Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.—Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship in the classical roman sense. It is a class dictatorship, where a class is dominant. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletariat expressing its political hegemony. The proletariat is the class which sells its labour to survive, the proletariat is you and I. If you have a boss, you are proletarian.
Now, the world lives under capitalism, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, i.e. the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, factory owners, those who own the means of production, who subsist solely off others people’s labour and by exploiting. Whoever you vote in will be rich, and they will act in their own interests, using the state as a tool to exercise their political hegemony.
The state would be ran though soviets, in which workers elect representatives, which are recallable and accountable. The delegates would go in and pass their views to a larger soviet that encompasses a certain area, and is made up of a number of delegates from the basic soviets. This continues until we get to the soviet that covers the whole country.
This would allow the people to have control over their area, workplaces and lives, and they will undoubtably peruse their class interests.
The flag translates to Paris commune, which is widely accepted as the first dictatorship of the proletariat, and served as a lesson to what happens if one is too liberal in a revolution.
Socialism could never work as it goes against human nature. We, as a race, naturally compete.
Ha. Whom says this? The capitalists. In this system, yes, we compete instead of cooperate. We do this because we live in a competitive system, where the few exploit the majority to live in luxury and throw the rest to the devil- as long as they still work. Let me take you back to pre-civilisation, as it is so called (doublespeak).
What would man have to gain from turning on his brother? Nothing.
If they cooperated, however, they could get more than 2 men working alone. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to compete.
We have overcome these hardships that hunter gatherer societies faced. Now, a few hundered men with machinery can feed ten thousand. Survival is the key motive, the will to live. With money abolished, we are merely cutting out the middleman between work and survival, as we need money to live, thus, we work to live.
The ‘communism can’t work because of human nature’ argument has been debunked, ironically using human nature and examples from so called ‘primitive communism’.
Capitalism can’t work because of human nature, as humans don’t like being exploited. Anarchism means one is free to do what they want as long as it does it involve exploration of another, or it limits others freedom.
We will have no economic chaos, or any chaos.
Opposed to the caricature of anarchism, anarchy equals order.
We don’t want to impose our solutions by force, we want to create a democratic space. We don’t see armed struggle in the classic sense of previous guerrilla wars, that is as the only way and the only all-powerful truth around which everything is organized. In a war, the decisive thing is not the military confrontation but the politics at stake in the confrontation. We didn’t go to war to kill or be killed. We went to war in order to be heard.
This is a quote from the spokesperson of the EZLN- The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional).
I will refer to them as either the Zapatistas or the EZLN in this article.
Let us begin
The Zapatistas went public on January 1, 1994, the day when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect. On that day, they issued their First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle and their Revolutionary Laws. The declaration was that of war on the Mexican government, which was so out of touch with those it was meant to govern, that the Zapatistas declared it illegitimate.
Their original goal was to instigate a revolution in all of Mexico, but as this failed, they used their uprising as a platform to call the world’s attention to their movement to protest the signing of NAFTA, which the EZLN believed would increase the gap between rich and poor people in Chiapas (southern Mexico, where the Zapatistas are based) – one that has sadly become true.
On the morning of January 1, 1994, an estimated 3,000 armed Zapatista insurgents seized towns and cities in Chiapas, including Ocosingo, Las Margaritas, Huixtán, Oxchuc, Rancho Nuevo, Altamirano, and Chanal. They freed the prisoners in the jail of San Cristóbal de las Casas, and torched several police buildings and military barracks in the area. The guerrillas enjoyed brief success, but the next day Mexican army forces counter-attacked and fierce fighting broke out in and around the market of Ocosingo. The Zapatista forces took heavy casualties, and retreated from the city into the surrounding jungle.
This is where the strategy changed.
Due to the failure of the Mexican Government to capture the Comandantes of the EZLN, they took up a policy of negotiation.
The Zapatistas changed tactics to mobilisation and a media campaign through numerous newspaper comunicados.
On June 28, 2005, the Zapatistas presented the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, declaring their principles and vision for Mexico and the world. This declaration reiterates the support for the indigenous peoples, who comprise roughly one third of the population of the state of Chiapas, and extends the cause to include “all the exploited and dispossessed of Mexico”. It also expresses the movement’s sympathy to the international alter-globalization movement, and offers to provide material aid to those in Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and elsewhere, with whom they make common cause. The declaration ends with an exhortation for all who have more respect for humanity than for money to join with the Zapatistas in the struggle for social justice both in Mexico and abroad. The declaration called for an alternative national campaign (the “Other Campaign”) as an alternative to the presidential campaign. In preparation for this alternative campaign, the Zapatistas invited to their territory over 600 national leftist organizations, indigenous groups and non-governmental organizations in order to listen to their claims for human rights in a series of biweekly meetings that culminated in a plenary meeting on September 16, the day Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain.
The most recent campaign was when the Zapatistas marched through the streets on the 22nd of December, one day after the start of the new Mayan calendar. They marched, all in balaclavas, in complete silence.
The Zapatistas have an ideology that can only be described as libertarian socialism. The Zapatista slogan is that of mutual aid, formulated by Peter Kropotkin, the ‘inventor’ of anarchist communism:
“For everyone, everything. For us, nothing” (Para todos todo, para nosotros nada).
The EZLN opposes economic globalization, arguing that it severely and negatively affects the peasant way of life of its indigenous support base and oppressed people worldwide.
The Zapatista controlled areas are ran on a bottom-up democracy system, similar to soviet democracy, limiting public servants’ terms to only two weeks, not using visible organization leaders, and constantly referring to the people they are governing for major decisions, strategies and conceptual visions.
“my real commander is the people”
Unlike other ‘revolutionary’ movements like FARC and shining path, the EZLN, before their uprising in 1994 explicitly defined a right of the people to resist any unjust actions of the EZLN. They also defined a right of the people to:
demand that the revolutionary armed forces not intervene in matters of civil order or the disposition of capital relating to agriculture, commerce, finances, and industry, as these are the exclusive domain of the civil authorities, elected freely and democratically.
“The people should acquire and possess arms to defend their persons, families and property, according to the laws of disposition of capital of farms, commerce, finance and industry, against the armed attacks committed by the revolutionary forces or those of the government.”
The following information comes from the documentary ‘a place called Chiapas’
As a young man, Subcommander Marcos was politically radicalized by the Tlatelolco massacre (2 October 1968) of students and civilians by the Mexican federal government; consequently, he became a militant in the Maoist National Liberation Forces. In 1983, he went to the mountains of Chiapas to convince the poor, indigenous Maya population to organize and launch a proletarian revolution against the Mexican bourgeoisie and the federal government. After hearing his proposition, the Chiapanecs “just stared at him”, and replied that they were not urban workers, that, from their perspective, the land was not property, but the heart of the communities.
Imagine a person who comes from an urban culture. One of the world’s biggest cities, with a university education, accustomed to city life. It’s like landing on another planet. The language, the surroundings are new. You’re seen as an alien from outer space. Everything tells you: “Leave. This is a mistake. You don’t belong in this place”; and it’s said in a foreign tongue. But they let you know, the people, the way they act; the weather, the way it rains; the sunshine; the earth, the way it turns to mud; the diseases; the insects; homesickness. You’re being told. “You don’t belong here”. If that’s not a nightmare, what is?
Marcos’ political philosophy is often characterized as Marxist and his populist writing, which concentrates on unjust treatment of people by both business and the State, underlines some of the commonalities the Zapatista ideology shares with Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism.
When asked about whether he is worried about the risk of assassination, he relied with this:
“We don’t fear to die struggling. The good word has already been planted in fertile soil. This fertile soil is in the heart of all of you, and it is there that Zapatista dignity flourishes.”
You can find many interviews with Marcos on you tube. I recommend checking them out.
By Leon J Williams
This morning 85 Marxist Communists, including 15 lawyers were arrested by Turkey’s Islamic right-wing government in various parts of the country.
The lawyers belong to a firm that often defends left-wing activists.
Currently there are no concrete reasons why the arrests took place.
A Turkish lawyers’ association, CHD, accused the state of “an all-out attack against people and institutions who oppose the system and struggle for democracy and freedom”.
Although these Marxists, who belong to the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKP-C) are listed as a terrorist group they (unlike the PKK) do not target civilians.
For more details click here.
By George Volkov
Cuba, whilst being blockaded in an attempt to starve them into allowing the US to exploit it’s people again, still provides more for it’s people than the US.
In this short piece of writing, i am going to present to you facts, not opinions, because what can prove something more than a fact?
Castro became prime minister in 1959, after overthrowing General Batista, who gained power in a military coup.
In 1960, the Cuban government introduces aggressive economic reforms: American-owned businesses come under state control and the economy becomes centrally planned, this, along with the landowners having their land given to the peasants who have worked on it their whole lives, gets large amounts of support.
With the lowest unemployment rate, which is at 1% and the highest literacy rate in the world at 99%, not to mention some of the best and most humanitarian doctors to ever walk the earth, Cuba would be a great country to live in. Unfortunately, due the US blockade, and the fact very few countries want to anger uncle sam, Cuba is still very much under-developed.
Most of the Cubans who left were the rich ones, the exploiters, or as we leftists call them, the bourgeoisie. This would explain why the Cuban-American population is so well off. When Cuba is at its worst everyone still gets their food, water, and healthcare when America is at its best 40,000 people still die a year from not having healthcare.
Why do the US want Castro out so badly?
The US fear Castro, he has made socialism look successful, a rare case when “socialist leaders” actually turn out to be socialists. The fact they have tried to starve Cuba, invade Cuba, and assassinate Castro, (638 ways, according to a channel 4 documentary), shows they really don’t like how well Cuba is doing.
Yes, the US claim Castro is a dictator, and that is why they want him gone, the real reason is he kicked US business out of Cuba, so it could benefit the people of Cuba, not the American government and fat cats.
And if the US are so bothered about dictators, why did they give Pinochet bombers and munitions to take over from the democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende, via a coup d’état?
With the US foreign policy, you can see a pattern.
Will it make us money? Do they oppose the US? Did they stop us gaining money at the expense of others?
Are they socialist or communist?
If the answer is yes, then the US will to something, whether it be the CIA training and arming rebels (Nicaragua, Afghanistan, which didn’t backfire at all…), assassinations, or starting a coup (Guatemala, Chile).
In cuba, if you have cancer, you can’t get medicine to treat it. Why? The blockade. You can’t even get painkillers imported, for a headache. This is the inhumanity of the US embargo. It criticises Castro because Cuba does not have the same standard of living as the west, yet it is the cause of the problem. It’s like a slave owner, beating his slave, then berating the slave for not working as well. The US is clearly attempting to discredit Castro for the conditions it is creating itself.
And for the “Cuba was better before Castro” argument: Kennedy admitted, after trying to invade Cuba, and assassinate Castro many times, that Cuba is better off under Castro than it was under Batista.
¡Hasta la victoria siempre!
Until the Eternal Victory!