Nu de kameraden in China rijk mogen worden en dus ook rijk zijn geworden in het bedenken van middeltjes om de gewone bevolking af te zetten en te bedriegen, zo ook is de tactiek van de maoïsten bij ons meegeëvolueerd. Allemaal onder het mom van het socialisme en het arbeidersbelang uiteraard. Voor de PVDA is het nu tijd om het communautaire geklets maar eens te stoppen. Lenin noemde dat communautaire geklets nog de nationaliteitenkwestie en die moest volgens hem een oplossing krijgen overal waar het aan de orde was. Ook noemde men vroeger de bezetting van een natie en een volk door een vreemde mogendheid en haar binnenlandse lakeien imperialisme. Nu is dit alles door de Partij van de Arbeid herleid tot geklets en gezever. Van revisionisme gesproken!

Voor de communisten moeten de verkiezingen van het federale niveau en de regio’s opnieuw samenvallen. Dat noemen zij democratisch. Voor hen is dat een stap naar de hereniging van het kapitalistische paradijs België, onder de leiding van zijn doorluchtige vorsten en prinsen. Dat er in dit land geen sprake is van een echte democratie schijnt de kameraden van de PVDA nu even niet te storen. In dit schijnparlement kan een meerderheid van het volk (Vlaams) zelfs geen wet gestemd krijgen die een minderheid (Waals) niet zint. De PVDA wil nu dat er een noodregering komt. Aan wie had ze dan gedacht? Aan de gezamenlijke Vlaams-Waalse generaalstop. De communisten eisen nu een ingrijpen van de meest reactionaire Belgische krachten die er in dit land te vinden zijn! Deze reactionairen moeten de vrijheidswil van de Vlaamse bevolking onderdrukken en ondergeschikt maken aan een louter revisionistisch sociaal programma.

De communisten vragen aan de medeorganisatoren van de crisis, namelijk de binnenlandse machtskaste, om de crisis te verzachten voor het volk. Alsof je aan een dolle hond zou vragen of hij je nu even zachtjes bijt in plaats van je de oren van de kop te vreten. Als je nationaal-democraat bent, dan eis je nu verkiezingen! Als je in de parlementaire democratie gelooft, zoals de PVDA beweert, dan eis je dat er nu verkiezingen worden gehouden! Maar als je noodregeringen begint te eisen, dan heb je een hoog Noske-gehalte. Je weet wel, kameraden, dat is die lekkere sociaal-democraat die jullie boegbeelden Rosa Luxemburg en Karl Liebknecht om zeep heeft laten brengen. Dat komt ervan als je de reactionairen vraagt om er eens stevig tegenaan te gaan en een groot deel van het volk monddood te willen maken tot de volgende nepverkiezingen.

Intussen heeft de koning – het democratische boegbeeld van de PVDA, met veel blauw bloed en nog meer geld – voor een noodoplossing gezorgd. Dezelfde bende die nu al 400 dagen het land en het volk op een bijna misdadige wijze in de kou laat staan, terwijl er economische stormen woeden die de gehele bevolking armer maken zijn weer door de vorst (lol) naar voor geschoven. De PVDA heeft de noodregering waarom ze vroeg dus gekregen. Een bende stelende en stuntelende politieke boeven. Communisme en liberaal kapitalisme. Zoals we in China kunnen zien is dat krek compatibel. De Belgische communisten wilden de machtskaste verder aan de macht. Ze kunnen dan morgen weer zagen dat die machtskaste de arbeidersklasse berooft. Eigen schuld dikke bult! De koning der Belgen dankt intussen de communisten van de PVDA voor hun morele steun. Het zijn toch brave jongens en meisjes. Totaal achterhaald en dus nuttig voor het regime.

Dear MTWist,

I had a peculiar thought randomly. You must be familiar with the LRNA, a post-Maoist grouping. They have this conception of the "New Class", basically, a class which is permanently unemployed due to the introduction of automation within the U$A. I don't see any actual statistical evidence that this new class exists and certainly I don't imagine a particular grouping can be a class if it has no actual relation to production. Certainly, they would still be considered 'parasites', but, I was wondering if this class does exist, and I haven't really researched this particular idea, would they be a reserve of the Third World in the fight against the First World or would they still be a reserve of the labor aristocracy and the bourgeois?

?

Thank you for writing,

Background on LRNA

The League of Revolutionaries for a New Amerika (LRNA) (with Nelson Peery at its head) has Stalinist and Black national roots, but it embraces an extreme reductionist version of the TOPF. They have their roots in the remnants of the old Communist Labor Party. It was never Maoist. LRNA was “anti-revisionist,” claiming the CPUSA fell from its proletarian roots, assuming it ever had any. LRNA did support the Chinese CP in the Sino-Soviet split against Khruscheviite revisionism, which is to their credit. They still uphold Comrade Stalin, but in name only. They wanted to be a version of the 1930's CPUSA. They had a printing press called “Proletarian Publishers.” They printed some old Stalin and Comintern classics, which is one of their positive accomplishments. Like the New Communist Movement, they did their stint in the factories organizing the workers, leading to predictable results. LRNA sees no progressiveness in national liberation struggles (except in places like Puerto Rico which are still formally colonized). Their published works are intentionally dumbed down, as they say, to appeal to the average amerikan, unfortunately ensuring that there's little interesting in them for any level.

Like the PLP, LRNA argues that communist, not socialist, revolution is now on the immediate historical agenda, because the development of electronic and robotic production has rendered the law of value inoperative. Under capitalism, this means that a large group of "permanently unemployed" has been created, people whose labor can no longer create surplus value because of the gigantic productivity of microchips and robots. Their analysis holds that technology is replacing “workers,” many of them permanently. This is the reason for the supposed rise of homelessness, temp work, and the like. So they have spent their time organizing homeless and other nominally poor people in Amerikkka. They're involved in the Kensington Welfare Rights organization too. Basically they think that this "new class" of permanently unemployed will be a revolutionary class that will sieze the means of production so that everyone can benefit off the great technology that has produced such plenty. People in LRNA have been known to refer to this group of people as the "communist class." 

LRNA’s analysis is very Amerika-centric. There are major flaws in their analysis:

1. Like most so-called Marxist groups in Amerika, they don't concern themselves with the other 95% of the world’s population. LRNA likes to harp on supposed Amerikan poverty (actually, only *relative* poverty in exclusively Amerikan terms). When confronted on global inequality, LRNA members simply allege that any such comparison is meaningless and not relevant to the experiences of "impoverished" Amerikans.

2. Capitalism finds it cheaper to send production to the Third World with cheap labor than to build expensive robots and machines. 

3. When Amerikan “workers” do get displaced by changes in technology and economy, it's not like they don't get jobs elsewhere. 

4. LRNA openly argues for high incomes to Amerikans regardless of the work that they do (it advocates this, precisely because it claims that many Amerikans displaced by robots cannot survive without a wage income), and is thus most definitely on the side of the First World against the Third World.

5. LRNA completely ignores the extraction of surplus value from Third World labor. LRNA completely ignores the fact that as long as superprofits keep rolling in from the Third World, there will always be profit enough to hire a massive unproductive and parasitic workforce to realise, distribute and protect said profits. Long before Amerika became "postindustrial" (sic) its industrial “working” class was eating up superprofits: with the scrapping of Amerika's blue-collar bourgeoisie, this has not changed. LRNA do not see how Amerika's technologically advanced forces of production are used, through mechanisms of unequal exchange, to superexploit Third World labor. 

6. LRNA tends to see the Amerikan working class *now* (if not before now) as a "multi-racial" one. Supposedly, labor displacement due to automation affects all "races" equally. 

7. LRNA see the entire (Black Belt) South as an internal colony of Amerika. LRNA argues that Northern Blacks have a higher standard of living than southern Whites. Even if that's true, it completely ignores the issue of Black national oppression and the police state. It ignores the historic injustice of the Hayes-Tilden agreement and the post-reconstruction "Jim Crow" genocide era, when Black national aspirations were crushed under the feet of monopoly capitalism. It places southern Blacks in the unenviable position of abandoning their northern brethren and having to forge an alliance with the southern settler crackers.

Their politics leads to reformist goals like welfare rights and electoralism. Many LRNA people were heavily involved in the Democratic Party. LRNA hitched themselves to the Labor Party effort back in the 90's, seeing it as the big hope of Amerikan worker revolution. Of course it went nowhere except back to the trade union bureaucrats. LRNA hardly talks about the Third World, except in an opportunistic way to appeal to their non-white constituents. But no, this new class would be chauvanistic and hostile to the Third World. Today, some LRNA members advocated supporting Obama because he supposedly represents a rise in “communist consciousness.” 

Answer to your question

Like you stated, there is no evidence that there is a significant increase in the permanently unemployed. Whether such a hypothetical class would be revolutionary would depend on various things. 

If there was a sizable group of people who were so cut out of the system that they had absolute no life opportunities and had the standard of living of those who are exploited, then perhaps such a class would be a social base for revolution. However, the Amerikan “underclass,” the lumpen petty-bourgeoisie, or those who live off of welfare don’t currently fit this description. 

One line that came out of Huey Newton’s Black Panther Party was that the lumpen were the revolutionary class in the First World. Others have seen youth as a social basis. Of course people will try to organize where they are. They will target those demographics where they think they will have the most luck. However, people should not be fooled into thinking that such groups form a real social basis. It is always a mistake to target such groups by appealing to their class and national interests. Insofar as they are appealed to, they should be appealed to as class and nation traitors.

Bandidas (2006)
Starring Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz
Directed by Joachim Roenning and Espen Sandberg
Rated PG-13 for sexuality, nudity and violence

Review By Siglo
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Bandidas (2006) is a western comedy starring Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz. Originally set for a wider release in the U.$., it was finally given a limited release exclusively in the Cinema Latino Theaters chain in 2006. We recommend this film as positive in portraying anti-colonial Mexicans as the victors.

The movie is set around the year 1888, in historical terms during the rule of Porfirio Diaz and the Porfiriato in Mexico, and in the United States by the growth of robber baron capitalism. An Amerikan bank and railroad company conspire to steal land in Mexico to build their railroad through. A ruthless enforcer, Tyler Jackson (Dwight Yoakam), is sent to Mexico to enforce the land grabs, even using murder and terror to meet his ends. Two women of different backgrounds, both victims of this enforcer, strike back at the bank and the Amerikans through robbery. The Amerikan thugs attempt to thwart the Bandidas, but the women become folk heroes and gain wide national support among the masses of Mexico. Land struggles become the catalyst for resistance through expropriating stolen wealth of the Amerikan imperialists.

The main characters are introduced in the beginning of the movie. Maria (Penelope Cruz) is a strong willed peasant woman, who has no formal education but much practical knowledge, her life mostly spent with her father on their land. She has nationalistic sentiments, as shown when their land is threatened with foreclosure, she confronts a comprador banker for selling out his people and nation to the gringos. The daughter of that banker is Sara (Salma Hayek), a worldly rich woman who has spent most of her life educated in Europe. These two women, different in every way especially on the basis of class, later unite against a common enemy, Amerikan finance capital that is stealing Mexican land and interfering in their nation’s affairs.

Jackson and his Amerikan posse actively start running the Mexican peasants off their land based on the crooked loans given by the banks. When Maria’s father voices resistance to the theft of his land, he is shot by the enforcers but survives. Maria takes her father to a church to seek sanctuary, only to see other peasants there who have been run off their land too. Sara sees one of their employees murdered on his land, escapes, and later she finds her father dead when he gets in the way of the land theft. Jackson and the Amerikans say it was an accident but Sara correctly deduces that they are responsible for his murder. She flees from them with revenge on her mind.

Both Maria and Sara meet when they decide to rob banks, both at first acting for different motives. Maria robs a bank to obtain resources for her fellow displaced peasants, Sara in order to get revenge for the murder of her father by striking at the pocketbooks of the Amerikans. Yet Sara sees the major crime being committed as the mass theft of Mexican property by the gringos. At first antagonistic toward each other, both of them decide to work together for a common goal of hitting back at the Amerikan finance capital imperialists and aiding their people against the oppressors.

Here the principal contradiction between Mexico and American imperialism in the form of finance capital is shown. As stated in context of China by Mao:

“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…”

Furthermore:

“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. At such a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and the feudal classes, while imperialism often employs indirect methods rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi-colonial countries to oppress the people, and thus the internal contradictions become particularly sharp…”

The situation in Mexico in this film represents more indirect oppression rather than outright war, and more cooperation by the Mexican ruling class, albeit reluctantly, with the Amerikan imperialists. Sara, from a banker’s family, and Maria, from a peasant family, represent an alliance of the national bourgeoisie and the peasantry of Mexico, fighting against Amerikan imperialism in the form of finance capital and the Mexican compradors. They also represent the application of the broad united front of different classes temporarily allied to defeat the common enemy.

Amerikan imperialism is symbolized by the robber baron enforcer Jackson. He is shown as a ruthless hired thug, an economic hitman in the literal sense, in carrying out the goals of stealing land for the railroad. He gives off the image as the ugly Amerikan, being pushy, rude, and disrespectful to Mexican culture and norms. The cruel nature of this man in service to oppression leaves no doubt who the enemy is and that the enemy is to be hated and defeated.

To improve their skills in bank expropriation Maria and Sara take up training with a gringo former bank robber living in their country. They learn weapons training, physical and mental discipline, and rules of bank robbery. Most importantly both of the women learn trust of each other. After a teamwork test they grudgingly admit they are not quite friends, but at least partners. Any fight against imperialism requires preparation and training. Just as the imperialists prepare their troops, so should anti-imperialist forces.

Another positive aspect of this film is the portrayal of Quentin (Steve Zahn), an Amerikan scientist and police officer who in the beginning of the film is building up the importance of the emerging science of forensics to police forces. He is called to Mexico to help with the capture of the Bandidas. Through his investigation he discovers the truth about the death of Sara’s father at the hands of the Amerikans. Seeing the ruthlessness of Jackson’s gang, and finding out about the land thefts from the bank swindling the peasants, he finds the justice in the cause of the Bandidas. In a John Brown moment, he switches sides from his Amerikan employer and joins the Bandidas in their bank expropriations. He even keeps them on track to the main goal, when, after they get captured and they devolve into bickering, telling them to focus on the more important issue of fighting national oppression instead of each other. This character is a good representation of a nation traitor, and also shows the importance of science as a tool for the oppressed.

They succeed in generating broad national support, necessary in any struggle against imperialism. All three of them are captured when an elaborate bank robbery attempt goes wrong. They are shown freed by a peasant militia made up of their close supporters. After this, Sara, who is uncertain about herself and her identity due to her sheltered life, gains class awareness. She states “I might not know who I am but I know who I'm not, I'm not someone who lets her country down.” The Bandidas also use inside information from Mexican supporters when planning their heists. Overall, they are not just individualistic bank robbers, but involved in a guerrilla resistance movement against foreign meddlers. 

To catch the Bandidas, Jackson devises a plot to take the gold of Mexico to the United States. Set in a time when currency was backed by gold, this would serve to leave the paper money they stole with no value. The Bandidas plot to steal the gold back. Jackson midway decides to betray the Mexican government and steal the gold. The Bandidas foil his attempt, and he ends up defeated by them. 

The ending leaves much to be desired. The bank president is shown as shocked, shocked that his employee is engaged in violence and theft. Jackson himself is offed as the offender, but the system that produced him goes on. They make amends with the bank president, and Quentin goes back with his Amerikan fiancée. And then they ride back to Mexico, where peasant Maria asks European-traveling Sara what the banks are like in Europe, which she responds “bigger.” So they start from robbing banks for the liberation of people and nation, to having individualistic goals of robbing banks for adventuristic thrills.  Typical Hollywood ending.  Nevertheless, Bandidas is overall a progressive film that highlights national liberation strategies.

(source: amihanmalaya.wordpress.com)

Isang liham na naglalaman ng mga katanungan ukol sa alamat ng pambansang proletaryo ng Unang Mundo:

Ngayon lang ako nakarinig ng mga manggagawa na kayang magsamantala sa kapwa manggagawa. Paano nangyari yun? Ang alam ko, mga kapitalista lamang ang nakakagawa nun sapagkat hawak nila ang pamamaraan ng produksyon. Hindi tama na tawagin ninyong mga parasitiko ang mga manggagawa sa Amerika dahil lamang kumikita sila ng masmalaki kaysa sa mga manggagawa dito sa Pilipinas!

Ang tamang interpretasyon sa pagkakaiba ng kinikita ng mga taga-pangatlong mundo at ng mga Amerikano ay ganito kasimple: Ang reyt ng pagsasamantala sa Pangatlong Mundo ay masmalaki kompara sa mga Unang Mundong mga bayan tulad ng Estados Unidos. Masmalaking labis na halaga ang nakukuha ng mga kapitalista sa Pangatlong Mundo kaysa sa mga kapitalista sa Unang Mundo. Kaya nauso ang outsourcing sa kanila.

Hindi galing sa Pangatlong Mundo ang kanilang dagdag na kinikita. Tumatanggap sila ng malalaking sweldo dahil kakaunting labis na halaga lamang ang kinukuha sa kanila. At kung tutuusin, dapat pa silang tumanggap ng masmalaki kapag nawala nang tuluyan ang pagsasamantala!

Ang sagot ng isang kasama:

Ang mga “manggagawang” Amerikano ay mga net-exploiters. Ibig sabihin nito, sa loob ng sistemang kapitalismo-imperyalismo, ang mga “manggagawang” Amerikano ay tumatanggap ng labis sa buong halaga ng kanilang paggawa sa kagugolan ng Pangatlong Mundo. Kung ang mga “manggagawa” sa Unang Mundo ay tumatanggap ng labis sa buong halaga ng kanilang paggawa, puwes, ang halagang iyon ay mayroong pinagmumulan sa kung saan man. ie: Sa Pangatlong Mundo.

Walang kinukuhang kalabisan mula sa “manggagawang” Amerikano. Dahil lamang sa sila ay binabayaran, hindi ibig sabihing sila ay pinagsasamantalahan na. Kahit ang mga CEO ay binabayaran. Sa gayong hindi sila nagagawang pagsamantalahan. Ang mapagsamantalahan ay mabayaran ng kulang sa buong halaga ng paggawa. Ang mga “manggagawang” Amerikano, para sa parteng nakakarami, ay hindi man lamang gumaganap sa paglikha ng mga produktong pangkalakal. Ginagampanan nila ang pamamahala, distribusyon, at mga sektor ng serbisyo. Sa madaling salita, hindi man lamang sila gumaganap sa paglikha ng halaga, ginagampanan nila ang bagay na tinatawag ni Marx na, reyalisasyon ng halaga.

Ang halaga na humahantong sa bulsa ng mga “manggagawang” Amerikano ay hindi nila nilikha, tumatanggap sila ng hati mula sa napakalaking tubo na sila ring tumulong upang maisakatuparan. Ang aktwal na paglikha ng halaga ay nagaganap sa kabilang dako. Sa Pangatlong Mundo. Hindi ibig sabihin nito na ang di-produktibong paggawa ay di-maaaring magpagsamantalahan – Malinaw naman na pwede itong mangyari. Manapa’y ipinapakita nito ang isang ihemplo kung papaano pwedeng mailipat ang halaga mula sa isang manggagawa sa Pangatlong Mundo papunta sa isang “manggagawa” sa Unang Mundo. Sa karagdagan, parami na ng parami ang mga “manggagawang” Amerikano na nagmamayari ng pamamaraan ng produksyon sa pamamagitan ng pamumuhunan.

Inilarawan sila ni Marx yaong mga walang yaman kundi ang kanilang lakas-paggawa lamang na kailang ibenta para mabuhay sa susunod na araw. Ang proletaryo ang siyang busabos. Sila ang mga hamak ng daigdig. Ang mga “manggagawang” Amerikano ay masmarami pang kayamanan kaysa sa karamihan ng uring burgesya ng Pangatlong Mundo. Ang median na arawang kita para sa mga taong (nagtratrabaho at hindi-nagtratrabaho) nasa U$ na may edad 15 pataas ay $119 (USD) bawat araw. (1) Walang mawawala sa tunay na proletaryo kundi ang tanikala ng kanilang pagka-alipin!

Notes.

1. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-icm-deaf-and-dumb/

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Comrades, in friendly proletarian unity and struggle,

I have been reading your blog for a while. I generally agree with much of your historical and theoretical writing. I also basically agree with the points in your criteria for fraternal recognition.

1. What is your line on the principal task? Is the Sunrise statement compatible with only one understanding of the principal task? The primary task on the Internet seems to be disseminating ideology, but one could imagine a different primary task off the Internet.

2. Did the Sunrise statement narrow the definition of “Communist”? 

3. Did I miss seeing a previous struggle over declaring a new stage of Maoism?

X

 

Dear Comrade X,

1. We facilitate the destruction of the First World by the Third World in order to forward the cause of communism. At present, the principal way that we can advance this farsighted goal is by disseminating Maoism-Third Worldism, the most advanced revolutionary science, to the Third World. It is absolutely imperative that the Third World masses take up Maoism-Third Worldism. Maoism-Third Worldism is a spiritual atom bomb in the hands of the proletariat. 

To disseminate Maoism-Third Worldism to the masses is the principal task of the movement as a whole. It is the global principal task of our movement. This may or may not be the principal task of an individual cell in their localized work. In addition, this does not mean that our movement does not have other, secondary, tasks. It is an idealist error to confuse the global principal task of the broad movement with the principal task of each individual cell. Obviously, division of labor between cells can exist, even when the movement as a whole has a single, global principal task. 

The primary task of MSH, as an individual cell, for example, is the development, the advancement, of Maoism-Third Worldism as a science. MSH’s secondary tasks, in no particular order, are the dissemination of Maoism-Third Worldist materials and providing movement building tools for the First World. Hopefully other cells will arise with a direct ability to disseminate Maoism-Third Worldist materials to the Third World. 

Several conceptions of the global principal task are compatible with The Sunrise statement. This is even more the case with individual cells, which will have even more diverse, localized, principal tasks at the cellular level. There will be a great diversity of work done within our movement. It is an idealist error to downgrade work  simply because it is not directly tied to the global principal task of the movement as a whole. Others who are in our movement or close to our movement may be involved in diverse, local work ranging from anti-imperialist mass work, to cadre building work, to prison work, to theory work. There is nothing about any of this work that is incompatible with the global principal task of our whole movement. The global principal task emphasizes that, for our movement as a whole, it is absolutely key that our materials get into the hands of those who need them most in the Third World. Everyone, even those whose localized work is not connected directly to the global principal task, should consider how they can contribute to advancing the global task, even if it is in a lesser, secondary way. Every cell should consider contributing some resources to getting our materials out to the masses. Obviously, this does not mean dropping all other successful work, which would be an idealist error.  

2. The Sunrise statement outlines Maoism-Third Worldism. Those who uphold the core of Maoism-Third Worldism, points 1 to 8 of The Sunrise statement, are communists. Those who do not are revisionists. Communists can be obstinate and reject the new “Maoist-Third Worldist” label, but that will only introduce confusion into the movement. The majority of cells seem to have embraced the label over, for example, “MIM-thought.” There is no reason, except sectarian ones, to reject the new label. 

3. Yes, you did miss the discussions over the document. Since the Maoist-Third Worldist movement is a de facto decentralized, cell structure, there is no way to guarantee that every cell is involved in every discussion. The statement was a collective project. It involved several Maoist-Third Worldist leaders and several cells, both online and offline. We have a lot of momentum behind our movement. Soon, MSH will produce an online PDF Journal and possibly a hardcopy version. It would be a big mistake if we let our momentum dissipate. We encourage all Maoist-Third Worldists to get creative and advance our movement. 

Prairie Fire, MSH

A rough estimate of the value of labor by Serve the People of IRTR

(originally published 30 June 2005)

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Let's try to calculate the value of average abstract socially necessary labor. This will give us an idea of how much people produce and who is exploited.

Now that virtually the entire world's economy is integrated into one giant imperialist formation, we can use Comrade Marx's labor theory of value to determine what labor is worth. Comrade Marx pointed out that labor is the substance of value. He said that the number of hours of average abstract socially necessary labor needed to produce a commodity represents its value. That means labor of average productivity under the given working conditions for the specified type of work. Therefore, if traded at value, one hour of labor put into harvesting parsnips is exchangeable against one hour of assembling washing machines (if the labor in both cases is of average productivity).

The nominal GDP of the entire world was $31.9 trillion in 2002. (1) This figure represents everything produced in the world, including services (which tend to be overvalued), in a year's time. The population is about 6.4 billion people. Assume that 2/3 of them work full time on a typical U$ schedule of 2000 hours per year. Then the value of average labor is $7500 per year, or about $3.75 per hour. (Slightly higher, actually, since the world's population was a bit lower in 2002 than it is today.)

Elsewhere I have seen estimates from the UN that the world's nominal GDP in 2005 is about $36 trillion. That would put the value of labor at $8400 per year, or $4.20 per hour.

What is the implication? In the U$, the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, and even higher in some states and cities. If average labor is worth $4.20, then even people making the minimum wage are overpaid on average by about 23%. The average wage in the U$ is about $18 per hour, which is more than 4 times the value of labor.

This little exercise shows that no one legally working in the U$ is likely to be exploited. On the contrary, U$ workers receive superprofits extracted from the Third World by the imperialists and thus benefit from imperialist exploitation. The same goes for most Western European countries, where the minimum wage is generally even higher than in the U$.

To disprove this claim, it would be necessary to show that U$ workers were more productive than average. The truth is that they are probably less productive than the international average, since the intensity of labor tends to be much higher in the Third World.

But there is exploitation in the U$. Chinese garment workers illegally employed in sweatshops for $1.50 an hour and Mexican agricultural workers illegally employed at similar wages are exploited. Possibly some prisoners are exploited as well, although the calculations are a little more difficult in that case. And there may be some isolated Stakhanovites who are so far above the average in productivity that they count as exploited.

Even so, the vast majority of Amerikkkans are clearly not exploited. They are, in fact, exploiters.

Notes.

1. hhttp://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_121_1_1.html.

Also see: The High cost of living in the Third World, Amerikkkans rich, Indians poor, so-called “ICM” deaf and dumb, Simple questions by the numbers.. the majority in the United Snakes: revolutionary or not?

(Av Mikkel Frostad)

Det kan ikke understrekes nok til alle kamerater at vi som kommunister, (marxist-leninister-maoister) står imot individualisme og privat eiendom. Hvorfor ikke betegne dette som "borgelig  individualisme" eller "borgelig privat eiendom" ? Fordi det ikke finnes noen "proletarisk individualisme" slik som borgelig ndividualisme - dette er fordi proletaret forkaster individualisme og omfavner det kollektive liv.

Hvordan kommer vi frem til kommunismen? For å oppnå dette, må vi gjøre akkurat som Rød Gardistene i Kina under formann Mao gjorde, knuse de fire gamle: Gamle gjenstander, gammel kultur, gamle vaner og gamle ideer. Knuse betyr bare at: fjerne, eleminere. Som selv-kritiske maoister, må vi kjempe for å knuse alle borgelige elementer inni oss. Som kritiske maoister, må vi kjempe for å knuse alle borgelige elementer som oppstår i partiet. Som kommunister må vi innprente de leninistiske og maoistiske organisatoriske prinsipper inni oss, slik at vi alltid følger disse i praksis. Vi skal knuse det gamle og bygge det nye.

Vi må ha et praktisk organisatorisk liv som vokter mot borgelige tendenser , bare som ekte kommunister kan vi kjempe for ekte kommunisme. Dette gjelder anti-imperialisme også. Vi må være villig til å leve under den demokratiske sentralismen i partiet og celle-nivå. Vi som maoister må kjempe for å bygge marxismen-leninismen-maoismen i virkeligheten og ikke bare på papiret. I kampen for kommunisme trenger vi kampanjen "bryt ned de fire gamle, sett opp de fire nye" Vi er dialektiske materialister, vi er ikke sentementalister, vi er ikke subjektive individualister, og vi er ikke konservative etter det gamle. Vis kommunismen er å bli kjempet for, da må vi være villig til å forplikte hele vårt liv til dennen kampen. Vi må koble kampen for kommunisme sammen med en disiplin form, om vi skal kunne klare å knuse borgerskapet for evig.

I 1950-årene foregikk den strålende industrialiseringen av Folkerepublikken Kina, i et forykende tempo. Dette skjedde i sammenheng med at den marxist-leninistiske bevistheten økte.

Formann Mao blei oppmuntret av dette, med han syntes at egoismen og for lite ekte kommunistisk praksis fortsatt manglet i massene, og han ville øke levestandaren for folket på landsbygda. I 1958 hadde formann Mao og venstre-fløyen funnet en løsning for både skape økonomisk vekst (på landsbygda) og øke den marxist-leninistiske bevistheten hos de revolusjonære massene. Løsningen på dette var Det Store Spranget fremover, som skulle ta sikte på å knus all byrokratiske elementer i massene, fjerne privateiendom, sikre den kollektive vei, øke ML bevistheten, og øke lett-industri produksjonen.

Kampanjen blei iverksatt med stor iver blandt massene og kommunistpartiet, dette resulterte i en enorm vekst i produksjonen av mat og lett-industri varer, samt at den marxist-leninistiske bevistheten økte. Alle revolusjonære må forstå at en strålende fremtid ligger ikke i teknologi, men i kommunistisk-politisk bevisthet. Vi kan oppnå alt! vis vi bare har riktig politisk linje. Denne linjen er marxismen-leninismen-maoismen!

Shubel Morgan:

Det nye revolusjonære bladet Til Kamp er utgitt av den marxistiske-leninistiske-maoistiske organisasjonen Tjen Folket. Bladet er liten på størrelse, med på politikk er bladet strålende bra!

Første utgave (8 mars) kom ut på kvinnedagen, og blei delt ut flere steder i landet. I første utgave kunne vi lese om: En liten presentasjon av det nye bladet, kvinnekamp - kritikk av borgelig femenisme, intervju med tidligere geriljasoldat Klare fra Iran, intervju med Tjen Folkets talsperson, flotte bilder fra LLL-demo`n i Berlin, intervju med kvinne i MLPD, og Krise i kapitalismen (del 1 av 2)

Andre utgave blei utgitt og delt ut på arbeiderdagen (1 mai). Forsiden var ikke like revolusjonær som forige gang, men innholdet var godt politisk. I første mai utgaven kunne vi lese om: "maoistene" vinner i Nepal, kvinnene taper på pensjonsreformen (intervju med kommunisten Bjørgulf Claussen), situasjonen i Tibet, kampen mot EU, U.$.A (presidentkandidat valget), LO ledelsens svik mot arbeiderklassen, arbeiderklassen vokser, kritikk av "RU", intervju med maoisten og TFèren Kenneth Fuglersmo, og krise i kapitalismen (del 2 av 2)

Vi mener sakene det står om i bladet er skrevet på en god måte, og er i tråd med marxismen-leninismen-maoismen. Med dette bladet viser Tjen Folket - ei marxistisk-leninistisk gruppe at de er en partibyggende organisasjon som kombinerer dagskampsaker med klassekamp, revolusjon, proletariatets diktatur, sosialisme og det endelige mål - kommunismen.  Ønsker du et gratisabonnement på Til kamp?

Mao Declassified (2006) reviewed by Prairie Fire (monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

This is a trashy, sensationalist documentary from the History Channel. The documentary does not even attempt to understand its subject. Instead, it relies on the orientalist and bourgeois prejudices of its audience to fill in the blanks. The film portrays Mao as a power-mad Asian despot, blindly worshiped by mindless hordes. Rather than a scientific approach, the narrative of the documentary is informed by the great man theory. According to the narrative of the film, history is not a function of the conflict of social forces, instead, history is a series of great men who leave their imprints on our world. The opening narration says, “This is the story of the leader who will unleash terrible destruction on his own people. It is the story of a man who will end up a god in this godless country.” Even by bourgeois standards, this documentary is not up to par. Mao Declassified is far inferior to both Morning Sun (2003) and Mao’s Bloody Revolution Revealed (2007).

Commentators include, among others: Henry Kissinger, war criminal; James Lilley, U$ Ambassador to China from 1989 to 1991; Ross Terrill, author of Mao: A Life; Anchee Min, author of Red Azalea; Ji-li Jiang author of Red Scarf Girl; Jan Wong, foreign correspondent, Globe and Mail. In addition, Mao’s physician Dr. Li Zhisui’s sensationalist, gossipy account of Mao’s personal life is quoted: “Mao contracts a venereal disease but women are proud to be infected as proof of their relationship with him.“ The list of commentators is itself revealing. It is, literally, a meeting of the U$ State Department’s account overlapping with Chinese “victim/victimizer,” dark-age narratives, a genre that is sanctioned by the post-Maoist, revisionist state. 

The first fifteen minutes focus on Mao’s life up to the Cultural Revolution. The remainder focuses on the Cultural Revolution through Mao’s death (1965 to 1976). The timeline portrayed in the documentary is roughly accurate, but sometimes misleading. The following topics are covered: the Great Leap, Mao’s loss of power to Liu Shaoqi, the opening cultural battles of the early Cultural Revolution, the mass movement period, the rise and fall of Lin Biao, the meetings between Mao and Nixon, the return of Deng Xiaoping, the death of Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four. One misleading element is that the Cultural Revolution is simply portrayed as Mao and the red guards versus the old Communist Party. In reality, the power struggles were much more complicated. 

True to the movie’s method, Jiang Qing’s role in the Cultural Revolution is portrayed as a function of her psychology. She is said to be “very vain,” “cold,” “vindictive,” “humorless,” “ferocious” and “merciless.” She is Mao’s cat’s paw: “When Mao said bite, I bit.” She is “the red empress” who “brainwashes children” with her Maoist propaganda to elevate herself and Mao to back to absolute power. The narrative elevates peripheral events as though they are the key to unlocking the orientalist mystery of the "murderous" regime. For example, the film focuses on the outwardly puritanical Jiang Qing’s alleged persecution of those who knew her from her Shanghai days when she was an actress. She is said to have persecuted those who knew her past sexual reputation. Even if all of this is true, it is not the best way to understand Jiang Qing’s role in the Cultural Revolution. The best way to examine her role is to examine her politics, her social program, the power blocks that she was a part of. Instead of examining this, the film crafts a story of Jiang Qing as though she were a character in a romance novel. 

Similarly Lin Biao is portrayed as a “military genius,” “ambitious,” “unhappy,” “he feels he has not been granted enough power.” Lin Biao’s wife “like madame Mao is ambitious and plots an assassination attempt against Mao.” Rather than focusing on political differences that led to Lin Biao’s fall, the documentary focuses on the sensational, official, police narrative that Lin Biao was involved in a palace coup and an attempt to bomb Mao. The fallout between Mao and Lin Biao is portrayed as one of court politics, merely as a cynical power struggle. There was a power struggle between Mao and Lin Biao. However, it was not merely over personal power. 

After the years of acute class struggle, there was an emphasis on returning to economic development. Despite the radical language of the Ninth Congress in April of 1969, after the end of the independent mass movements in 1968, the wind blew toward normalcy and economic development. This backlash occurred as the independent mass movements were ended and as those cadres who were deposed returned to power. As the power seizure phase of Cultural Revolution winds down after 1968, Lin Biao sought to preserve some of the gains of the early Cultural Revolution. He also sought continued radicalization in the countryside. The Flying Leap from 1968 to 1970 was accompanied by the continued prominent role played by the military in politics. It is probable that Mao did not want to embark on another radical social reorganization so soon; Mao opted for stabilization and normalcy. After the end of the independent mass movements and the purges of the alleged “May 16th Corps," Lin Biao probably represented the single strongest Maoist power block beside Mao himself.

The fall of Lin Biao meant victory to the opponents of the Cultural Revolution known as the “adverse current” of 1967. It meant the ascent of Zhou Enlai and the right wing, provincial PLA commanders. Some of whom (Chen Yi and Deng Xiaoping), incidentally, were the architects of the shift in foreign relations toward the U$ that naturally evolved into the U$-leaning policies in the 1970s and 1980s. Henry Kissinger comments, “Here is a man [Mao Zedong] who killed millions of peoples in pursuit of his fanatical ideology. And what he did was he’d separate his fanatical ideology for domestic reasons from foreign policy where he was a cold blooded Machiavellian.” This power block bought its time and easily overthrew the remainder of the Maoist forces, the Gang of Four, after Mao’s death in 1976. 

In line with its trashy, sensationalist tone, the film focuses on the alleged coup against Mao. This is part of the police narrative generated against Lin Biao by the regime after his death. Whether Lin Biao launched a coup or not will probably never be known for sure. However, the narrative generated after Lin Biao’s fall has little credibility. Part of the police paradigm, the continual re-writing of history to suit the current needs of the leadership inevitably casts doubt on the credibility of any regime. This is not only true when looking at the official Lin Biao or Gang of Four narratives, which are almost identical, it is also true when looking at the narratives of the fall of revisionists. The film correctly points out that the fall of Lin Biao cast doubt on the Cultural Revolution itself. 

In line with Chinese revisionist and Western, anti-communist narratives, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping are portrayed as the moderates who save the day after the chaos caused during the height of the Cultural Revolution. Nixon’s arrival in 1972 was “the beginning of a new era for China.” The film correctly portrays Mao Zedong as supporting the Zhou-Deng group and the Gang of Four in the 1970s even as those two power blocks fought each other. The film states that by the time of their overthrow, the Gang of Four were not very popular. This reflects that he Chinese masses had grown depoliticized and demoralized by their fall.

Mao Declassified commits every typical error found in bourgeois narratives of the Cultural Revolution within the first few minutes. From there, it goes downhill. Informed by the great man theory, the account is orientalist, sensationalist and gossipy. Watching it has the feel of reading a romance novel. Typical for the History Channel.

KKP og Pol Pots linje var helt i tråd med marxismen-leninismen-maoismen, sett i sammenheng med Kambodsjas utvikling og matrielle rammer. Etter frigjøringen fra imperialismen i 1975 og etableringen av Demokratiske Kambodsja, startet en ny tid - sosialismen! Men i likhet med sovjetunionen, Dfr-korea og Kina, oppsto det et "ny-borgerskap" innen partiet. I sin strålende tale i 1978, advarte Pol POt om "en sykdom i partiet"  Her er et udrag fra talen: "Kamerater!...mye går bra, men også noe truer vår kommunistiske linje...det er en sykdom som vil spise oss opp, om vi ikke dreper den!"

Alle kommunister må innse at det ikke vil være noen "dans på roser" under sosialismen. Under sosialismen må man aldri tvile på å bruke voldlige midler for å sikre den evige klassekamp og den lange veien til kommunismen.

Vi i Mao`s barn definerer begrepet "arbeiderklasse" eller "proletariat" på grunnlag av den definisjon av klasser som Lenin har gitt i sitt arbeid: Det store initiativ. "klasser" sier han, "kaller man store grupper av mennesker som skiller seg fra hverandre ved den plass de inntar i et historisk bestemt system for den samfunnsmessige produksjonen, etter sitt (for det meste i lover nedlagte og formulerte) forhold til produksjonsmidlene, etter sin rolle i arbeidets samfunnsmessige organisasjon og følgelig måten å oppnå sin andel i den samfunnsmessige rikdom som de rår over, og størrelsen av denne andelen"

Ifølge denne definisjonen skiller hovedklassene i det nåverende kapitalistiske samfunn - borgerskapet og proletariatet - seg fra hverandre som utbyttere og utbyttede (deres plass i samfunnets produksjonssystem), som eiere av produksjonsmidler og mennesker uten produksjonsmidler (forholdet til produksjonsmidlene) og som organisatorer av produksjonen for profittens skyld og som produserende (rollen i den samfunnsmessige organiseringen av arbeid). Forskjellen mellom kapitalistenes og proletarenes andel og tilegne seg merverdi, og den andre må selge sin arbeidskraft og "leve" utelukkende av sin lønn, uten noe makt. Kort sakt: Proletariatet er den klasse som er fratatt produksjonsmidlene og som kun "lever" av å selge sin arbeidskraft til kapitalistene og er utsatt for utbyting i den kapitalistiske produksjonsprosess. Eneste muligheten for en frigjøring av proletariatet er derfor revolusjon

9.-13. juli arrangerte Tjen folket sommerleir. Både arrangører og deltagere skal ha vært svært fornøyde. Sommerleiren denne gangen fikk navnet; Gjenreis maoismen i Norge. Leiren fikk ikke dette navnet for ingen ting, Tjen Folket sier følgende; " Tjen folket er av den oppfatningen at den mest avanserte formen for kommunisme i dag, er maoismen. Uten maoisme, vil arbeidet for å gjenreise kommunismen være mye vanskeligere, og uten maoismen vil kommunister gjøre en rekke av feilene som er gjort av tidligere kommunister om igjen" Maoismen i Norge har vært reist før, men nå har den vær død lenge, så nå er det jammen på tide å Gjenreise maoismen må nytt. Les mer om sommerleiren her,

Programmet var sterkest preget av studier i klassiske tekster av Mao, og innledninger om kommunistisk og maoistisk organisering. Likevel var det også plass til diskusjoner og studier om dagens krise i kapitalismen, spørsmålet om Stalin og hvorfor kvinnekamp er nødvendig for kommunister.

Tjen Folket er idag den eneste organisasjonen som aktivt jobber for å skape et nytt kommunistparti, bygget på marxismen-leninismen-maoismen. Tjen Folket har siden deres start i 1997 til idag oppnåd viktige seire i politikken. Vi mener at Tjen Folket er maoismens fyrtårn i Norge. Les også: Åpningsinnledning til Tjen folkets sommerleir 2008

Nå har det vært allment kjent en liten stund, at 13 maoistiske ungdom er ekskludert av den sosialdemokratiske organisasjonen Rød Ungdom, samt at Tjen Folkets talsperson Henrik Ormåsen har blitt ekskludert av partiet Rødt. Det er nå tydligvis ingen organisajoner som har plass til kommunister, utenom Tjen Folket. Kampanjen i Rødt og Rød Ungdom var en hekseprosess mot marxistisk-leninistisk-maoistisk organisering. "begrunnelsen" som var til grunn for dette, var at den opportunistiske/reaksjonære ledelsen, mente at disse unge maoistene motarbeidet RU gjennom organisering i Tjen Folket.

Vi vet at de unge maoister som nå er blitt ekskludert, har lagdt inn enormt arbeid RU, de har også vært viktige personer i flere godt organiserte og aktive lokallag. Vi gir stor støtte til disse maoistiske kamerater som trosser den opportunistiske vinden. Norge trenger en kommunistisk ungdomsorganisasjon, dette må skapes.

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

I've been scouring the Maoist-Third World sites sites associated with MSH and I'm starting to accept that MTW properly explains the dynamic of class struggle in this period. Yet, my questions are more geared towards practical work. You claim that practical work of MTW would be to propagate MTW to Third World revolutionary organizations. I'm wondering if this is the _only_ way at proceeding. Coming from someone who has a limited understanding of foreign languages, there has to be other ways to proceed with an MTW programme in the first world, particulary the U$A (where I live.) What I was thinking, particularly, was:     

- Adovcating the support of the Iraqi and Afghani resistance in reformist and social-chauvinist organizations (This may or may not provide objective support to the Iraqi resistance, et. al., but, if accepted and agitated for correctly, could expose people to a Third Worldist prospective.)

- An analysis of trade union struggles in the U$A which clearly exposes it's social chauvinism, as in, showing how trade union organization in the U$A is built on imperialist superprofits

- Tapping into the migrant community, especially, I know you believe that Mexican workers in the area that was formerly Mexico could have revolutionary potential, being in close proximity to Mexico itself

What would be an appropriate MTW approach to the social chauvinist "anti-war" movement? Clearly, doing whatever is necessary to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is objectively better for the world's proletariat. How would a MTW interveine in an anti-war event? I'm basically trying to think of practical work. Given that, mostly, the proletariat in the United States is hardly that, but, petite bourgeois and non-productive, our strategy looks outward, but, with not living in a third world country, this somewhat limits our ability and seems to focus it squarely on "study" rather than agitation or organization. I'm not against study, nor against theoretical works, but, would also like to engage in hands on experience, to take MTW into practice.

Thank you for your letter.

The correct approach to the anti-war movement is to try to create an anti-Amerikkkan, internationalist, Third Worldist pole within the anti-war movement insofar as that is possible. It is impossible to re-orient the anti-war movement as a whole given the class realities of the First World. Even so, it may be possible to break a small minority, a few people, away from social chauvinism to oppose Amerikkkan imperialism consistently. Insofar as it is possible, get Amerikkkans to oppose their class, national and gender interests. 

As far as intervening in an anti-war event. It is good to call out the social chauvinism of the anti-war “left.” Don’t tone down the anti-Amerikkan message. This is generally done by distributing Maoist-Third Worldist and anti-imperialist materials at the anti-war event. Hopefully, a tiny minority can be won over to Maoism-Third Worldism or anti-Amerikkkanism. 

RAIM, although not exclusively Maoist-Third Worldist, has done some experimenting in this area and appears to have had some success as far as building up their numbers. It is good to try to build up your numbers to at least a handful of people for the simple fact that more of anything can be accomplished with numbers. Whatever the strategy is, it is generally more successful with numbers. Plus, with more numbers, more opportunities will arise. And, eventually, perhaps people can begin writing articles and producing theory work. 

First World revolutionaries are behind enemy lines. They are in a unique situation. It is good to be creative, experiment. Don’t get demoralized when you “fail.” Given the situation in the First World, “failure” will be seen far more than success. With that in mind, it is good to measure success relative to your situation in the First World.

Also see: On the principal task, Yoda's Lessons, Hacking White Amerikkka, MSH on the United Front, Dear fucking ultra-left Maoist-Third Worldist

Etter revolusjonen begynte en prosess som var vanskelig å kombinere med den demokratiske sentralismen. Når vi ser på dette idag, så var dette helt nødvendig i forhold til situasjonen. Motsigelsene var enorme, kontrarevolusjonære opprør støttet av vesten, oppsto i deler av landet. For å klare dette måtte SUKP ta konkrete å raske beslutninger. Drap og utrenskninger av kontrarevolusjonære måtte gjøres.
Mange lurer på hvorfår vi skal studere Stalin. Studere og forsvare kamerat Stalin er viktig i kampen mot opportunisme og revisjonisme. Kamerat Stalin har gitt så store bidrag til den internasjonale kommunistiske bevegelsen i mange tiår, og enorme bidrag til marxismen-leninismen. Dette mener vi er god nok grunn til at han fortjener å bli hyllet i stor grad.

Utrenskninger. Dette var en prosess for å fjerne borgelige elementer fra partiet og hæren for det meste. Grunnen var at revisjonisme og opportunisme vokste frem i partiet. Vis proletariatiske diktature skulle overleve samt staten, så måtte dette fjernes, selv om mange hoder måtte hugges av. Når man ser dette i et historisk perspektiv så var GUlag og eleminering av folkefiender riktig.

Uten Stalins forutseenhet om behovet for hurtig industriutvikling ville ikke facismen blitt knust av den Røde armè. Sovjetunionen under Stalins lederskap, reddet europa fra facismen og "det tredje rikets" utvidning (nazi-imperialismen) Stalin videreførte Lenins observasjon av farene med byråkratiet i en arbeiderstat. De mente at de røde byråkratene var en potensiell fare for sosialismen. Byråkratiet var på den ene siden helt nødvendig for å styre landet, ingen stat klarer seg uten. På den andre siden ble de for atskilt fra arbeiderklassen og bøndene. Mange byråkrater utnyttet posisjonen sin til å sikre seg selv og familien gode lønninger og jobber. Og mange misbrukte makta si en god del.

Stalin var en stor teoretiker. Som Georger hadde Stalin fra ungdommen følt undertrykkelsen på kroppen, og dette medførte at han fikk stor kunnskap i nasjonale spørsmål. Her under finner du en liste over hva vi mener kamerat Stalin leverte til marxismen-leninismen:

• Han utviklet teorien om den dialektiske materialismen.
• At kampen for nasjonal selvstendihet kan nedprioritere klassekampen.
• Revisjonisme og opportunisme er høyt skadelig for arbeiderstaten, og vil medføre kapitalistisk gjenoppståelse.
• At borgelige elementer gjenoppstår også lenge etter revolusjonen.
• At klassekampen må føres hele tiden, selv under proletariatets diktatur

I dagens Russland, samt de tidligere sovjet-republikkene, ser vi at Stalin blir hyllet som en stor leder. Bilder av han blir brukt i demonstrasjoner mot de kapitalistiske regjeringene, samt sanger om han blir synget. Store deler av den russiske befolkningen ønsker seg tilbake til Stalins epoke. Dette er bare èn av mange bevis at den borgelige kritikken av kamerat Stalin, bare er antikommunisme og ikke noe annet.

Gjennom krig og revolusjonhar vårt parti, som trofast følger og arbeider etter marxismen-leninismens prinsipper, befridd folket og spesielt kvinnene fra kapitalistisk utbytting og ført dem inn i produksjonen. Vi kan derfor si at gjennom å gjøre seg av med den kapitalistiske utbyttinga og gjennom å inntensivere kvinnenes deltakelse i produksjonen - så har vi oppnådd avgjørende seire i kvinnenes frigjøring, en frigjøring som bør stadfestes og utvikles videre. Ved siden av sin deltakelse i det frukbare produksjonsarbeidet, så deltar kvinnene,  denne kolossale progresive kraft, i den store undervisnings og kulturrevolusjonen; de bryter gjennom alle barikader , overvinner alle hindringer og fordommer, de demonstrerer sin skaperevne, fysiske og psykiske kraft, sin åndelige og moralske intergritet på alle områder, de deltar og kommer mer og mer til å delta i landets skjøtsel, i ledelsen av industrien, jordbruket, undervisningen og kulturen. Lenins direktiv at "hver husmor bør læres til å ivareta statens anliggender", blir hver dag fremgangsrikt fulgt av vårt parti. Kvinnene skal faktisk føle at de er medlemmer i sitt eget parti, at de leder gjennom sitt parti, at de aktivt tar del i utforminga av sitt partis lover, og at dem følger dem og ser at de blir etterfulgt gjennom sin aktive deltagelse i livet, i produksjonen og i ledelsen.

Om vi nøye studerer vårt samfunns utvikling, og ikke bare vårt eget samfunn, så finner en at idèen om kvinnenes underlegenhet er dypt rotfestet, for kvinnene selv syns at deres underlegenhet vis `a vis mannen er riktig og helt naturlig. Denne holdningen er resultatet av de sosiale omstendigheter, som våre mødre og søstre har levd under, fysisk og psykisk. Denne holdningen skal vi forsøke å kvitte oss med, ettersom vi også holder på å forandre våre sosiale vilkår. De sosiale forandringer som vår proletariske revolusjon skaper, vil få de antaginistiske motsigelsene mellom de to kjønn til å forsvinne. Engels lærer oss at de antagonistiske motsigelsene mellom de to kjønn kan betraktes som det første historiske uttrykket for klassekamp.
Den proletariske revolusjonen fjerner fiendeskapet mellom de to kjønn, som den fjerner kapitalismen, på samme måte som den fjerner borgerskapet og dets ideologi - fjerner utbyttinga av menneskene og leder menneskeheten mot klasseløst samfunn. Den gjør dette gjennom å befri kvinnen fra alt som hindrer henne frigjøring og gjør henne likestilt med mannen.

En del intelektuelle har det syn at man ikke skal gifte seg med lærde, opplyste kvinner - selv om de kommer fra arbeidermiljø. Dette er et småborgelig syn om de har for å holde kvinnen nede, for å være henne overlegen, for å holde henne innom husets fire vegger. Det fins ingen som motsetter seg de faktum at slike idèer må bekjempes. ingen kommunist, han måtte være seg arbeider, bonde eller intelektuell, kan kalle seg for avantgardens eller kulturens mann, om han ikke inntar riktig standpunkt til kvinnenes problem - om han ikke bekjemper alt som hindrer henne å innta sin rettmessige plass i samfunnet.