Arbat (1987) by Anatoly Rybakov where he had a fictional Stalin say it. In his later work, the Novel of Memories, Rybakov admitted that there was no source for the quote and that he had made it up as fictional dialog.

 

Alleged Quotation: 

 

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

 

Refutation:

 

He never said it!

 

Falsely attributed to Stalin in order to make people believe he was totally uncaring and unconcerned about the fate of millions... The line instead comes from the book Französischer Witz by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): 

 

"The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!"

 

 [source]