ProleWiki - User contributions [en]

Erich Honecker

2024-11-03T03:00:54Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox revolutionary|name=Erich Honecker|image_size=200|birth_date=25 August 1912|birth_place=Neunkirchen, Kingdom of Prussia, [[German Empire]]|death_date=29 May 1994 (aged 81)|death_place=Santiago, [[Chile]]|nationality=German|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]]|political_party=[[Socialist Unity Party of Germany]]|image=Honecker.png}}

'''Erich Honecker''' (25 August 1912 – 29 May 1994) was a German communist politician who led the [[German Democratic Republic]] (the GDR, or East Germany) from 1971 until its annexation by the [[German Democratic Republic (1949–1990)|West]] in 1989. He was the chairman of the [[National Defense Council of East Germany|National Defense Council]] and an influential figure in late [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet]] politics. Honecker is known for his progressive policies in the GDR and critiques of Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]].

== Political career ==
On 9 October 1989, [[Egon Krenz]] failed to meet with Honecker, who was in meetings all day, but he told the [[Ministry for State Security|Stasi]] to allow a [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionary]] demonstration in Leipzig. On 18 October, Egon Krenz replaced him as leader.<ref name=":05">{{Citation|author=Austin Murphy|year=2000|title=The Triumph of Evil|chapter=A Detailed Autopsy of the Collapse of the Superior System in the Divided Germany|page=143–5|pdf=https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf|city=Fucecchio|publisher=European Press Academic Publishing|isbn=8883980026}}</ref>

== Later life ==
After the annexation of the GDR, Honecker sought asylum in [[Republic of Chile|Chile]]. He and his wife [[Margot Honecker]] (who served as Minister of Education under the socialist state) defended the cause down to their last breath.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Workers World]]|title=Interview with the GDR’s Margot Honecker — ‘The past was brought back’|date=2015-11-16|url=https://www.workers.org/2015/11/22846/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020024319/https://www.workers.org/2015/11/22846/|archive-date=2021-10-20}}</ref>

== Further reading ==
* [[My Life (Honecker's memoirs)|''My Life'' (Honecker's memoirs)]]

== References ==
[[Category:Communist leaders]]
[[Category:German communists]]
[[Category:German Democratic Republic]]

File:Honecker.png

2024-11-03T02:58:49Z

Dragon:

Gustavo Petro

2024-09-30T01:06:51Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox politician|name=Gustavo Petro|birth_date=19 April 1960|birth_place=Ciénaga de Oro, Córdoba, Colombia|nationality=Colombian|political_line=[[Social democracy]] [[Anti-imperialism]] [[Latin America|Latin American]] integration|image=Gustavo Petro.png}}

'''Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego''' (19 April 1960) is a [[Republic of Colombia|Colombian]] politician and current president of Colombia. Petro has publicly declared opposition to [[socialism]] in an 2021 interview with ''El País.''<ref>{{News citation|quote=Desde esta perspectiva, mi programa de gobierno es la Constitución y mis reformas no serían catalogadas de izquierda en Europa. Las necesidades de la sociedad colombiana no son las de construir el socialismo, sino construir democracia y paz, punto.
[From this perspective, my government program is the Constitution and my reforms would not be classified as leftist in Europe. The needs of Colombian society are not to build socialism, but to build democracy and peace, period.]|date=2021-09-19|title=Gustavo Petro: “Colombia no necesita socialismo, necesita democracia y paz”|url=https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-09-19/gustavo-petro-colombia-no-necesita-socialismo-necesita-democracia-y-paz.html|newspaper=El País}}</ref>

The former right-wing president [[Ivan Duque]] has saluted Petro as the next president and said they agreed to meet to initiate a "harmonious, institutional and transparent transition,"<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=El Colombiano|title=“Habrá un transición armónica, institucional y transparente”: Duque tras hablar con Petro|date=2022-06-19|url=https://www.elcolombiano.com/colombia/politica/ivan-duque-llamo-a-gustavo-petro-y-lo-felicito-por-ganar-las-elecciones-presidenciales-2022-JK17840018|quote=Llamé a Gustavo Petro para felicitarlo como presidente electo de los colombianos. Acordamos reunirnos en los próximos días para iniciar una transición armónica, institucional y transparente
[I called Gustavo Petro to congratulate him as president-elect of the Colombian people. We agreed to meet in the coming days to initiate a harmonious, institutional and transparent transition.]}}</ref> showing signs that the Petro government does not promote a rupture with [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] governance. Petro has criticized the left-wing governments of [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]], [[Republic of Nicaragua|Nicaragua]], and [[Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela|Venezuela]]<ref>{{News citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=Colombia’s far-right presidential candidate praised Hitler: Millionaire Rodolfo Hernández goes to runoff|date=2022-05-29|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/29/colombia-hitler-rodolfo-hernandez/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624234659/https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/29/colombia-hitler-rodolfo-hernandez/|archive-date=2022-06-24|retrieved=2022-06-28}}</ref> but restored diplomatic relations with Venezuela after becoming president.<ref name=":0" />

==Political career==
Gustavo Petro fought in the socialist guerrilla group [[19th of April Movement|M-19]]. After becoming a social democrat, he became mayor of the capital city of Bogotá. His presidential campaign was supported by a broad left-wing coalition ranging from [[Communism|communists]] to [[Liberalism|liberals]].<ref>{{News citation|author=Ben Norton|newspaper=Multipolarista|title=Colombia’s first ever left-wing president: Gustavo Petro wins historic election. What does it mean?|date=2022-06-19|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/06/19/colombia-gustavo-petro-election/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624234916/https://multipolarista.com/2022/06/19/colombia-gustavo-petro-election/|archive-date=2022-06-24|retrieved=2022-06-28}}</ref>

== Presidency ==
In September 2022, Petro resumed diplomatic relations with Venezuela and reopened the border that had been closed since the [[2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt|2019 coup attempt]].<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=Javier Guerrero|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=What has Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first leftist president, accomplished so far?|date=2022-11-18|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/what-has-gustavo-petro-colombias-first-leftist-president-accomplished-so-far/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221120200923/https://www.liberationnews.org/what-has-gustavo-petro-colombias-first-leftist-president-accomplished-so-far/|archive-date=2022-11-20|retrieved=2022-11-22}}</ref> He signed a declaration with [[Nicolás Maduro]] pledging to reintegrate Latin America.<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=Colombia’s new president reverses US coup, visits Venezuela, pledges unity in ‘spirit of Bolívar’|date=2022-11-02|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/11/02/colombia-petro-visits-venezuela-unity-bolivar/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221125060316/https://multipolarista.com/2022/11/02/colombia-petro-visits-venezuela-unity-bolivar/|archive-date=2022-11-25|retrieved=2022-12-04}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Current heads of state]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Petro, Gustavo}}

Chavismo

2024-09-30T01:05:30Z

Dragon:

{{distinguish|[[Chauvinism]]}}
'''''Chavismo''''' is the [[Progressivism|progressive]] political ideology of former [[Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela|Venezuelan]] president [[Hugo Chávez]] and his successor, [[Nicolás Maduro]]. A form of [[left-wing]] [[populism]], it combines ideas of [[democratic socialism]], [[socialist patriotism]], [[Bolivarianism]], and [[Latin America|Latin American]] integration. Policies include [[nationalization]], social welfare, and opposition to [[imperialism]] and [[Neoliberalism|neoliberalism.]] ''Chavismo'' is considered an early example of what has come to be known as "[[socialism of the 21st century]]".<ref>{{Citation|author=Gregory Wilpert|year=2006-07-11|title=The Meaning of 21st Century Socialism for Venezuela|title-url=https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1834|chapter=|chapter-url=|mia=}} ''Venezuelanalysis.'' Retrieved 2023-08-21.</ref>

''Chavismo'' is not against [[Private property|private property,]] but seeks to promote collective ownership. It has been criticized by some [[socialist]]s, [[Communist|communists]] and [[Marxists]] as a form of [[state capitalism]], owing to the country's large private sector (70% of Venezuela's GDP was created by the private sector, as of 2009). Followers or adherents of ''Chavismo'' are known as ''Chavistas'' or ''Chavists.''

''Chavismo'' is a model of social change constructed "from above" and "from below."<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=Dario Azzellini|newspaper=NACLA|title=The Communal State: Communal Councils, Communes, and Workplace Democracy|date=2013-06-25|url=https://nacla.org/article/communal-state-communal-councils-communes-and-workplace-democracy|retrieved=2024-07-19}}</ref> Chávez's first actions as president featured the top-down replacement of the Council of Ministers,<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=Owain Johnson, et al.|year=2001|title=A Political Chronology of the Americas|chapter=Venezuela|section=2 February 1999|page=276|publisher=Europa Publications}}</ref> the "civic-military partnership" of Plan Bolivar 2000,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Digital Press Mippci|newspaper=Ministry of People's Power for Communication and Information|title=Efemérides {{!}} Hace 19 años inició la Revolución Bolivariana|date=2018-02-27|url=http://www.minci.gob.ve/efemerides-19-anos-se-lanzo-plan-bolivar-2000/}}</ref> and referendums for the convocation of a new Constituent Assembly and the adoption of a new constitution. These plans featured sweeping changes, particularly in the areas of public finance and land reform.<ref name=":2" /> The military, alongside civilian volunteers, was mobilized to, "conduct a census of the unemployed, provide medical care to the most needy, renovate schools, playgrounds, and ambulatory medical care centers, and clear garbage from streams and streets." The military also set up popular markets and programs for food distribution, new social welfare programs for the homeless, and mass vaccination campaigns.<ref>{{Citation|author=U.S. Embassy Caracas|year=1999|title=Venezuelan soldiers leave their barracks to implement Chavez's civil-military public works program|title-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128131730/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143547.pdf|city=Washington D.C.|publisher=U.S. Department of State}}</ref>

The "from above" and "from below" approach is characterized by autonomous, grassroots, local organizations meeting state directives and funding: "The main idea was to form council structures of all kinds (communal councils, communes, and communal cities, for example), as bottom up structures of self-administration. Councils of workers, students, peasants, and women, among others, would then have to cooperate and coordinate on a higher level in order to gradually replace the bourgeois state with a communal state [...] The communal councils are financed directly by national state institutions."<ref name=":1" />

In terms of the means of production and democratization of ownership, the ''Chavista'' approach has taken a few different directions. Since 1999, the Venezuelan government has promoted the proliferation of [[Worker cooperative|worker co-ops]] and asserted direct state control over the Venezuelan petroleum company ([[Petroleos de Venezuela|PDVSA]]). In 2005, the state began expropriating businesses directly in response to a strike-wave and attempted coup. With 2007, in a renewed pursuit of socialism after a successful reelection campaign, Chávez began promoting "[[Council communism|socialist workers' councils]], followed by the institution and promotion of Enterprises of Communal Social Property, enterprises that are owned and administrated by local communities.<ref name=":1" />

== Origins ==
''Chavismo'' is based on the teachings of [[Simón Bolívar]], [[Simón Rodríguez]], and [[Ezequiel Zamora]]. Bolívar fought for the sovereignty of Latin America, Zamora fought for the [[peasantry]] against the aristocratic [[ruling class]], and Rodríguez developed educational theories based on equality and originality.''<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Tricontinental]]|title=The Strategic Revolutionary Thought and Legacy of Hugo Chávez Ten Years After His Death|date=2023-02-28|url=https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-61-chavez/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230429215204/https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-61-chavez/|archive-date=2023-04-29}}</ref>''

== References ==
[[Category:Left-wing ideologies]]

Template:History calendar/07/24

2024-09-30T01:03:43Z

Dragon:

'''1783'''
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1783|month=07|day=24|event=Birth of [[Simón Bolívar]], a [[Latin America|Latin American]] general who fought against [[Spanish]] [[colonialism]].}}

Latin America

2024-09-30T01:00:34Z

Dragon: Undo revision 48697 by Dragon (talk)

{{Infobox country|image_map=Latin America.png|map_width=200px|population_estimate=642,216,682|population_estimate_year=2018|area_km2=20,111,457|largest_city=São Paulo|name=Latin America|native_name=América Latina Amérique Latine|common_languages=Spanish Portuguese French}}
'''Latin America''' is the part of the [[America|Americas]] where Romance languages are mainly spoken.<ref>{{Citation|author=David J. Dressing|year=1996|title=The Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture|chapter=Latin America|section=|page=390|quote=|pdf=|city=New York City|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}</ref> It includes [[Mexico]], most of [[South America|South]] and [[Central America]], and much of the [[Caribbean]]. Latin America does not include French-speaking Canada because it is part of the [[Global North and South|Global North]]. Because of its proximity to the United States, it is often targeted by the United States and there have been 56 US military interventions in the region.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=Hakim|date=2019-11-30|title=America Never Stood For Freedom|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HflHrHvYsw|newspaper=YouTube|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2022-01-04}}</ref>
== References ==
<references />

Mexico City

2024-09-15T22:43:41Z

Dragon:

{{Message box/Stub}}{{Infobox settlement|name=Mexico City|native_name=Ciudad de México|settlement_type=Capital and megacity|area_km2=1,485|population_estimate=9,209,944|image_map=Mexico_(city)_in_Mexico_(zoom).svg|image_coat=Coat_of_arms_of_Mexico_City,_Mexico.svg|other_symbol={{multiple image
| border = infobox
| total_width = 290
| perrow = 1/2/2/2
| caption_align = center
| image1 = Sobrevuelos_CDMX_HJ2A4913_(25514321687)_(cropped).jpg
| caption1 = Skyline of Mexico City
| image2 = Angel-de-la-Independencia--Mexico-D.F.jpg
| caption2 = Angel of Independence
| image3 = Bellas_Artes_01.jpg
| caption3 = Palace of Fine Arts
| image4 = CDMX_-_Paseo_de_la_Reforma.jpg
| caption4 = Paseo de la Reforma
| image5 = Chapultepec_castle_in_Mexico_city.jpg
| caption5 = Chapultepec Castle
| image6 = Residencial_Buildings_with_view_to_La_Mexicana_Park_Santa_Fe.jpg
| caption6 = Santa Fe business district
| image7 =View_of_the_Autonomous_National_University_of_Mexico_(UNAM)_rectory.jpg
| caption7 =National Autonomous University of Mexico
}}|map_caption=Mexico City within Mexico}}

'''Mexico City''' is the capital and largest city of [[Mexican United States|Mexico]].
[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Cities in Mexico]]

File:Mexico (city) in Mexico (zoom).svg

2024-09-15T22:39:30Z

Dragon:

File:Coat of arms of Mexico City, Mexico.svg

2024-09-15T22:35:16Z

Dragon:

File:Sobrevuelos CDMX HJ2A4913 (25514321687) (cropped).jpg

2024-09-15T16:32:47Z

Dragon:

File:View of the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) rectory.jpg

2024-09-15T16:31:41Z

Dragon:

File:Residencial Buildings with view to La Mexicana Park Santa Fe.jpg

2024-09-15T16:31:30Z

Dragon:

File:Chapultepec castle in Mexico city.jpg

2024-09-15T16:31:20Z

Dragon:

File:CDMX - Paseo de la Reforma.jpg

2024-09-15T16:31:01Z

Dragon:

File:Bellas Artes 01.jpg

2024-09-15T16:30:44Z

Dragon:

File:Angel-de-la-Independencia--Mexico-D.F.jpg

2024-09-15T16:30:31Z

Dragon:

Shanghai

2024-09-15T16:01:27Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox settlement|native_name=上海|name=Shanghai|settlement_type=Municipality|capital=Huangpu|area_km2=6340.5|population_estimate=24.89 million|official_website=https://www.shanghai.gov.cn/|official_languages=[[Mandarin]]|common_languages=Shanghai language|image_map=Shanghai_Skyview.jpeg}}
[[Category:Provinces of China]]

Shanghai is a municipality in [[China]], population 24,894,300.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)

2024-08-10T22:45:02Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox country
| name = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
| native_name = Союз Советских Социалистических Республик
| image_flag = File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1955-1991).svg
| image_coat = File:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg
| image_map = File:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (orthographic projection).svg
| map_width = 220px
| official_languages = None (1922–1990) Russian (1990–1991)| capital = [[Moscow]]
| largest_city = capital
| mode_of_production = [[Socialism]]
| government_type = Federal [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] [[socialist state]] (until 1990)
| established_event1 = October Revolution
| established_date1 = 1917 November 7th
| established_event2 = [[Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Establishment of the USSR]]
| established_date2 = 1922 December 30th
| established_event3 = [[World War II]] victory
| established_date3 = 1945 May 9th
| established_event4 = Dissolution
| established_date4 = 1991 December 26th
| population_estimate = 285,742,511<ref>Демоскоп Weekly. [http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_89.php Всесоюзная перепись населения 1989 года. Национальный состав населения по республикам СССР] [The 1989 All-Union Population Census. National composition of the population by republics of the USSR].</ref>
| population_estimate_year = 1989
| labour_force = 152.3 million<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990">CIA World Factbook (1990). ''[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook_(1990)/Soviet_Union Soviet Union – World Factbook (Wikisource)]''</ref>
| labour_occupation = 80% industry and other nonagricultural fields 20% agriculture<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| unemployment = 1–2%<ref name="CIA-factbook-1991">CIA World Factbook (1991). ''[https://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/soviet_union/soviet_union_economy.html Soviet Union Economy]''</ref>
| leader_title1 = Notable leaderships
| leader_name1 = [[Vladimir Lenin]] (1922–1924) [[Joseph Stalin]] (1924–1953)
| currency = Soviet ruble (РУБ)
| p1 = '''1922:'''
| flag_p1 =
| p2 = [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russian SFSR]]
| flag_p2 = Flag_of_the_RSFSR_%281918–1925%29.svg
| p3 = [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1991)|Ukrainian SSR]]
| flag_p3 = Flag_of_the_UkSSR_%281919-1929%29.svg
| p4 = [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1991)|Byelorussian SSR]]
| flag_p4 = Flag of the BSSR (1919–1927).svg
| p5 = [[Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1922–1936)|Transcaucasian SFSR]]
| flag_p5 = Flag of the Transcaucasian SFSR (1925-1936).svg
| p6 = '''1923:'''
| flag_p6 =
| p7 = [[Provisional Priamurye Government]]
| flag_p7 = Flag of the Provisional Priamurye Government (1896–1918).svg
| p8 = '''1924:'''
| flag_p8 =
| p9 = [[Bukharan People's Soviet Republic|Bukharan SSR]]
| flag_p9 = Flag of the Bukharan PSR (1920-1924).png
| p10 = [[Khorezm People's Soviet Republic|Khorezm SSR]]
| flag_p10 = Flag of the Khorezm PSR (1920-1923).svg
| p11 = '''1939:'''
| flag_p11 =
| p12 = [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]] (portion)
| flag_p12 = Flag_of_Poland_(1927–1980).svg
| p13 = '''1940:'''
| flag_p13 =
| p14 = [[Republic of Finland|Finland]] (portion)
| flag_p14 = Flag_of_Finland.svg
| p15 = [[Kingdom of Romania (1881–1947)|Romania]] (portion)
| flag_p15 = Flag of Romania.svg
| p16 = [[Republic of Estonia|Estonia]]
| flag_p16 = Flag of Estonia.svg
| p17 = [[Republic of Latvia|Latvia]]
| flag_p17 = Flag_of_Latvia.svg
| p18 = [[Republic of Lithuania|Lithuania]]
| flag_p18 = Flag_of_Lithuania.svg
| p19 = '''1944:'''
| flag_19 =
| p20 = [[Tuvan People's Republic|Tuva]]
| flag_p20 = Flag of the Tuvan People's Republic (1943-1944).svg
| p21 = '''1945:'''
| flag_21 =
| p22 = [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] (portion)
| flag_p22 = Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svg
| p23 = [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]] (portion)
| flag_p23 = Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg
| p24 = '''1946:'''
| flag_p24 =
| p25 = [[Czechoslovak Republic (1945–1948)|Czechoslovakia]] (portion)
| flag_p25 = Flag of the Czech Republic.svg
| s1 = '''1990:'''
| flag_s1 =
| s2 = [[Republic of Lithuania|Lithuania]]
| flag_s2 = Flag_of_Lithuania.svg
| s3 = '''1991:'''
| flag_s3 =
| s4 = [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]
| flag_s4 = Flag of Georgia (1990–2004).svg
| s5 = [[Republic of Estonia|Estonia]]
| flag_s5 = Flag of Estonia.svg
| s6 = [[Republic of Latvia|Latvia]]
| flag_s6 = Flag_of_Latvia.svg
| s7 = [[Ukraine]]
| flag_s7 = Flag of Ukraine (1991-1992).svg
| s8 = [[Republic of Moldova|Moldova]]
| flag_s8 = Flag of Moldova (1990–2010).svg
| s9 = [[Kyrgyz Republic|Kyrgyzstan]]
| flag_s9 = Flag of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic.svg
| s10 = [[Republic of Uzbekistan|Uzbekistan]]
| flag_s10 = Flag of Uzbekistan.svg
| s11 = [[Republic of Tajikistan|Tajikistan]]
| flag_s11 = Flag of Tajikistan (1991–1992).svg
| s12 = [[Republic of Armenia|Armenia]]
| flag_s12 = Flag of Armenia.svg
| s13 = [[Republic of Azerbaijan|Azerbaijan]]
| flag_s13 = Flag of Azerbaijan.svg
| s14 = [[Republic of Turkmenistan|Turkmenistan]]
| flag_s14 = Flag of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (1973–1991).svg
| s15 = [[Republic of Belarus|Belarus]]
| flag_s15 = Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991–1995).svg
| s16 = [[Russian Federation|Russia]]
| flag_s16 = Flag of Russia (1991–1993).svg
| s17 = [[Republic of Kazakhstan|Kazakhstan]]
| flag_s17 = Flag of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic.svg
| s18 = [[People's Republic of China|China]] (portion)
| flag_s18 = Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg
| GDP_nominal_year = 1989
| GDP_nominal = $2.66 trillion<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| GDP_nominal_rank = 2nd
| GDP_nominal_per_capita = $9,211<ref>CIA World Factbook (1990). ''[https://www.theodora.com/wfb/1990/rankings/gdp_per_capita_1.html GDP per Capita 1990]''</ref>
| export_year = 1988
| export = $110.7 billion<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| export_commodities = Petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, metals, wood, agricultural products, and a wide variety of manufactured goods (primarily capital goods and arms)<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| export_partners = Eastern Europe (49%), Western Europe (14%), [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]] (5%), [[United States of America|United States]]<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| import_year = 1988
| import = $107.3 billion<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| import_commodities = Grain and other agricultural products, machinery and equipment, steel products (including large-diameter pipe), consumer manufactures<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| import_partners = Eastern Europe (43%), Western Europe (18%), [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]], [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[United States of America|United States]]<ref name="CIA-factbook-1990"/>
| flag_caption = [[Flag of the Soviet Union|Flag]] (1955–1991)
| motto = Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!
| englishmotto = [[Workers of the world, unite!]]
| anthem = [[State Anthem of the Soviet Union|Государственный гимн СССР]][[File:Soviet anthem 1944.ogg]]
| life_span = 1922–1991
}}

The '''Soviet Union''', officially known as the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' ('''USSR'''),<ref group="note">Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (СССР)</ref> was a transnational union of [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] [[socialist state|socialist states]] that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991.

It was established in 1922 as a union of four [[Socialist state|socialist republics]] created after the 1917 [[October Revolution of 1917|October Revolution]], namely the [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917-1991)|Russian SFSR]], the [[Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1922–1936)|Transcaucasian SFSR]], the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic|Ukrainian SSR]] and [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic|Byelorussian SSR]]. The years that followed saw the addition of the [[Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (1924–1991)|Uzbek]] and [[Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (1929–1991)|Tajik SSRs]]; the Transcaucasian SFSR was dissolved in 1936 in favor of the elevated SSRs of [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991)|Georgia]], [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic|Armenia]] and [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Azerbaijan]]. From 1956 to 1991, the union comprised 15 member republics, two of which had their own member seats at the [[United Nations]].

The USSR represented a groundbreaking political alternative for the [[working class]] as the first stable socialist state in history. This was remarkable especially in a time period where workers in the [[Imperial core|Western world]] were still struggling for basic [[Trade union|union]] rights; the [[1924 Soviet Constitution]] and the [[1936 Soviet Constitution]] represented some of the most progressive political advancements in history.

The Soviet Union developed under extreme pressure from [[capitalist]] states and global [[Imperialist|imperialism]]; during the [[Russian Civil War]], starting from 1918, it suffered successive invasions by [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|Britain]], [[French Republic (1870–1940)|France]], the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]], [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]], and several other minor European powers. Some of these interventions temporarily succeeded in overthrowing local [[Soviet (governmental body)|soviets]] and installing [[anti-communist]] puppet regimes, although they were ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the founding of the Soviet Union.

Barely two decades later, during [[World War II]], the [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi]] invasion represented the second imperialist war on the USSR, this time in the name of [[fascism]]. Although the fascists inflicted catastrophic damage on the western USSR and its population, the [[Workers' and Peasants' Red Army|Red Army]] ultimately succeeded in repelling the Nazi forces and went on to play an integral role in the defeat of German [[National Socialism|Nazism]] in 1945.

Despite these difficulties, the Soviet Union achieved some of the most impressive economic developments in modern history. Socialism transformed a country of illiterate and starving [[Peasantry|peasants]] into an industrial superpower with one of the fastest growing economies on Earth. The Soviet people were one of the world's best-educated and healthiest populations, responsible for some of history's most impressive industrial and scientific achievements to date. And it provided a very influential model for other later socialist projects in places such as [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]] and [[Socialist Republic of Vietnam|Vietnam]].

Starting from 1988, many SSRs seceded from the USSR before [[Dissolution of the USSR|its illegal overthrow]] in 1991. Its past territory is now occupied by the successor states of [[Russian Federation|Russia]], [[Republic of Latvia|Latvia]], [[Republic of Lithuania|Lithuania]], [[Republic of Estonia|Estonia]], [[Republic of Belarus|Belarus]], [[Ukraine]], [[Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic|Pridnestrovie]], [[Republic of Moldova|Moldova]], [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], [[Republic of Azerbaijan|Azerbaijan]], [[Republic of Armenia|Armenia]], [[Artsakh]], [[Republic of Abkhazia|Abkhazia]], [[Republic of South Ossetia|South Ossetia]], [[Republic of Kazakhstan|Kazakhstan]], [[Republic of Uzbekistan|Uzbekistan]], [[Republic of Turkmenistan|Turkmenistan]], [[Republic of Tajikistan|Tajikistan]], and [[Kyrgyz Republic|Kyrgyzstan]].

== History ==

=== Background ===
In early 20th century, the [[Russian Empire]] was a semi-feudal country ruled by an absolute [[monarchy]]. The average life expectancy in Russia was about 35 years. Literacy rates were only about 20%. The [[Proletariat|workers]] and [[Peasant|peasants]] lived horrible lives without minimum wage laws or basic work safety regulations and worked 60 or 70 hours per week.<ref name=":7">{{Web citation|newspaper=Oktaybr|title=Standard of living in the Soviet Union|date=2021-08-23|url=https://oktyabrvperedi.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/standard-of-living-in-the-soviet-union/?preview=true|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824102918/https://oktyabrvperedi.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/standard-of-living-in-the-soviet-union/?preview=true|archive-date=2021-08-24|retrieved=2022-09-11}}</ref>

Despite the size of the country, there was a constant shortage of farm land and famines were common. Most of the land belonged to the wealthy [[Landlord|landlords]] and [[Kulak|rich peasants]]. Because of technological backwardness, only the softest and most fertile soil could be used, which severely limited the amount of available farm land. There were many large [[Strike action|strikes]] and protests but it was not uncommon that the [[police]] would be deployed and break the strike, often by firing at the strikers.

In 1898, the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] (RSDLP) was created, uniting the several communist study groups scattered around Russia. Among its founders were people like [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Julius Martov]]. It established itself as a Marxist party that had the task of overthrowing the monarchy and bring about socialism. However, during the course of the struggle, there was a lot of disagreement about when this goal was to be implemented and how. In 1903, emerged a ''de facto'' split in the party, and two factions were formed: the [[Mensheviks]] led by Martov and the [[Bolsheviks]] led by Lenin.

Through the leadership of the RSDLP, and against the worsening life conditions, the Russian workers attempted a [[Russian revolution of 1905|democratic revolution in 1905]]. Massive protests erupted all over the country, mutinies were widespread in the army and the people organized public meetings, called “soviets” or councils, which would get together and discuss what to do in an early form of organisation. The revolution eventually failed however. It won some democratic liberties from the Tsar, but those liberties would be constantly under attack by the monarchy afterwards. This revolution would be seen as a rehearsal for the later revolution.

In 1914, the [[First World War]] began and launched Russia into chaos. The economy was ruined by the war, there was a shortage of food and large amounts of the population were drafted to fight in the war. The war is seen by many people, especially the socialist, as an unjust imperialist conquest, where millions of poor and working class people from different countries had to die for the profits and wealth of the capitalist and monarchist governments of their countries.

The attitude towards the war ended up splitting the international socialist movement and the [[Second International]]. Many parties initially opposed the war, but then chose to support their own government in it, so as to protect their country from the other imperialist powers. Lenin, [[Rosa Luxemburg]] and other revolutionaries saw this as treachery. In their opinion, if everyone only supported their own imperialist government in an imperialist war, it wouldn't do anything to stop the war. They called for “turning the imperialist war to a class war”, friendship between the workers of the various countries, and unity against the capitalist governments of all warring countries. This led to the splitting of the International.

==== February Revolution ====
In February 1917, the Russian monarchy was overthrown. This led to the creation of the [[Russian Provisional Government]], consisting of the capitalist [[Constitutional Democratic Party|Cadet]] party, the [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|Socialist-Revolutionary Party]] (or SRs) and the Mensheviks.

The Bolsheviks initially gave “conditional support” for the Provisional Government, meaning they supported it to the degree that it carried out the democratic reforms and other policies demanded by the population. However, it soon became very evident the Provisional Government was a failure.

The Provisional government refused to carry out [[Land reform|land reforms]]. This was necessary to prevent famine and reduce the land shortage, but it would have meant going against the landlords.

The Provisional government also refused to impose stricter regulations on trading and the economy. This would have been necessary to prevent economic disaster, but it would have meant going against the capitalists who greatly profited from the war and chaos.

Lastly, the Provisional government supported the war. They advocated a “war to a finish”, meaning until they won. It became evident that Russia was losing the war, however the Provisional government was still committed to fulfill the treaties and agreements with their allies in World War 1.

The Bolsheviks were quick to point out that the Provisional government acted exactly like the Tsarist government, which also sided with the landlords, capitalists and started the imperialist war. In their view, the Provisional government was continuing the Tsarist policy.

In April 1917, Vladimir Lenin returned to Russia from exile and puts forward his ''April theses'', political proposals which call for the overthrow of the Provisional government.

The Bolsheviks put forward their slogans:<blockquote>Down with the provisional government!

Down with the capitalist ministers!

Factories for the workers, land to the peasants, end to the imperialist war!

Peace, Bread & Land</blockquote>In June of that year, the capital city Petrograd (today called St. Petersburg) held municipal elections. Bolsheviks achieved a massive victory, growing from essentially nothing to one of the biggest parties in Russia. The so-called “defencist bloc” still held the majority of seats however. This bloc consisted of the SR-party and Mensheviks. Defencism meant that they supported the war effort. The biggest loser of the election was the Cadet party, which achieved only 15% of the votes and lost its power as the biggest party.

On July 1, Russia launched an offensive on the front, which was known as the “Kerensky offensive” or the “July offensive.” The war was going badly and casualties were mounting for Russia, the thirst for blood from the imperialists and the Provisional government were very evident.

On July 3 and 4, there was a massive demonstration in Petrograd, of hundreds of thousands of people. Among the demonstrators were armed soldiers who came from the front to demand change and revolution. The Bolsheviks urged caution and said that the demonstration should be peaceful and organized. They opposed bringing weapons to the demonstration and said that they were not yet strong enough for a revolution. The workers and soldiers decided to bring weapons despite the advice of the Bolsheviks but the Bolsheviks still took part in the demonstrations to lend support to the workers.

The workers and soldiers carried the Bolshevik slogans of "End the war”, "Peace, bread and land". There was a government crack down against the demonstrators. Machine guns were turned towards the crowd, leaving countless dead. The Bolsheviks were now seen as a serious threat by the government. A warrant was issued for Lenin’s arrest, which forced him into hiding. Bolshevik newspaper ''[[Pravda]]'' was banned, their printing plant and party offices were destroyed. This period of repression is known as the “July Days". The Provisional government restored the death penalty on the front against soldiers who disobeyed orders.

The Bolsheviks lost a lot of their forces, and many of their important resources. They began publishing their newspapers under new names to avoid censorship. Despite all their difficulties the workers supported them more than ever, the Provisional government was exposed as a supporter of the capitalist elite and the imperialists. The Provisional government started forming stronger ties with the old capitalist party, the Cadets, to make up for the support they lost from the workers.

In August, there was an attempted coup against the Provisional government, called the “Kornilov Affair”. Kornilov was a general of the White Guard in the Russian army, who wanted to institute military dictatorship and strong rule of law, to stop the chaos in Russia. In other words, complete counter-revolution, end to the demonstrations, end to democracy, end to the working class movement.

The railway workers started a strike and refused to transport his troops while the workers and soldiers of Petrograd formed the armed Red Guard units and took up the defence of Petrograd against Kornilov. Kornilov’s coup ended in failure.

After the overthrow of the monarchy, the formation of soviets had begun again in all large cities, but at the time their leadership would be predominantly Menshevik.

In September, the Bolsheviks gained the majority in the Petrograd Soviet and soon after in the soviets of Moscow and other large cities. The Soviets already carried out many important functions in the cities as the Russian government was incapable of doing so. The Soviets even organized the defence of Petrograd. As the economy was in ruins and the war effort was failing, more people turned towards the Soviets' leadership.

==== Great October Socialist Revolution ====
{{Main article|October Revolution}}
[[File:Lenin_proclaims_Soviet_power.jpeg|thumb|315x315px]]
The 6th Bolshevik party congress had agreed that they should carry out an armed revolution. In October, the Petrograd Soviet created a Military Revolutionary Committee. These special bodies were formed all over the country connected with each soviet in each city. The Menshevik and SR minorities in the soviets opposed revolution, but the SR party split. The “left-SR” group sided with the Bolsheviks.

The Bolshevik soldiers organization took over the garrison. On 24 October the Military Revolutionary Committee occupied the telegraph, telephone offices and other important buildings. The cruiser ''Aurora'', which was controlled by Bolshevik sailors, fired a shot to signal the beginning of the revolution. The workers and soldiers stormed the winter palace. The same evening there was a congress of Soviets, where delegates arrived from all over the country. This congress elected the new Russian government, elected by the soviets of workers and soldiers, the Soviet Government. The October Revolution had taken power.

The October Revolution showed that a revolution by the ordinary people was possible. It showed that capitalism is ultimately incapable of solving its internal contradictions. Despite getting moderate leftists into the government, the policy was as imperialist, profit-driven and anti-popular as during the Tsarist era. The moderate leftists didn’t improve capitalism, they were used by capitalism. Only revolution stopped Russia’s involvement in the World War, carried out land reform and dealt with the crisis of unregulated capitalism, and began the process of building a new economic model which would serve the needs and interests of the people, not profits.<ref name=":9">{{News citation|journalist=TheFinnishBolshevik|date=2017-11-08|title=Brief History of the October Revolution|url=https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/brief-history-of-the-october-revolution/|retrieved=2022-03-25}}</ref>

==== Civil War ====
{{Main article|Russian Civil War}}
The October Revolution led to a civil war where the capitalists tried to seize back the state. 14 capitalist governments including the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|Great Britain]], [[French Republic (1870–1940)|France]], [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]], [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]] and many others invaded [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Soviet Russia]] to destroy the Soviet government, but they failed, and the Soviet Union was created.<ref name=":9" />

===Treaty on formation of the USSR ===
<blockquote>''See main article: [[Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]''</blockquote>

=== New Economic Policy ===
Lenin proposed the [[New Economic Policy]] at the [[10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)|10th Party Congress]] in March 1921. The NEP allowed peasants to keep their grain and sell their surplus. By 1924, the Soviet Union had defeated foreign invaders and the counterrevolutionary Whites and nationalized key industries. [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] and the [[Left Opposition]] believed that the Soviet Union could only survive if there was a socialist revolution in the [[imperial core]]. The [[14th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)|14th Party Congress]] in 1925 rejected the Left Opposition and adopted a course of rapid industrialization for the Soviet economy to catch up to the West.<ref name=":02" />:18–25 The Central Committee purged Trotsky and his supporters from the party in 1927.<ref name=":0223">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=|page=|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}</ref>:116–9

The [[Right Opposition]], led by [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], strongly supported the NEP and encouraged private enterprise. They opposed [[collectivization]] and rapid industrialization.<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=|page=|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}</ref>:18–25 When the Five Year Plans finally began, Bukharin wanted to prioritize light industry over heavy industry.<ref name=":0223" />:35–42

During the NEP, the rural economy recovered from the wars. The agricultural production of the peasants alone in 1926 was higher than the peasants and landlord's estates combined before World War I. The number of pigs and cattle in 1928 was between 7% and 10% higher than in 1914. Agriculture continued to be mostly individualized. Kulaks and Orthodox priests controlled much of the countryside and continued to take land from poor and middle peasants.<ref name=":0223" />:45–61

=== Industrialization and collectivization ===
[[File:Life has become better poster.png|thumb|315x315px|"Widen the front of the [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanovite]] movement."]]
By the end of the NEP in 1928, different fields of heavy industry had reached or surpassed the pre-war level. The Soviet Union began its first Five Year Plan in 1928 to create modern industry in order to mechanize agriculture and strengthen the country against invaders.<ref name=":0223" />:35–42 From 1928 to 1940, industrial production grew by an average of 11% every year. Literacy rates increased from 46% to 80%.<ref name=":02" />:18–25

In 1936, the Soviet Union adopted a [[Library:Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1936)|new constitution]] that replaced the previous constitution from 1924. It guaranteed [[gender]], [[Race|racial]], and [[Nation|national]] equality and freedom of [[religion]], speech, and the press. It also established universal suffrage and equal election of deputies, whereas urban areas had previously had previously been overrepresented.<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}</ref>

Between 1938 and 1941, the Red Army grew from two to six or seven million soldiers. Construction of railroads and factories continued in the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia.<ref name=":0223" />:35–42

==== Industrialization ====
The industrial output of the Soviet Union doubled between 1929 and 1933. During this same time period, the economies of capitalist countries were shrinking because of the [[Great Depression]], which did not affect the Soviet Union.<ref name=":6">{{Web citation|author=[[TheFinnishBolshevik]]|newspaper=ML-Theory|title=The results of the 1st & 2nd Five-Year Plans: Soviet industrial revolution.|date=2016-08-07|url=https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/the-results-of-the-1st-2nd-soviet-five-year-plans-soviet-industrial-revolution/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622100104/https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/the-results-of-the-1st-2nd-soviet-five-year-plans-soviet-industrial-revolution/|archive-date=2022-06-22|retrieved=2022-08-07}}</ref> Electrical generation reached 4.07 gigawatts by 1935, surpassing Lenin's goal by 133%.<ref name=":0223" />:35–42

From 1928 to 1932, the number of industrial workers in the USSR doubled from three to six million, and the country began establishing industrial centers in the Urals and Siberia. By 1932, 56% of the USSR's national income was reinvested in capital outlay.<ref name=":0223" />:35–42

==== Collectivization ====
A series of bad harvests in 1924, 1927, and 1928 led the Soviet government to seize grain from the kulaks to avoid famine in the cities. The government decided to collectivize farming as fast as possible, but Bukharin disagreed and believed kulak production would naturally develop into collective farms. By 1929, cities had to ration bread, meat, sugar, and tea.<ref name=":0223" />:45–61 The Central Committee officially began collectivization in November 1929 and divided the USSR into three groups: the North Caucasus and Middle and Lower Volga would have to collectivize by spring 1931; Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Urals, and the Central Black Earth Region by spring 1932; and Transcaucasia, Moscow, and the rest of Central Asia by 1933.<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Collectivization of Agriculture|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch11.htm}}</ref>

Collective farms (''kolkhozy'') surpassed the kulaks in 1929, and 7.5% of peasants had joined collective farms by October 1929. The peasants expropriated kulaks and exiled many of them. By January 1930, 18.1% of peasant families were collectivized including more than 39% in the Volga and Ural regions. Some local authorities were overenthusiastic and tried to collectivize too quickly. Because rural areas lacked a strong party presence, the Central Committee sent [[Sergo Orjonikidze|Orjonikidze]], [[Lazar Kaganovich|Kaganovich]], and [[Yakov Yakovlev|Yakovlev]] to the countryside in February 1930 to educate and oversee the peasantry. Ukraine organized almost 4,000 courses for 275,000 peasants, and the Red Army trained tractor drivers and radio and agriculture specialists.

In January 1930, the party sent 25,000 industrial workers to the countryside to help with collectivization and prevent excesses. Many were [[All-Union Leninist Young Communist League|Komsomol]] members or veterans of the Civil War. They criticized local authorities for forcing peasants to collectivize without preparation and helped win support for collectivization. Kulaks murdered many of these workers and claimed they made an alliance with the antichrist. The workers organized literacy campaigns and ended the cycle of famines that had existed for centuries.<ref name=":0223" />:45–61

During the First Five Year Plan, crop area increased from 118 million hectares to 129.7 million. In 1929, only 3.9% of farms had been collectivized, but by 1933 75% of farmland was in collective farms, 10.8% was in state farms (''sovkhozy''), and 15.7% was farmed by individual peasants. Over 167,000 collective farms were established during this period. The number of livestock decreased dramatically due to kulaks killing their animals to sabotage the Soviet Union. The number of tractors increased from 34,900 to 204,100 during the First Five Year Plan, and the number of combine harvesters increased from 1,700 to 13,500.

During the Second Five Year Plan, livestock recovered from the kulak sabotage. By 1938, there were more than twice as many sheep, goats, and hogs as there had been in 1933. The number of cattle increased by 64.6% during the Second Five Year Plan and the number of horses increased by 5.4%. The amount of mechanical farm equipment continued to increase, and the number of tractors grew from 210,900 to 483,500.<ref name=":6" />

==== Internal struggles ====
In early 1932, Trotsky sent letters to [[Karl Radek|Radek]], [[Grigory Sokolnikov|Sokolnikov]] and [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Probrazhensky]] and encouraged them to join anti-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] activities. [[Leonid Nikolaev]] assassinated [[Sergei Kirov]] in December 1934 in a party office in Leningrad. [[Grigory Zinoviev]], a [[Trotskyism|Trotskyist]], had inspired the assassination.<ref name=":0223" />:116–9

Members of the Right Opposition also planned to overthrow the Soviet government, and Moscow party leader [[Martemyan Ryutin]] released a 200-page platform calling for the overthrow of the CPSU leadership and decollectivization.<ref name=":0223" />:135–41

Marshal [[Mikhail Tukhachevsky|Tukhachevsky]] and other military officials were executed in 1937 for planning to assassinate Stalin and install a pro-German government, and the political commissar system of the Civil War was introduced to prevent a [[Napoleon Bonaparte|Napoleon]]-style military coup.<ref name=":0223" />:150–2 In 1939, Colonel Tokaev met with five high-ranking Red Army officers and discussed a plan to overthrow Stalin in the case of war.<ref name=":0223" />:135–41

In July 1937, Stalin and [[Vyacheslav Molotov|Molotov]] released a list of 72,950 criminals and wreckers to be executed, and [[Nikolai Yezhov|Yezhov]] signed the list. All executions had to be approved by troikas. In late 1937, local authorities attempted to increase execution quotas and purge innocent party members. In January 1938, the Central Committee criticized excessive repression, and [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] even called Yezhov a [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi]] agent in late 1938. On 11 November 1938, Stalin ordered Yezhov to stop the purges.<ref name=":0223" />:166–7

===Great Patriotic War===
<blockquote>''See main article: [[Second World War]]''</blockquote>[[File:Death to invaders poster.png|thumb|290x290px|"Death to the German invaders"]]Contrary to the propaganda that mentioned that Stalin wasn't ready for the war, on January 31st, 1931, he mentions the importance of the creation of an industrial base in the Ural mountains, Siberia and Kazakhstan.<ref>{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Quick Unraveling of the Blitzkrieg|page=22|quote=In fact, Stalin had insisted repeatedly and vigorously on this. On January 31st, 1931, he pushes forward the “creation of a new and well-equipped industrial base in the Ural Mountains, Siberia and Kazakhstan.”|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}</ref> Following the [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italian]] invasion of [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]] in 1935, the USSR proposed a collective security system for Europe and signed defense treaties with France and [[Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)|Czechoslovakia]]. Germany and [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]] signed the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]] in November 1936, and Italy joined soon after. In May 1938, the USSR sent 40 divisions to guard the western border of Czechoslovakia from Germany, but Britain and France negotiated with Germany to let the Nazis annex the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia. When the Nazis annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, the USSR began more negotiations with Britain and France, but they refused to make an alliance and Britain instead made a secret agreement with the Nazis agreeing to protect the British Empire. Poland also refused a defense agreement against Germany. From May to August 1939, the USSR fought off a Japanese invasion of [[Mongolian People's Republic (1924–1992)|Mongolia]].<ref name=":0223" />:185–7

In March 1941, Stalin sent 800,000 reservists to the western border of the USSR. On 21 June, a German deserter reported that the Nazis would attack the next night. [[Semen Tymoshenko|Tymoshenko]] and [[Georgy Zhukov|Zhukov]] alerted all units and told them to occupy firing posts in fortified areas. Germany bombed border cities in the morning of 22 June and Stalin ordered the Politburo to convene. Two days after the Nazi invasion, the Soviets managed to move over 1500 major industrial companies after the Urals.<ref>{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Quick Unraveling of the Blitzkrieg|page=22|quote=Yes, “created two days after the German invasion, the Evacuation Committee managed to move to the East 1,500 major industrial companies, after titanic operations of great logistic complexity.”|lg=http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}</ref> On 26 June, the Red Army began building a reserve front 300 km behind the front lines. The Nazis broke the Western Front and approached Minsk in the same day.<ref name=":0223" />:191–223 Hitler himself was amazed at the resistance posed by the Soviet Union, mentioning that they found railways that weren't on the maps, huge factories where only villages were before, and himself exclaiming "How is it possible that such a primitive people can reach such technical objectives in such a short period of time?"<ref>{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Quick Unraveling of the Blitzkrieg|page=23|quote=November 29th, 1941:
How is it possible that such a primitive people can reach such technical objectives in such a short period of time?

August 26th, 1942:
With respect to Russia, it is incontestable that Stalin raised the standard of living. The
Russian people don’t go hungry [at the moment when Operation Barbarossa was launched]. In general, it’s necessary to recognize that they have built factories of similar importance to Hermann Goering Reichswerke where two years ago nothing but unknown villages existed. We come across railway lines that aren’t on the maps.|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}</ref>

During the Second World War, the Soviet Union took control of the [[Baltics|Baltic states]] and liberated them from [[Fascism|fascist]] rule.<ref name=":04">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=|page=|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref>:78–82 On 8 August 1945, exactly three months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops entered [[Empire of (Great) Manchuria|Manchuria]] and [[Korea]], and Japan surrendered within a week.<ref name=":12">{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=|page=|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}</ref>:72 The USSR and United States then agreed to temporarily divide Korea along the 38th parallel, with the occupation lasting no more than five years. The Soviets left Korea in late 1948, but the US military did not and continues to occupy [[Republic of Korea|south Korea]] to this day.<ref name=":12" />:79

=== Postwar period ===
==== Stalin's last years ====
The Fourth Five-Year Plan began in February 1946, and industry recovered to prewar levels by 1948. By 1950, industrial production was 73% higher than 1940 and consumer goods were 23% higher. The USSR developed its first [[Nuclear weapon|atomic bomb]] in 1947, ending the USA's nuclear monopoly.<ref name=":0223" />:239–45

After the war, Stalin and [[Andrei Zhdanov|Zhdanov]] initially wanted to reduce military and heavy industry spending. Stalin changed his mind when the [[Marshall Plan]] and [[Truman Doctrine]] showed that the United States was committed to destroying the USSR. By 1952, industrial production reached 2.5 times the amount from before the Second World War.<ref name=":02" />:18–53

The USSR recognized [[State of Israel|Israel]] shortly after its founding but reversed its position in 1953 and supported [[Arab Republic of Egypt|Egypt]] against Israel in the [[Six-Day War]].'''<ref name=":04" />''':90–5

==== Khrushchev period ====
After Stalin died in 1953, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] became General Secretary and [[Georgy Malenkov]] became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. The Central Committee under Khrushchev secretly arrested [[Lavrentiy Beria]], head of the [[People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs|NKVD]], and began releasing [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionaries]] from prison.

In January 1954, Khrushchev introduced the Virgin Lands policy in an attempt to increase agricultural production by farming new areas in Siberia and Kazakhstan. 300,000 volunteers cultivated 13 million hectares of land in the first year and another 14 million the next year. Molotov criticized this policy for redirecting resources away from industrialization. The campaign was initially very successful, peaking in 1956, but it declined after that and ended in 1964. Khrushchev also tried to increase cattle production by growing corn to feed livestock and promoted chemical fertilizers instead of rotating crops.

Khrushchev delivered a "Secret Speech" in 1956 condemning Stalin. Although most of the Central Committee supported the speech, Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich, and [[Kliment Voroshilov|Voroshilov]] said it gave an unbalanced account of Stalin. In 1957, the Presidium voted 7 to 3 (with one abstention) to remove Khrushchev from power. The Central Committee then expelled Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich from positions of power.

Khrushchev decentralized economic planning and replaced it with local planning authorities. He allowed some counterrevolutionary propaganda including [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn|Solzhenitsyn]]'s novels to be published. He reduced quality of cadre by allowing mass recruitment into the party, required a third of officials to be replaced at every election, and split the party into industrial and agricultural sections.<ref name=":02" />:18–53

In the late 1950s, the Soviet Union rescinded the 1920 [[Karakhan Manifesto]], which returned all Chinese territories occupied by the Russian Empire to China.<ref name=":122222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Tawang|page=166|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

==== Brezhnev period ====
The [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] removed Khrushchev from power in 1964 and reintroduced central planning. [[Leonid Brezhnev|Brezhnev]] succeeded Khrushchev as General Secretary and served until 1982. He replaced Khrushchev's replacement policy with a stability of cadre policy which resisted changes in leadership. He also reversed Khrushchev's division of the party and mass recruitment. Although the Brezhnev period is often seen as a period of stagnation, the Soviet economy continued to grow more than twice as fast as Western countries. Unfortunately, Brezhnev was also responsible for nepotism and corruption.<ref name=":02" />:18–53 In addition, the black market grew during this period and led to the creation of a [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] class.<ref name=":02" />:63

==== Andropov year ====
After Brezhnev's death in 1982, [[Yuri Andropov]] was elected as General Secretary. He attempted to reverse the revisionist policies of his predecessors but died of kidney failure only 15 months into his term. He planned to modernize Soviet technology, improve economic planning, and combat absenteeism and drunkenness in the workplace.<ref name=":02" />:18–53

===Decline and counterrevolution===

====Glasnost and perestroika====
[[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became General Secretary of the CPSU in 1985 and introduced [[Liberalism|liberal]] reforms. A group led by Premier [[Nikolai Ryzhkov]] favored using science and technology to increase production instead of Gorbachev's privatization. Central Committee Secretary [[Lev Zaikov]] supported changing investment policy and promoting inspections and wage differentials. Second Secretary [[Yegor Ligachyov]] opposed consumerism and corruption and upheld central planning and discipline.<ref name=":02" />:110–1

At the 19th Party Conference in June 1988, Gorbachev proposed a new system of government. It consisted of a Congress of People's Deputies with 50% of seats reserved for non-party members, and a smaller Supreme Soviet elected by the Congress. The Congress would elect an executive president instead of a Council of People's Commissars.<ref name=":02" />:148–9

Gorbachev ended assistance to Soviet allies in [[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978–1992)|Afghanistan]] and [[Warsaw Pact|Eastern Europe]] in 1988, allowing widespread [[Counterrevolutions of 1989|counterrevolution]]. He and [[Alexander Yakovlev|Yakovlev]] ignored [[Nationalism|nationalist]] and separatist movements in the Baltics. Gorbachev also failed to respond to nationalist riots in [[Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Kazakhstan]] and even incited a rebellion of Armenians in [[Nagorno-Karabakh]] to embarrass his political opponents.<ref name=":02" />:157–64 Shortages were common, caused by Gorbachev's policies, as well as economic sanctions, and being forced to participate in the Arms Race, which drained money and resources.

Between 1989 and 1991, Gorbachev changed the CPSU from a [[vanguard party]] into a parliamentary party, undermined central planning, encouraged black market activity, allowed the West to infiltrate media through ''[[glasnost]]'', and surrendered to the United States in terms of foreign policy, abandoning [[anti-imperialism]] and seeking Western support. He changed positions on the national question and initially attempted to repress Baltic separatists before negotiating with them.<ref name=":02" />:170–205

==== Yeltsin–Gorbachev struggle ====
The March 1989 elections to Congress of People's Deputies overrepresented intellectuals and underrepresented workers and peasants. 87% of its members were from the CPSU, but 44% of party members who ran unopposed were not elected. [[Boris Yeltsin]] was elected, but many party leaders lost their positions. Members of the Congress disputed basic ideas of Marxism–Leninism such as the vanguard party and [[Marxist economics]].

In 1989, a massive mine strike began, which was the first major labor unrest since the 1920s. The government shipped large quantities of food and supplies to mining areas.

By early 1990, there was a system of [[dual power]] in which Gorbachev controlled the USSR and Yeltsin controlled Russia. Yeltsin took control of most of the Soviet media between 1989 and 1991 and took power in Moscow and Leningrad by March 1990. Anti-Soviet groups such as the [[Social democracy|social-democratic]] [[Democratic Platform]] and the [[Market socialism|market socialist]] [[Marxist Platform]] formed within the CPSU. After the 28th Party Congress in July 1990, Yeltsin and the Democratic Platform left the CPSU, and left-oppositionists such as [[Yegor Ligachyov|Ligachyov]] founded the [[Communist Party of the Russian Federation|CPRF]]. The party collapsed after the Congress and approached bankruptcy.

Gorbachev removed the CPSU's influence in the [[Soviet Army]] and shrank the army from 5.3 million to under 4 million. As late as May 1990, 70% of the Central Committee opposed Gorbachev, and the majority of the workers voted to keep the USSR in March 1991. Black market profits and organized crime funded pro-capitalist politicians. The [[Democratic Russia]] group opposed the vanguard party and promoted parliamentary control of the [[Committee for State Security|KGB]], a market economy, and the sovereignty of the RSFSR.

In July 1990, Gorbachev removed Ryzhkov from power and made a deal with Yeltsin, then the head of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet. Ryzhkov and his economist, [[Leonid Abalkin]], had proposed a six-year plan of gradual privatization, but Gorbachev and Yeltsin chose [[Stanislav Shatalin]] to privatize the economy within 500 days. The plan gave all taxing power to the republics and prioritized the laws of each republic over all-union laws. Gorbachev eventually criticized the plan for being too rapid, but his followers, including Yakovlev, [[Eduard Shevardnadze|Shevardnadze]], [[Georgy Shakhnazarov|Shakhnazarov]], [[Roy Medvedev|Medvedev]], and [[Anatoly Chernyayev|Chernyayev]], supported it.<ref name=":02" />:170–205

==== August Coup ====
<blockquote>''See main article: [[August Coup|August Coup]]''</blockquote>The August Coup occurred between August 19 and 22, 1991 and was an attempt by hardliners in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU) to oust revisionist [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] from office and roll-back his policies. The coup was planned by top military and civilian officials, including Vice President [[Gennady Yanayev]], who together formed the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP).

The GKChP hardliners dispatched [[KGB]] agents, who detained Gorbachev at his dacha in [[Crimea]] but failed to detain the recently elected president of a newly reconstituted [[Russia]], [[Boris Yeltsin]], who had been both an ally and critic of Gorbachev. The coup's failure was instrumental in the [[Overthrow of the Soviet Union|counterrevolution which overthrew the Soviet Union]] four months later in December 1991.{{Citation needed}}

====Dissolution====
<blockquote>''See main article: [[Overthrow of the Soviet Union|Overthrow of the USSR]]''</blockquote>The overthrow of the Soviet Union was the process of [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] counter-revolution which culminated in the disintegration of the USSR into independent states in December of 1991. Among the various causes for dissolution was the organization of a bourgeois class inside the USSR under a 'shadow economy' which effectively guaranteed their interests through corrupt officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). It's generally accepted that the political and economic policies of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and ultimately Gorbachev paved the way for counter-revolution in the USSR.

==Government==

===Elections===
[[File:British vs. Soviet electoral system.png|thumb|371x371px|Diagram contrasting the British and Soviet electoral systems]]
Before 1936, [[Clergy|priests]], landlords, [[Bourgeoisie|capitalists]], and former [[White movement|Whites]] were not allowed to vote. The 1936 Soviet constitution removed these restrictions so all citizens aged 18 or older could vote, with the exception of insane people and convicted criminals disenfranchised by a court. Under the 1924 constitution, the people elected the lowest level of representatives and higher soviets were elected indirectly. The 1936 constitution made all soviets from the local to all-union level directly elected.<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}</ref>

===Supreme Soviet===
The [[Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union]] was the legislature of the USSR and was elected every four years. It consisted of two branches: the [[Soviet of the Union]], which was elected based on population, and the [[Soviet of Nationalities]], which was elected according to the republics, [[Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics|ASSRs]], [[autonomous oblasts]], and [[autonomous okrugs]] of the Soviet Union. Either house could initiate legislation and it had to be passed by a majority vote of both houses to become law. Each house elected a chairman and two vice-chairmen to preside over their sessions, which occurred twice every year. The [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union|Presidium of the Supreme Soviet]] could also convene special sessions.<ref name=":2" /> Before 1936, the Supreme Soviet was known as the [[Congress of Soviets]] and the Soviet of the Union was known as the [[Federal Soviet]].<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Second All-Union Congress of Soviets|year=1924|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1924)|chapter=}}</ref>

The Federal Soviet was elected with one deputy per 25,000 urban inhabitants or 125,000 rural inhabitants.<ref name=":1" /> After 1936, the Soviet of the Union had one deputy for every 300,000 inhabitants.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1936|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1936)|chapter=The Highest Organs of State Authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics}}</ref>

From 1924 to 1936, the Soviet of Nationalities had five deputies for every union republic and one for every autonomous republic and autonomous oblast.<ref name=":1" /> In 1936, this was changed to 25 for every union republic, ten for each ASSR, five for each autonomous oblast, and one for each autonomous okrug.<ref name=":2" /> In 1977, it was changed again so that every SSR would have 32 deputies and every ASSR would have 11.<ref>{{Citation|author=Government of the Soviet Union|year=1977|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1977,_Unamended)|chapter=Higher Bodies of State Authority and Administration of the USSR}}</ref>

===Presidium===
The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union was elected at a combined session of the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities. It consisted of a [[President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union|President]], Secretary, one vice president from every union republic, and 24 members.<ref name=":1" />

===Council of People's Commissars===
The [[Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union|Council of People's Commissars]] (Sovnarkom) was the executive branch of the USSR and was elected at a joint session of the Soviet of the Union and Soviet of Nationalities.<ref name=":1" />

===Supreme Court===
The [[Supreme Court of the Soviet Union|Supreme Court]] was the highest court in the Soviet Union and was elected by the Supreme Soviet once every five years.<ref name=":1" />

==Administrative divisions==
<blockquote>''See main articles: [[Soviet republic (system of government)]] and [[Republics of the Soviet Union]]''</blockquote>
Constitutionally, the USSR was a federation of constituent Union Republics, which were either unitary states, such as [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic|Ukraine]] or [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic|Byelorussia]] (SSRs), or federations, such as [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russia]] or [[Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic|Transcaucasia]] (SFSRs), all four being the founding republics who signed the [[Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] in December 1922. In 1924, during the [[National delimitation in the Soviet Union|national delimitation]] in [[Central Asia]], [[Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic|Uzbekistan]] and [[Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic|Turkmenistan]] were formed from parts of Russia's [[Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic|Turkestan ASSR]] and two Soviet dependencies, the [[Khorezm People's Soviet Republic|Khorezm]] and [[Bukharan People's Soviet Republic|Bukharan SSRs]]. In 1929, [[Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic|Tajikistan]] was split off from the Uzbekistan SSR. With the constitution of 1936, the Transcaucasian SFSR was dissolved, resulting in its constituent republics of [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic|Armenia]], [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic|Georgia]] and [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic|Azerbaijan]] being elevated to Union Republics, while [[Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic|Kazakhstan]] and [[Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic|Kirghizia]] were split off from Russian SFSR, resulting in the same status.<ref>{{Citation|last=Adams, Simon |title=Russian Republics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LyqIDCc-cSsC |year=2005 |page=21 |publisher=Black Rabbit Books |isbn=978-1-58340-606-9|access-date=20 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150512041101/http://books.google.com/books?id=LyqIDCc-cSsC&dq|archive-date=12 May 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> In August 1940, [[Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic|Moldavia]] was formed from parts of Ukraine and [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina|Bessarabia]] and Ukrainian SSR. [[Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic|Estonia]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]] and [[Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic|Lithuania]] (SSRs) were also [[Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)|admitted into the union]]. [[Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic|Karelia]] was split off from Russia as a Union Republic in March 1940 and was reabsorbed in 1956. Between July 1956 and September 1991, there were 15 union republics (see map below).<ref>{{Citation|last=Feldbrugge, Ferdinand Joseph Maria |title=Russian Law: The Rnd of the Soviet system and the Role of Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JWt7MN3Dch8C |year=1993 |page=94 |publisher=[[Martinus Nijhoff Publishers]] |isbn=978-0-7923-2358-7|access-date=20 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150512041218/http://books.google.com/books?id=JWt7MN3Dch8C&dq|archive-date=12 May 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>

While nominally a union of equals, in practice the Soviet Union was dominated by [[Russians]]. The domination was so absolute that for most of its existence, the country was commonly (but incorrectly) referred to as "Russia". While the RSFSR was technically only one republic within the larger union, it was by far the largest (both in terms of population and area), most powerful, and most highly developed. The RSFSR was also the industrial center of the Soviet Union.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
|-
! colspan="2" |Republic
!Map of the Union Republics between 1956 and 1991
|-
|1
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Armenian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1952–1990).svg|25x25px|]] [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic|Armenian SSR]]
| rowspan="15" style="width:350px;" |[[File:Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1956-1991).svg|600px]]
|-
|2
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Azerbaijan_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1956–1991).svg|25x25px|]] [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Azerbaijan SSR]]
|-
|3
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Byelorussian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1951–1991).svg|25x25px|]] [[Byelorussian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1920–1991)|Byelorussian SSR]]

|-
|4
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Estonian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1953–1990).svg|25x25px|]] [[Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991)|Estonian SSR]]
|-
|5
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1951–1990).svg|25x25px|]] [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991)|Georgian SSR]]
|-
|6
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Kazakh_Soviet_Socialist_Republic.svg|25x25px|]] [[Kazakh_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1936–1991)|Kazakh SSR]]

|-
|7
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Kyrgyz_Soviet_Socialist_Republic.svg|25x25px|]] [[Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Kirghiz SSR]]
|-
|8
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Latvian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1953–1990).svg|25x25px|]] [[Latvian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic|Latvian SSR]]

|-
|9
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Lithuanian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1953–1988).svg|25x25px|]] [[Lithuanian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic|Lithuanian SSR]]

|-
|10
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1952–1990).svg|25x25px|]] [[Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991)|Moldavian SSR]]
|-
|11
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic_(1954–1991).svg|25x25px|]] [[Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic_(1917–1991)|Russian SFSR]]

|
|-
|12
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Tajik_Soviet_Socialist_Republic.svg|25x25px|]] [[Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (1929–1991)|Tajik SSR]]
|-
|13
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Turkmen_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1973–1991).svg|25x25px|]] [[Turkmen_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1925–1991)|Turkmen SSR]]

|-
|14
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic.svg|25x25px|]] [[Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1919–1991)|Ukrainian SSR]]

|-
|15
|[[File:Flag_of_the_Uzbek_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_(1952–1991).svg|25x25px|]] [[Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (1924–1991)|Uzbek SSR]]
|}

==Economy==
In the Soviet Union, the richest people earned about five times as much money as the poorest. The income gap was tiny compared to the United States, where billionaires have many thousands of times more money than the poorest workers.<ref name=":8">{{Web citation|author=Carlos Martinez|newspaper=[[Invent the Future]]|title=Why doesn’t the Soviet Union exist any more? Part 1: Introduction|date=2017-11-19|url=https://invent-the-future.org/2017/11/why-doesnt-the-soviet-union-exist-any-more-part-1-introduction/#fnref:12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220211213148/https://invent-the-future.org/2017/11/why-doesnt-the-soviet-union-exist-any-more-part-1-introduction/|archive-date=2022-02-11|retrieved=2022-10-08}}</ref> Peasants made up 83% of the population in 1926 but only 20% in 1975, while the industrial workforce grew from five to 62 million during the same period.<ref name=":02" />:63

===Planning===
[[File:Tenth five year plan poster.png|thumb|240x240px|"Shock work for the 10th five-year plan!"]]
The Soviet economy was a [[planned economy]], in which much of the economic planning was aided by teams of mathematicians and economists. These plans were enacted in the form of five year plans.

These five year plans used production quotas to encourage growth of the Soviet economy. Contrary to popular belief, these quotas were based on previous production records, available technology, amid many other factors

===Agriculture===
Farms and farm equipment in the USSR were collectively owned. Grain production increased by 63% from the late 1950s to the late 1970s to reach 199 million tonnes per year. In the late 1950s, the USSR began to increase the proportion of grain used as animal feed in order to increase meat, egg, and dairy production. Total agricultural production increased by 147% between 1950 and 1977 while U.S. production only increased by 64% during the same period.

The USSR's geography made agriculture difficult because only 10% of its land was suitable for grain farming and 30% was too cold for any agriculture.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

===Housing and construction===
After the October Revolution, hundreds of thousands of workers moved from slums to nationalized houses. In 1919, a decree was passed setting a minimum of at least 8.25 square meters of living space per person, 30 cubic meters of air space for every adult, and 20 cubic meters for every child. This space only included living and bed rooms, not bathrooms or entrances. Rent in the Soviet Union was kept at under 4% of workers' total incomes,<ref name=":3">{{News citation|newspaper=[[Stalin Society]]|title=Housing in the USSR|date=2017-01-13|url=https://stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/housing-in-the-ussr/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220330020740/https://stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/housing-in-the-ussr/|archive-date=2022-03-30|retrieved=2022-05-20}}</ref> and its proportion of income gradually decreased because rent was not increased at all after 1928.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

In 1920, 254 residential buildings were built and 2,347 were repaired. From 1923 to 1927, 12.5 million square meters of living space were built. From 1927 to 1931, another 28.85 million were built. The average living space for each worker greatly increased from the revolution to 1938: there was a 94% increase in Moscow, 100% in Leningrad, 176% in the [[Donbass]], and 195% in the Urals.<ref name=":3" />

===Industry and manufacturing===

===Services===

===Environment===

==Infrastructure==

===Transportation===
The standard fare for the Soviet subway was only five kopeks, or roughly eight U.S. cents, and remained constant from the 1930s to the 1980s.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

===Energy===

===Science and technology===

== Demographics ==

=== National groups ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+Nationalities by republic<ref name=":04" />:52–7
!Republic
!Local nationality (1979)
!Russian population (1979)
!Change in local nationality (1959–1979)
|-
|Armenia
|89.7%
|2.3%
| +1.7%
|-
|Azerbaijan
|78.1%
|7.9%
| +10.6%
|-
|Belarus
|79.4%
|11.9%
| -1.7%
|-
|Estonia
|64.7%
|27.9%
| -9.9%
|-
|Georgia
|68.8%
|7.4%
| +4.5%
|-
|Kazakhstan
|36.0%
|40.8%
| +6.0%
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|47.9%
|25.9%
| +7.2%
|-
|Latvia
|53.7%
|32.8%
| -8.3%
|-
|Lithuania
|80.0%
|8.9%
| +0.7%
|-
|Moldova
|63.9%
|12.8%
| -1.5%
|-
|Russia
|82.6%
|82.6%
| -0.7%
|-
|Tajikistan
|58.8%
|10.4%
| +5.7%
|-
|[[Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1990)|Tatarstan]]<ref group="note">Data from 1970 instead of 1979</ref>
|49.1%
|
| +1.9%
|-
|Turkmenistan
|68.4%
|12.6%
| +7.5%
|-
|Ukraine
|73.6%
|21.1%
| -3.2%
|-
|Uzbekistan
|68.7%
|10.8%
| +7.6%
|}

=== Languages ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+Languages by republic (1970)<ref name=":04" />:52–3
!Republic
!Native speakers from local nationality
!Books titles in local language
!Newspapers in local language
|-
|Armenia
|91.4%
|75%
|88%
|-
|Azerbaijan
|98.2%
|64%
|80%
|-
|Belarus
|80.2%
|21%
|75%
|-
|Estonia
|95.5%
|74%
|72%
|-
|Georgia
|98.4%
|73%
|86%
|-
|Kazakhstan
|98.0%
|31%
|37%
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|98.8%
|47%
|55%
|-
|Latvia
|95.2%
|52%
|64%
|-
|Lithuania
|97.9%
|64%
|81%
|-
|Moldova
|95.0%
|31%
|47%
|-
|Russia
|
|93%
|93%
|-
|Tajikistan
|98.5%
|52%
|84%
|-
|Tatarstan
|89.2%
|
|
|-
|Turkmenistan
|98.9%
|65%
|70%
|-
|Ukraine
|85.7%
|37%
|80%
|-
|Uzbekistan
|98.6%
|44%
|57%
|}
In several republics, the circulation of books and newspapers in the local language was much higher than the percentage of book titles. For example, in Kazakhstan, the majority of individual books were in Kazakh even though only 31% of titles were in Kazakh. In Azerbaijan, 97% of magazine circulation was in Azeri.<ref name=":04" />:52

== Living standards ==
In 1917, the Bolsheviks reduced the working day to 8 hours. Workers had 12 to 48 guaranteed vacation days per year. The average person in the Soviet Union ate over 3,000 kilocalories per day and had a better diet than in the United States. By the 1980s, the Soviet Union had the seventh best diet in the world.<ref name=":7" /> Soviet citizens ate an average of 103 grams of protein per day, more than the UK, [[Federal Republic of Germany|West Germany]], [[Kingdom of Sweden|Sweden]], or [[Italian Republic|Italy]], and had a higher caloric intake than the UK, West Germany, or Sweden.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

Literacy increased from under 30% before the revolution to 87.4% in 1939 and reached 100% by 1970.<ref name=":7" />

Basic foods like bread, meat, dairy, and potatoes were heavily subsidized. Housing, medicine, transportation, and insurance combined only took up 15% of an average family's income.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

=== Working conditions ===
In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union adopted the 40-hour work week. The 1977 Constitution set the maximum at 41 hours with exceptions for national security; averting disasters; socially essential work such as transport, water supply, and electricity; completing work to avoid damage to [[means of production]]; and repair/maintenance to avoid putting other workers out of work.

Workers throughout the USSR had three weeks of paid vacation plus optional unpaid vacation. People who worked at night or in dangerous industries such as coal mining only worked for six or seven hours but received eight hours of pay.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

=== Education ===
Education in the Soviet Union was free<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1936|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1936)|chapter=Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens|section=Article 121|city=Moscow}}</ref> and was mandatory between the ages of 8 and 15. There were also ten-year schools that went to the age of 18, but the last three years were not mandatory before the Great Patriotic War. The curriculum included nature study, art, music, social science, and foreign languages.<ref name=":0">{{News citation|author=Anglo-Soviet Youth Friendship Alliance|newspaper=Revolutionary Democracy|title=Education in the U.S.S.R.|url=http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/anglosov.htm|retrieved=2022-04-17|date=1942}}</ref> School days lasted between 4.5 and 6 hours, depending on age.<ref name=":0" /> Education was available in 52 different languages.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Eugene Puryear|newspaper=[[Liberation School]]|title=Nations and Soviets: The National Question in the USSR|date=2022-06-12|url=https://www.liberationschool.org/nations-and-soviets-the-national-question-in-the-ussr/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220613003437/https://www.liberationschool.org/nations-and-soviets-the-national-question-in-the-ussr/|archive-date=2022-06-13|retrieved=2022-08-31}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+Number of school students
!
!1913
!1929
!1933
!1942
|-
|7-year schools
|6,800,000
|11,700,000
|21,300,000
|23,000,000
|-
|10-year schools
|1,000,000
|2,700,000
|5,500,000
|17,000,000
|-
|Total
|7,800,000
|14,400,000
|33,400,000
|40,000,000
|}
Between 1932 and 1937, 20,000 schools were built in the Soviet Union. Between 1938 and 1941, 20,000 more schools were built and 500,000 new teachers were trained. Between 1913 and 1940, the number of libraries in the USSR increased by 57,400. 12% of the USSR's national budget was spent on education.

Children aged 12 and older formed committees to care for school property and help other students. Corporal punishment was illegal.<ref name=":0" />

====Literacy rates====
[[File:To have more we must produce more.png|thumb|257x257px|"To have more, we must produce more. To produce more, we must know more."]]
Before the October Revolution, most people in Central Asia were illiterate. By the late 1930s, most people throughout the Soviet Union could read and literacy was nearly universal by the late 1950s.<ref name=":8" />

====Preschool====
Optional preschool and kindergarten were available in the Soviet Union from birth to the age of 8. In 1932, there were 600,000 children in daycares; this number increased to three million by 1937.<ref name=":0" /> Child care was either free or very cheap.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

====Universities====
In 1940, there were 700 universities in the USSR with 650,000 students enrolled. There were 22 universities in [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic|Belarus]], 13 in [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic|Azerbaijan]], and 30 in [[Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic|Uzbekistan]].<ref name=":0" /> The Soviet Union had one of the highest levels of university attendance in the world.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

=== Health ===
[[File:Soviet doctor poster.png|thumb|323x323px|"Honor and Respect for the Rural Doctor! The Doctor is the Friend of the People!"]]
[[Nikolai Semashko]], the People's Commissar for Public Health from 1918 to 1930, proposed a health system based on the following principles:

*Unified principles of organization and centralization of the health care system
*Equal accessibility of healthcare for all citizens
*Priority attention to childhood and maternity
*Unity of preventive healthcare and treatment
*Elimination of social bases of diseases
*Involvement of the society in the cause of healthcare

The public health budget of the USSR increased by 75 times from the Russian Empire's budget in 1913. From the Civil War to 1928, the number of physicians increased from 19,785 to 63,219,<ref name=":5">{{News citation|author=Carlos Rule|newspaper=[[Stalin Society]]|title=Health in the USSR|date=2017-01-18|url=https://stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/health-in-the-ussr/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220216095354/https://stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/health-in-the-ussr/|archive-date=2022-02-16|retrieved=2022-06-27}}</ref> and it reached 334,000 doctors (including dentists) by 1955. Production of pharmaceutical chemicals increased by five times from 1940 to 1950 and 3.1 times from 1950 to 1955 and there were 1,290,000 hospital beds in 1955.<ref name=":4">{{News citation|newspaper=[[Politsturm]]|title=Healthcare Under Socialism: The History of the Soviet Healthcare System|date=2021-09-07|url=https://us.politsturm.com/healthcare-under-socialism-the-history-of-the-soviet-healthcare-system/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112182526/https://us.politsturm.com/healthcare-under-socialism-the-history-of-the-soviet-healthcare-system/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-05-20}}</ref>

Infant mortality decreased from 25% before the revolution to lower than [[Italian Republic|Italy]] or [[Republic of Austria|Austria]] by 1960,<ref name=":4" /> and child mortality decreased by half from 1917 to 1928.<ref name=":5" />

In 1978, the [[World Health Organization]] recognized the Soviet principles of healthcare as some of the best in the world.<ref name=":4" /> The Soviet Union had the most doctors per capita in the world, 34.6 per 10,000 people, which was more than twice the British level and almost twice the U.S. level. Drugs from hospitals or prescribed for chronic illnesses (70% of all medicines) were completely free.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

====By republic====
By 1941, [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Azerbaijan]] had 2,500 doctors compared to 291 before the revolution. The number of physicians in [[Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (1929–1991)|Tajikistan]] increased from 13 to 372 over the same time period.<ref name=":5" />

====Life expectancy====
In the Russian Empire, the life expectancy was only 30 years.<ref name=":04" />:128–40 Soviet life expectancy was 59.4 years in 1953. By 1965, it had increased to 68.4 years, more than twice as long as before the revolution and 15 years more than the world average at the time.<ref name=":7" /> It increased to 70.4 years by 1975, which was slightly lower than [[Japan]] or Western Europe but higher than [[Republic of Finland|Finland]] or [[Latin America]]. The Soviet life expectancy was 2.5 years longer than the non-white life expectancy in the United States.<ref name=":04" />:128–40

====Infectious diseases====
[[File:Soviet cholera poster.png|thumb|352x352px|"Citizens! Get yourself a cholera vaccine. Only against a vaccine death is powerless."]]
During the [[Russian Civil War]], there were outbreaks of cholera, typhus, and smallpox. The prevalence of typhus decreased by more than twice from 1919 to 1922 and by 80 times by 1927 and the prevalence of malaria decreased by more than three times from 1917 to 1930. Compulsory vaccination for smallpox was introduced in 1919 and it was eradicated by 1937.<ref name=":4" />

==Human rights==
Article 123 of the 1936 [[Constitution of the Soviet Union|Soviet Constitution]] guaranteed national equality and banned [[racism]].<ref name=":10">{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1936|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936)|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1936)|chapter=Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens|section=|city=Moscow}}</ref> In 1977, it was moved to article 36.<ref name=":11">{{Citation|author=Government of the Soviet Union|year=1977|title=Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977, Unamended)|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1977,_Unamended)|chapter=The State and the Individual|city=Moscow}}</ref>

===Women's rights===
After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks gave women equal rights in marriage. Women did not have to live with their husbands anymore and could now divorce without their husband's permission as well as own [[personal property]]. Husbands could also divorce without their wife's permission unless she was pregnant or had a child under one year old.<ref name=":04" />:102–11 Article 122 of the 1936 Constitution and 35 of the 1977 Constitution banned [[sexism]] and guaranteed equal rights for women.<ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11" />

Spouses and ex-spouses did not have to support each other economically in most cases. However, an ex-husband had to pay child support to his ex-wife if she was looking after children: 25% of his income for one child, one-third for two children, and 50% for three or more children.<ref name=":04" />:102–11

Women's pay could not be lowered because of pregnancy or caring for young children. It was illegal to fire women who were pregnant or had children under one year of age. They could receive pensions starting at the age of 55, five years earlier than men.<ref name=":04" />:102–11

In higher education, women earned a majority of the country's economics, law, biology, and chemistry degrees. They also earned engineering, math, and physics degrees at a higher ratio than women in the United States.<ref name=":04" />:102–11

==Culture==
[[File:Youth-soviet-sports.jpg|thumb|334x334px|"Youth to the stadiums!" B. Reshetnikov, 1962]]

===Sports===
The USSR put a lot of emphasis on sports, as evidenced by the material they produced (such as posters). They were also a participant in the Olympic Games and created their own competing event, the [[Spartakiads]] (named after [[Spartacus]], the rebel slave).

====Weightlifting====
The USSR produced many record-setting athletes, mainly in weightlifting, which was a very popular sport in the USSR and remains one to this day in existing socialist countries such as [[People's Republic of China|China]] or the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea|DPRK]].

The Soviets pioneered their own system, which is today mostly saved and translated by [[Pavel Tsatsouline]]. While most weightlifters today reach their peak around 26 and retire around the age of 35, a few Soviet weightlifters produced world records well past their 30s. This is because their method focused on preserving longevity in their athletes, developed with the scientific method. Athletes were followed by scientists who analysed their data and produced a routine adapted to their level.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=Craig Marker|date=2014-11-14|title=4 secrets of Soviet weightlifting as revealed by Pavel Tsatsouline|url=https://breakingmuscle.com/4-secrets-of-soviet-weightlifting-as-revealed-by-pavel/|newspaper=Breaking Muscle}}</ref>

The most famous Soviet weightlifter is arguably [[Vasily Alekseyev]], who set 80 world records in an eight-year period. He retired at the age of 38 after failing to register a total at the Moscow Olympics, following an injury he sustained in 1978.<ref>{{News citation|title=Vasily Ivanovich Alekseyev Soviet weightlifter|url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vasily-Ivanovich-Alekseyev|newspaper=Britannica}}</ref>

===Film===

== Further reading ==

* [[:Category:Library works about the Soviet Union|All library works about the Soviet Union]]
* [[:Category:Library documents from the Soviet Union|All library works from the Soviet Union]]

=== Pre-1953 ===

* ''[[Library:Another view of Stalin|Another View of Stalin]]''
* ''[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]''
* ''[[Library:Soviet Democracy|Soviet Democracy]]''
* ''[[Library:Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend|Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend]]''

=== Post-1953 ===

* ''[[Library:Human Rights in the Soviet Union|Human Rights in the Soviet Union]]''
* ''[[Library:Socialism Betrayed|Socialism Betrayed]]''

==References==
<references />

===Notes===
<references group="note" />
[[Category:Marxist-Leninist states]]
[[Category:Targets of bourgeois media]]
[[Category:Targets of intelligence operations]]
[[Category:Former socialist states]]
[[Category:Targets of imperialism]]

Canada

2024-07-13T16:12:26Z

Dragon: "Israel" isn't real

{{Infobox country|native_name=Kanada Kanata ᑲᓇᑕ Zhaaganaashiiwaki|image_flag=Canada.png|name=Canada|population_estimate=38,436,447|population_estimate_year=2021|established_event1=[[Canadian Confederation|Confederation]]|established_date1=1 July 1867|established_event2=[[Patriation]]|established_date2=17 April 1982|area_km2=9,984,670|government_type=[[Federation|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[Bourgeois state|bourgeois state]]|leader_title1=[[Monarch of the United Kingdom|King]]|leader_name1=[[Charles Windsor]]|leader_title2=[[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]]|leader_name2=[[Justin Trudeau]]|leader_title3=[[Governor General of Canada|Governor General]]|leader_name3=[[Mary Simon]]|image_map=Canada map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=English French|image_coat=Coat of arms of Canada.svg|capital=Ottawa|largest_city=Toronto|currency=Canadian dollar|mode_of_production=[[Capitalism]]}}
'''Canada''' is a [[Settler colonialism|settler-colonial]] and [[Imperialism|imperialist]] state in [[North America]]. Despite being a wealthy country in terms of GDP, over four million people, more than 10% of its population, do not have access to sufficient food.<ref name=":2">{{News citation|author=Thin Lei Win|newspaper=Reuters|title=Millions go hungry in wealthy Canada - and some die young as a result|date=2020-01-20|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-health-food-idUSKBN1ZJ0JE|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123144111/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-health-food-idUSKBN1ZJ0JE|archive-date=2021-02-23|retrieved=2022-05-22}}</ref> Canada exists as an accomplice of [[United States imperialism|U.S. imperialism]] and has supported the [[apartheid]] regimes of [[Republic of South Africa|South Africa]] and [[State of Israel|"Israel"]] and the U.S. invasions of [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]], [[Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)|Libya]], and [[Republic of Haiti|Haiti]].<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Lee Camp]]|newspaper=[[MintPress News]]|title=Canada Is Part of the US War Machine, with Pitasana Shanmugathas|date=2023-02-08|url=https://www.mintpressnews.com/canada-foreign-policy-us-war-machine-pitasanna-shanmugathas/283589/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210193022/https://www.mintpressnews.com/canada-foreign-policy-us-war-machine-pitasanna-shanmugathas/283589/|archive-date=2023-02-10|retrieved=2023-02-11}}</ref>

== History ==

=== First U.S. invasion ===
[[File:Canadian language family map.png|thumb|365x365px|Map of indigenous nations in Canada by language family]]
In late 1775, the [[Continental Army]] invaded what is now Canada and captured Montréal, occupying it until the summer of 1776. It failed to take Quebec City, and General [[Richard Montgomery]] died during a siege in December 1776.<ref name=":12">{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|isbn=9780520972070|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05|page=95–6|chapter=Why Are So Many Places Named Fort?}}</ref>

=== Later U.S. invasions ===
The USA attempted to invade Canada ten times during the [[War of 1812]]. General [[Zebulon Pike]] burned down the city of York (now Toronto), and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)|British]] burned [[Washington, D.C.]] in revenge.<ref name=":123">{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Invading Your Neighbors|page=122–3|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}</ref>

=== 1930s ===
During the 1930s, the [[Antisemitism|anti-Semite]] [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]] ruled Canada and refused to allow [[Judaism|Jewish]] refugees fleeing from [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Germany]] into Canada.<ref name=":1" />

== Settler colonialism ==
Following colonization by the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British Empire]], Canada was under direct British rule until 1867. In 1876, Canada passed a law that prevented people from testifying or having their case heard in court if they did not adopt [[Christianity]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Andrew Armitage|year=1995|title=Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand|chapter=|section=|page=77–78|quote=|pdf=|city=Vancouver|publisher=University of British Columbia Press|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}</ref> Children were prevented from speaking their native languages and forced to adopt Christianity and the culture of the settlers. Canada was one of only four countries to vote against the [[Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]] in 2007.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2007-09-13|title=UN adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples|url=|newspaper=United Nations News Centre|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140925040218/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm|archive-date=2014-09-25|retrieved=}}</ref>

In 2020, indigenous people were seven times as likely to be murdered as settlers.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[CGTN]]|title=Homicide rate for Indigenous people 7 times higher than non-Indigenous in Canada|date=2021-11-26|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-26/Homicide-rate-for-Indigenous-people-7-times-higher-in-Canada-15uV2CyO8cE/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127034214/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-26/Homicide-rate-for-Indigenous-people-7-times-higher-in-Canada-15uV2CyO8cE/index.html|archive-date=2021-11-27|retrieved=2022-07-01}}</ref> Even though they only make up 4% of the total population, natives make up 36% of imprisoned women and 25% of imprisoned men.<ref name=":92">{{Citation|author=[[Nick Estes]], et al.|year=2021|title=Red Nation Rising|chapter=Indian Killers|page=51|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacechp4anuu3vkx7ttze5vwtbbslqpqkouqemkpa5xui27eulvyntx2?filename=Nick%20Estes%2C%20Melanie%20Yazzie%2C%20Jennifer%20Nez%20Denetdale%2C%20David%20Correia%20-%20Red%20Nation%20Rising_%20From%20Bordertown%20Violence%20to%20Native%20Liberation-PM%20Press%20%282021%29.pdf}}</ref>

=== Westward expansion ===

=== Residential schools ===
Canada forcibly assimilated much of its indigenous population by sending Native children into residential schools from 1831 to 1996.<ref name=":0">{{News citation|newspaper=CGTN|title=Hundreds of unmarked graves found at another indigenous school in Canada|date=2021-06-24|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-24/More-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11m7cJUslBS/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210703060743/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-24/More-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11m7cJUslBS/index.html|archive-date=2021-07-03|retrieved=2022-07-01}}</ref> The terrible conditions at these schools led to many deaths, and children were often buried in unmarked graves at the schools. In 2021, 751 graves were uncovered at a single school in [[Saskatchewan]].<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2021-06-24|title=Canada: 751 unmarked graves found at residential school|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57592243|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-31}}</ref> In [[British Columbia]], two more mass graves were found, one at Kamloops with 215 indigenous children<ref name=":0" /> and another with 182 graves at Cranbrook.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=CGTN|title=182 unmarked graves discovered at another indigenous residential school in Canada|date=2021-07-01|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-01/182-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11xstLW62GY/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210702080331/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-01/182-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11xstLW62GY/index.html|archive-date=2021-07-02|retrieved=2022-07-01}}</ref>

== Support for imperialism ==
Canada spies on its citizens as part of the [[Five Eyes]] alliance<ref>{{Citation|author=James Cox|year=2012|title=Canada and the Five Eyes Intelligence Community|chapter=|section=|page=|quote=|pdf=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910204519/http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/PDF/Canada%20and%20the%20Five%20Eyes%20Intelligence%20Community.pdf|city=|publisher=|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}</ref> and is part of the international terrorist organization [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]]. It intervened in the [[Russian Civil War]] to help the monarchist [[White Army]], invaded [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea|Korea]] in 1950, and invaded [[Libya]] in 2011.{{Citation needed}}

=== Ukraine ===
Canada's military also trained far-right [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] groups including [[Military Order Centuria]] and the [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] [[Azov Battalion]]. In 2018, Canadian officials met with the Azov Battalion but did not denounce their far-right ideology. Canada's federal government has spent over $890 million on training Ukrainian forces as part of [[Operation Unifier]].<ref>{{News citation|author=Christy Somos|newspaper=CTV News|title=Mounting evidence Canada trained Ukrainian extremists, gov't needs to be held to account: experts|date=2022-04-28|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mounting-evidence-canada-trained-ukrainian-extremists-gov-t-needs-to-be-held-to-account-experts-1.5879303|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503190700/https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mounting-evidence-canada-trained-ukrainian-extremists-gov-t-needs-to-be-held-to-account-experts-1.5879303|archive-date=2022-05-03|retrieved=2022-05-22}}</ref>

=== Mining companies ===
Canada has a long history of supporting far-right dictatorships abroad, even against the wishes of the USA, in order to protect the interests of its national bourgeoisie.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tyler Shipley|year=2020|title=Canada in the world: settler capitalism and the colonial imagination|chapter=Peace and Scorched Earth|section=Saving Somoza: Falconbridge, Inco and Canada’s Cold War|page=231-2|publisher=Fernwood Publishing|isbn=9781773631141|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=43A2CE0FD669958F66D74AB490697434}}</ref> To this day, 75% of the world's mining companies are based in Canada, mostly because of the state's very lax rules on what said companies do outside of Canada.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Owen Schalk|newspaper=[[People's Voice]]|title=Going for Gold: Neocolonialism and Canadian mining in Africa|date=2021-09-06|url=https://pvonline.ca/2021/09/06/going-for-gold-neocolonialism-and-canadian-mining-in-africa/|retrieved=2022-12-27}}</ref> Canadian mining companies continue the state's long tradition of killing, stealing from, and otherwise oppressing the Indigenous peoples of the [[Americas]]. One such example of this is the Marlin mine in Guatemala, built on Indigenous territory.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tyler Shipley|year=2020|title=Canada in the world: settler capitalism and the colonial imagination|chapter=Contemporary Canada and the Rise of Fascism|section=Blood of Extraction|page=477|publisher=Fernwood Publishing|isbn=9781773631141|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=43A2CE0FD669958F66D74AB490697434}}</ref>

== Economy ==

== Neo-Nazism ==
On September 22, 2023, the Canadian Parliament applauded the [[Waffen-SS]] member [[Yaroslav Hunka]] and called him a "[[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] hero." Deputy Prime Minister [[Chrystia Freeland]] is the granddaughter of the [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi]] collaborator [[Michael Chomiak]], who wrote an [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]] newspaper during the war and worked closely with [[Joseph Goebbels]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Benjamin Zinevich, Morgan Artyukhina|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=How Canada and the U.S. ‘normalize’ and promote Ukranian fascists|date=2023-10-06|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/how-canada-and-the-us-normalize-and-promote-ukranian-fascists/|retrieved=2023-12-07}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:Imperialist countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Global north]]
[[Category:Settler-colonial states]]
[[Category:Countries invaded by the United States]]

Julian Assange

2024-07-02T16:04:10Z

Dragon: Fixed minor spelling mistake

{{Infobox person|name=Julian Assange|birth_date=3 July 1971|birth_place=Townsville, [[Queensland]], [[Australia]]|image=Julian Assange.png|nationality=Australian|birth_name=Julian Paul Hawkins}}

'''Julian Paul Assange''' (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded [[WikiLeaks]] in 2006. His publishing work for WikiLeaks has helped expose the recent crimes of [[imperialism]], notably during the [[War in Afghanistan|Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq War|Iraq]] wars, as well as the crimes of the [[United States of America|US]] [[Bourgeois media|corporate media]] in supporting those wars.<ref>"Every war in past 50 years a result of media lies" [https://www.rt.com/news/wikileaks-revelations-assange-interview/ WikiLeaks revelations only tip of iceberg – Assange] on [[RT (TV Network)|RT]]</ref> Latin American leaders [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|Lula]], [[Andrés Manuel López Obrador|AMLO]], [[Cristina Fernández de Kirchner|Kirchner]], [[Gustavo Petro|Petro]], [[Nicolás Maduro|Maduro]], [[Daniel Ortega|Ortega]], [[Evo Morales|Morales]], and [[Manuel Zelaya|Zelaya]] have all called for his freedom.<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=‘Free Julian Assange!’ say Latin America’s leftist leaders: Lula, AMLO, Petro, Maduro, Ortega, Kirchner, Evo, Zelaya|date=2022-12-06|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/12/06/free-julian-assange-latin-america-left-leaders/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208233411/https://multipolarista.com/2022/12/06/free-julian-assange-latin-america-left-leaders/|archive-date=2022-12-08|retrieved=2022-12-09}}</ref>

In 2013, Assange voiced support for reactionary Statesian politicians [[Ron Paul|Ron]] and [[Rand Paul]], claiming that the [[Tea Party]] was the only avenue for progress in the Empire.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Tom Watson|newspaper=Forbes|title=Assange's Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP Represent 'Only Hope'|date=2013-08-17|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/?sh=27896c261f22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240414180242/https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/?sh=27896c261f22|archive-date=2024-04-14}}</ref>

== Arrest and imprisonment ==
In 2012, Assange took refuge in the [[Republic of Ecuador|Ecuadorian]] embassy in the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]] until being dragged out and arrested by British [[police]] in 2019.<ref name=":0">{{News citation|author=Caitlin A. Johnstone|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=Assange is doing his most important work yet|date=2022-06-20|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/20/assange-is-doing-his-most-important-work-yet/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220620093353/https://mronline.org/2022/06/20/assange-is-doing-his-most-important-work-yet/|archive-date=2022-06-20|retrieved=2022-06-20}}</ref> British authorities locked him in Belmarsh Prison in London and tortured him.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=Morgan Artyukhina|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Activists outside Justice Department demand Julian Assange be freed on second anniversary of his arrest|date=2021-04-14|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/activists-outside-justice-department-demand-julian-assange-be-freed-on-second-anniversary-of-his-arrest/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221225193518/https://www.liberationnews.org/activists-outside-justice-department-demand-julian-assange-be-freed-on-second-anniversary-of-his-arrest/|archive-date=2022-12-25}}</ref>

False charges which later collapsed were brought against Assange,<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2019-11-19|title=Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation|url=|newspaper=|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=}}</ref> The imperialists tried to extradite him to the US,<ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Rees|date=2021-07-21|title=The Assange Case Is Collapsing – But it Remains a Travesty of Justice|url=https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/07/the-assange-case-is-collapsing-but-it-remains-a-travesty-of-justice|newspaper=Tribune Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=}}</ref> where he could have been imprisoned for up to 175 years under the [[Espionage Act of 1917|Espionage Act]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Stansfield Smith|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=The United States has many political prisoners. Here’s a list|date=2022-08-09|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/08/09/us-political-prisoners-list/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810130241/https://multipolarista.com/2022/08/09/us-political-prisoners-list/|archive-date=2022-08-10|retrieved=2022-08-11}}</ref><ref name=":1" />

In March 2022, Assange was denied permission to appeal his case to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]].<ref>{{News citation|journalist=[[Richard Medhurst]]|date=2022-03-14|title=BREAKING: Assange Denied Permission to Appeal to Supreme Court|url=https://youtu.be/JFk7Gqfmih8}}</ref> In June 2022, the British government authorized Assange's extradition to the United States,<ref name=":0" /> where he would likely have been "suicided."<ref>{{News citation|journalist=[[Chris Hedges]]|date=2021-10-29|title=Why the Julian Assange case is the most important battle for press freedom of our time|url=https://www.salon.com/2021/10/29/why-the-julian-assange-case-is-the-most-important-battle-for-press-freedom-of-our-time/|newspaper=[[Salon.com]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=}}</ref> [[Mexican United States|Mexican]] president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) offered sanctuary to Assange.<ref>{{News citation|author=Steve Sweeney|newspaper=Monthly Review|title=Mexico to offer Assange sanctuary as Amlo calls for charges to be dropped|date=2022-06-25|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/25/mexico-to-offer-assange-sanctuary-as-amlo-calls-for-charges-to-be-dropped/}}</ref> AMLO also called Assange the 'best journalist of our time.'<ref>{{News citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=Mexico's President AMLO demands freedom for Julian Assange, ‘best journalist of our time’|date=2022-06-23|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HQWQJiFYKw}}</ref>

== Release ==
In June 2024, Assange was freed and returned to Australia under a plea deal with the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Benjamin Zinevich|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Whistleblower of U.S. war crimes Julian Assange freed|date=2024-06-26|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/whistleblower-of-u-s-war-crimes-julian-assange-freed/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240627030837/https://www.liberationnews.org/whistleblower-of-u-s-war-crimes-julian-assange-freed/|archive-date=2024-06-27}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Targets of censorship]]
[[Category:Anti-imperialist journalists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Assange, Julian}}

Library:How Marxism works

2024-03-31T21:37:45Z

Dragon: Added annotations to counter Trotskist bullshit

{{Library work|title=How Marxism works|image=|author=Chris Harman|written in=1979|publisher=Bookmarks Publications|published_date=May, 1979|published_location=London, England|edition_date=July 1, 2000|type=Pamphlet|isbn=9781898876274|source=[https://sa.org.au/marxism_page/intros/Harman_hmw.pdf How Marxism Works PDF]|display_title=yes}}
{{Foreword|date=2023-10-07|foreword=Originally written in 1979, ''How Marxism Works'' is an incredibly important tool for the communist movement. Chris Harman was able to accurately convey the principles of [[Marxism]] to first-time readers. His pamphlet is still relevant today, with the majority of its examples from a recent enough period to resonate with present-day readers.

The strength of How Marxism Works lies in its beginner-friendliness: this book could be given out to someone who has never heard the word 'communism' before, and they would come out with a working knowledge of Marxism in record time.

However, Chris Harman was also in the [[Socialist Workers Party (UK)|Socialist Workers' Party]], a [[Trotskyist]] party. As such, some of his examples are dyed in the colors of his bias against the [[Soviet Union]] -- opinions that have nothing to do with how Marxism works, and instead all to do with the author's own leaning towards Trotsykism.

This edition by ProleWiki is adapted from an earlier edition and contains our own chapter annotations as well as this foreword. We have also removed an annex that advertised books for sale as it was not part of the author's work. Links have also been provided to ProleWiki pages or library works when possible. Everything else has been left as in the source.}}
== Introduction ==
There is a widespread myth that Marxism is difficult. It is a myth propagated by the enemies of socialism – former [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] leader [[Harold Wilson]] boasted that he was never able to get beyond the first page of Marx’s [[Library:Capital, vol. I|Capital]]. It is a myth also encouraged by a peculiar breed of academics who declare themselves to be ‘Marxists’: they deliberately cultivate obscure phrases and mystical expressions in order to give the impression that they possess a special knowledge denied to others.

So it is hardly surprising that many socialists who work 40 hours a week in factories, mines or offices take it for granted that Marxism is something they will never have the time or the opportunity to understand.

In fact the basic ideas of Marxism are remarkably simple. They explain, as no other set of ideas can, the society in which we live. They make sense of a world wracked by crises, of its poverty in the midst of plenty, of its coups d’etat and military dictatorships, of the way in which marvellous inventions can consign millions to the dole queues, of ‘democracies’ that subsidise torturers and of ‘socialist’ states that threaten each other’s people with nuclear missiles.

Meanwhile, the establishment thinkers who so deride Marxist ideas chase each other round in a mad game of blind man’s buff, understanding nothing and explaining less.

But though Marxism is not difficult, there is a problem for the reader who comes across Marx’s writings for the first time. Marx wrote well over a century ago. He used the language of the time, complete with references to individuals and events then familiar to virtually everyone, now known only to specialist historians.

I remember my own bafflement when, while still at school, I tried to read his pamphlet [[Library:The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte|The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte]].

I didn’t know either what Brumaire was or who [[Louis Bonaparte]] was. How many socialists have abandoned attempts to come to grips with Marxism after such experiences!

This is the justification for this short book. It seeks to provide an introduction to Marxist ideas, which will make it easier for socialists to follow what Marx was on about and to understand the development of Marxism since then in the hands of [[Friedrich Engels|Frederick Engels]], [[Rosa Luxemburg]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Leon Trotsky]], and a whole host of lesser thinkers.<ref group="ProleWiki 1.">No less important, we can note as well: [[Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], [[Kim Il Sung]] and [[Deng Xiaoping]]. Trotsky himself was important to Marxism only as far as he provided an example of what not to do.</ref>

Much of this pamphlet first appeared as a series of articles in Socialist Worker under the title ‘Marxism Made Easy’. But I have added substantial fresh material. A little of this I have lifted wholesale from two previous attempts to provide a simple exposition of Marxist ideas: Duncan Hallas’s ''The Meaning of Marxism'' and Norwich SWP’s ‘''Marxist Education Series''’.

One final point. Space has prevented me from dealing in this pamphlet with some important parts of the Marxist analysis of the modern world. I have included a substantial further reading section at the back.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 1." />

== Why we need Marxist theory ==
What do we need theory for? We know there is a crisis. We know we are being robbed by our employers. We know we’re all angry. We know we need socialism. All the rest is just for the intellectuals.

You often hear words such as these from militant socialists and trade unionists. Such views are strongly encouraged by anti-socialists, who try to give the impression that Marxism is an obscure, complicated and boring doctrine.

Socialist ideas, they say, are ‘abstract’. They may seem all right in theory, but in real life common sense tells us something else entirely.

The trouble with these arguments is that the people who put them forward usually have a ‘theory’ of their own, even if they refuse to recognise it. Ask them any question about society, and they will try to answer it with some generalisation or other. A few examples: ‘People are naturally selfish.’ ‘Anyone can get to the top if they try hard enough.’ ‘If it weren’t for the rich there wouldn’t be any money to provide work for the rest of us.’ ‘If only we could educate the workers, society would change.’ ‘Declining morals have brought the country to its present state.’ Listen to any argument in the street, on the bus, in the canteen – you’ll hear dozens of such sayings.

Each and every one contains a view of why society is like it is and of how people can improve their condition. Such views are all ‘theories’ of society.

When people say they do not have a theory, all they really mean is they have not clarified their views.

This is particularly dangerous for anyone who is trying to change society. For the newspapers, the radio, the television, are all continually filling our minds with attempted explanations for the mess society is in. They hope we will accept what they say without thinking more about the issues.

But you cannot fight effectively to change society unless you recognise what is false in all these different arguments.

This was first shown 150 years ago. In the 1830s and 1840s the development of industry in areas such as the north west of England drew hundreds of thousands of men, women and children into miserably paid jobs. They were forced to endure living conditions of unbelievable squalor.

They began to fight back against this with the first mass workers’ organisations – the first trade unions, and in Britain the first movement for political rights for workers: [[Chartism]]. Alongside these movements were the first small groups of people dedicated to winning socialism.

Immediately the problem arose as to how the workers’ movement could achieve its aim.

Some people said it was possible to persuade society’s rulers to change things through peaceful means. The ‘moral force’ of a mass, peaceful movement would ensure that benefits were given to the workers. Hundreds of thousands of people organised, demonstrated, worked to build a movement on the basis of such views – only to end defeated and demoralised.<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">Known as [[utopian socialism]]; see [[Robert Owen]], [[Saint-Simon]], [[Charles Fourier]]. They believed that by building factories nicer to the employees, all other capitalists would be convinced to do the same when they saw how much nicer and productive these factories were. It did not work out.</ref>

Others recognised the need to use ‘physical force’, but thought this could be achieved by fairly small, conspiratorial groups cut off from the rest of society. These too led tens of thousands of workers into struggles that ended in defeat and demoralisation.<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">See [[Auguste Blanqui]]</ref>

Still others believed the workers could achieve their goals by economic action, without confronting the army and the police. Again, their arguments led to mass actions. In England in 1842 the world’s first general strike took place in the industrial areas of the north, with tens of thousands of workers holding out for four weeks until forced back to work by hunger and privation.

It was towards the end of the first stage of defeated workers’ struggles, in 1848, that the German socialist Karl Marx spelt out his own ideas fully, in his pamphlet [[Library:Manifesto of the Communist Party|The Communist Manifesto]].

His ideas were not pulled out of thin air. They attempted to provide a basis for dealing with all the questions that had been brought up by the workers’ movement of the time.

The ideas Marx developed are still relevant today. It is stupid to say, as some people do, that they must be out of date because Marx first wrote them down more than 150 years ago. In fact, all the notions of society that Marx argued with are still very widespread. Just as the Chartists argued about ‘moral force’ or ‘physical force’, socialists today argue about the ‘parliamentary road’ or the ‘revolutionary road’. Among those who are revolutionaries the argument for and against ‘terrorism’ is as alive as it was in 1848.

=== The idealists ===
Marx was not the first person to try to describe what was wrong with society. At the time he was writing, new inventions in factories were turning out wealth on a scale undreamt of by previous generations. For the first time it seemed humanity had the means to defend itself against the natural calamities that had been the scourge of previous ages.

Yet this did not mean any improvement in the lives of the majority of the people. Quite the opposite. The men, women and children who manned the new factories led lives much worse that those led by their grandparents who had toiled the land. Their wages barely kept them above the bread line; periodic bouts of mass unemployment thrust them well below it. They were crammed into miserable, squalid slums, without proper sanitation, subjected to monstrous epidemics.

Instead of the development of civilisation bringing general happiness and well being, it was giving rise to greater misery.

This was noted, not just by Marx, but by some of the other great thinkers of the period – men such as the English poets Blake and Shelley, the Frenchmen Fourier and [[Proudhon]], the German philosophers [[Hegel]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach|Feuerbach]].

Hegel and Feuerbach called the unhappy state in which humanity found itself ‘alienation’ – a term you still often hear. By alienation, Hegel and Feuerbach meant that men and women continually found that they were dominated and oppressed by what they themselves had done in the past. So, Feuerbach pointed out, people had developed the idea of God –and then had bowed down before it, feeling miserable because they could not live up to something they themselves had made. The more society advanced, the more miserable, ‘alienated’, people became.

In his own earliest writings Marx took this notion of ‘alienation’ and applied it to the life of those who created the wealth of society:<blockquote>The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range... With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men... The object which labour produces confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer...</blockquote>In Marx’s time the most popular explanations of what was wrong with society were still of a religious kind. The misery of society, it was said, was because of the failure of people to do what God wanted them to. If only we were all to ‘renounce sin’ everything would turn out all right.

A similar view is often heard today, although it usually purports to be non-religious. This is the claim that ‘to change society, you must first change yourself’. If only individual men and women would cure themselves of ‘selfishness’ or ‘materialism’ (or occasionally ‘hangups’) then society would automatically get better.

A related view spoke not of changing all individuals, but a few key ones – those who exercise power in society. The idea was to try to make the rich and powerful ‘see reason’.

One of the first British socialists, Robert Owen, began by trying to convince industrialists that they should be kinder to their workers. The same idea is still dominant today among the leaders of the Labour Party, including its left wing. Note how they always call the crimes of the employers ‘mistakes’, as if a bit of argument will persuade big business to relax its grip on society.

Marx referred to all such views as ‘[[Idealism|idealist]]’. Not because he was against people having ‘ideas’, but because such views see ideas as existing in isolation from the conditions in which people live.

People’s ideas are intimately linked to the sort of lives they are able to live. Take, for instance, ‘selfishness’. Present day capitalist society breeds selfishness – even in people who continually try to put other people first. A worker who wants to do their best for their children, or to give their parents something on top of their pension, finds the only way is to struggle continually against other people – to get a better job, more overtime, to be first in the queue for redundancy. In such a society you cannot get rid of ‘selfishness’ or ‘greediness’ merely by changing the minds of individuals.

It’s even more ridiculous to talk of changing society by changing the ideas of ‘top people’. Suppose you were successful in winning a big employer over to socialist ideas and he then stopped exploiting workers. He would just lose in competition with rival employers and be driven out of business.

Even for those who rule society what matters is not ideas but the structure of the society in which they hold those ideas.

The point can be put another way. If ideas are what change society, where do the ideas come from?

We live in a certain sort of society. The ideas put across by the press, the TV, the educational system and so on defend that sort of society. How has anyone ever been able to develop completely different ideas? Because their daily experiences contradict the official ideas of our society.

For example, you cannot explain why far fewer people are religious today than 100 years ago simply in terms of the success of atheistic propaganda. You have to explain why people listen to atheistic ideas in a way they did not 100 years ago.

Similarly, if you want to explain the impact of ‘great men’, you have to explain why other people agree to follow them. It is no good saying that, for example. Napoleon or Lenin changed history, without explaining why millions of people were willing to do what they suggested. After all, they were not mass hypnotists. Something in the life of society at a certain point led people to feel that what they suggested seemed correct.

You can only understand how ideas change history if you understand where those ideas come from and why people accept them. That means looking beyond the ideas to the material conditions of the society in which they occur. That is why Marx insisted, ‘It is not consciousness that determines being, but social being that determines consciousness.’

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 2." />

== Understanding history ==
Ideas by themselves cannot change society. This was one of Marx’s first conclusions. Like a number of thinkers before him, he insisted that to understand society you had to see human beings as part of the material world.

Human behaviour was determined by material forces, just like the behaviour of any other natural object. The study of humanity was part of the scientific study of the natural world. Thinkers with such views were called [[Materialism|materialists]].

Marx regarded materialism as a great step forward over the various religious and idealist notions of history. It meant that you could argue scientifically about changing social conditions, you no longer depended on praying to God or on ‘spiritual change’ in people.

The replacement of idealism by materialism was the replacement of mysticism by science. But not all materialist explanations of human behaviour are correct. Just as there have been mistaken scientific theories in biology, chemistry or physics, so there have been mistaken attempts to develop scientific theories of society. Here are a few examples: One very widespread, non-Marxist, materialist view holds that human beings are animals, who behave ‘naturally’ in certain ways. Just as it is in the nature of wolves to kill or in the nature of sheep to be placid, so it is in the nature of men to be aggressive, domineering, competitive and greedy (and, it is implied, of women to be meek, submissive, deferential and passive).

One formulation of this view is to be found in the best selling book ''The Naked Ape''. The conclusions that are drawn from such arguments are almost invariably reactionary. If men are naturally aggressive, it is said, then there is no point in trying to improve society. Things will always turn out the same. Revolutions will ‘always fail’.

But ‘human nature’ does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scientists first tried to give [[Lakota people|Sioux]] Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.

The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of ‘war’. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.

In our society it is regarded as ‘natural’ that parents should love and protect their children. Yet in the Ancient Greek city of Sparta it was regarded as ‘natural’ to leave infants out in the mountains to see if they could survive the cold.

‘Unchanging human nature’ theories provide no explanation for the great events of history. The pyramids of Egypt, the splendours of Ancient Greece, the empires of [[Roman Empire (27 BCE–395 CE)|Rome]] or the [[Realm of the Four Parts (1438–1533)|Incas]], the modern industrial city, are put on the same level as the illiterate [[Peasantry|peasants]] who lived in the mud hovels of the [[Feudalism|Dark Ages]]. All that matters is the ‘naked ape’ – not the magnificent civilisations the ape has built. It is irrelevant that some forms of society succeed in feeding the ‘apes’, while others leave millions to starve to death.

Many people accept a different materialist theory, which stresses the way it is possible to change human behaviour. Just as animals can be trained to behave differently in a circus to a jungle, so, say the supporters of this view, human behaviour can similarly be changed. If only the right people got control of society, it is said, then ‘human nature’ could be transformed.

This view is certainly a great step forward from the ‘naked ape’. But as an explanation of how society as a whole can be changed it fails. If everyone is completely conditioned in present-day society, how can anyone ever rise above society and see how to change the conditioning mechanisms? Is there some God-ordained minority that is magically immune to the pressures that dominate everyone else? If we are all animals in the circus, who can be the lion tamer?

Those who hold this theory either end up saying society cannot change (like the naked apers) or they believe change is produced by something outside society – by God, or a ‘great man’, or the power of individual ideas. Their ‘materialism’ lets a new version of idealism in through the back door.

As Marx pointed out, this doctrine necessarily ends up by dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. This ‘materialist’ view is often reactionary. One of the best known adherents of the view today is a right wing American psychologist called Skinner. He wants to condition people to behave in certain ways. But since he himself is a product of American capitalist society, his ‘conditioning’ merely means trying to make people conform to that society.

Another materialist view blames all the misery in the world on ‘population pressure’. (This is usually called Malthusian after Malthus, the English economist of the late 18th century who first developed it.) But it cannot explain why the United States, for instance, burns corn while people in India starve. Nor can it explain why 150 years ago there was not enough food produced in the US to feed 10 million people, while today enough is produced to feed 200 million.

It forgets that every extra mouth to feed is also an extra person capable of working and creating wealth.

Marx called all these mistaken explanations forms of ‘mechanical’ or ‘crude’ materialism. They all forget that as well as being part of the material world, human beings are also acting, living creatures whose actions change it.

=== The materialist interpretation of history ===
<blockquote>Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence – their food, shelter and clothing.</blockquote>With these words, Karl Marx first stressed what was distinct about his explanation of how society developed. Human beings are animals descended from ape-like creatures. Like other animals, their first concern is feeding themselves and protecting themselves from the climate.

The way other animals do this depends on their inherited biological make up. A wolf stays alive by chasing and killing its prey, in ways determined by its biologically inherited instincts. It keeps warm on cold nights because of its fur. It brings up its cubs according to inherited patterns of behaviour.

But human life is not fixed in this way. The humans who roamed the Earth 100,000 years ago or 30,000 years ago lived quite different lives from ourselves. They lived in caves and holes in the ground. They did not have any containers to keep food or water in, they depended for their food on collecting berries or throwing stones at wild animals. They could not write, or count beyond the fingers on their hands. They had no real knowledge of what went on beyond their immediate neighbourhood or what their forefathers had done.

Yet physically their make up 100,000 years ago was similar to that of modern man and 30,000 years ago it was identical. If you washed and shaved a caveman, put him in a suit and walked him down the high street, no one would think him out of place.

As the archaeologist C. Gordon Childe has noted:<blockquote>The earliest skeletons of our own species belong to the closing phases of the last Ice Age … Since the time when skeletons of Homo sapiens first appear in the geological record … man’s bodily evolution has come virtually to a standstill, although his cultural progress was just beginning.</blockquote>The same point is made by another archaeologist, Leakey:<blockquote>The physical differences between men of the Aurignacian and Magdalenian cultures (25,000 years ago) on the one hand, and present day men on the other is negligible, while the cultural difference is immeasurable.</blockquote>By ‘culture’ the archaeologist means the things which men and women learn and teach one another (how to make clothes from furs or wool, how to make pots out of clay, how to make fire, how to build homes, and so forth) as opposed to those things that animals know instinctively.

The lives of the earliest humans were already vastly different from those of other animals. For they were able to use the physical features peculiar to humans – large brains, forelimbs capable of manipulating objects – to begin to shape their surroundings to suit their needs. This meant humans could adapt themselves to a wide range of different conditions, without any change in their physical make up. Humans no longer simply reacted to conditions around them. They could act upon those conditions, beginning to change them to their own advantage.

At first they used sticks and stones to attack wild beasts, they lit torches from naturally occurring fires to provide themselves with heat and light, they covered themselves with vegetation and animal skins. Over many tens of thousands of years they learnt to make fire themselves, to shape stones using other stones, eventually to grow food from seeds they themselves had planted, to store it in pots made out of clay, and to domesticate certain animals.

Comparatively recently – a mere 5,000 years ago, out of half a million years of human history – they learnt the secret of turning ores into metals that could be shaped into reliable tools and effective weapons.

Each of these advances had an enormous impact, not merely in making it easier for humans to feed and clothe themselves, but also in transforming the very organisation of human life itself. From the beginning human life was social. Only the joint efforts of several humans could enable them to kill the beasts, to gather the food and keep the fires going. They had to cooperate.

This continual close cooperation also caused them to communicate, by uttering sounds and developing languages. At first the social groups were simple. There was not enough naturally growing produce anywhere to support groups of humans more than perhaps a couple of dozen strong. All effort had to be put into the basic tasks of getting the food, so everyone did the same job and lived the same sort of life.

With no means of storing any quantities of food, there could be no private property or class divisions, nor was there any booty to produce a motive for war.

There were, until a few years ago, still hundreds of societies in many different parts of the globe where this was still the pattern – among some of the Indians of North and South America, some of the peoples of Equatorial Africa and the Pacific Ocean, the Aborigines of Australia.

Not that these people were less clever than ourselves or had a more ‘primitive mentality’. The Australian Aborigines, for instance, had to learn to recognise literally thousands of plants and the habits of scores of different animals in order to survive. The anthropologist Professor Firth has described how: <blockquote>Australian tribes … know the habits, markings, breeding grounds and seasonal fluctuations of all the edible animals, fish and birds of their hunting grounds. They know the external and some of the less obvious properties of rocks, stones, waxes, gums, plants, fibres and barks; they know how to make fire; they know how to apply heat to relieve pain, stop bleeding and delay the putrefaction of fresh food; and they also use fire and heat to harden some woods and soften others … They know something at least of the phases of the moon, the movement of the tides, the planetary cycles, and the sequence and duration of the seasons; they have correlated together such climactic fluctuations as wind systems, annual patterns of humidity and temperature and fluxes in the growth and presence of natural species … In addition they make intelligent and economical use of the by-products of animals killed for food; the flesh of the kangaroo is eaten; the leg bones are used as fabricators for stone tools and as pins; the sinews become spear bindings; the claws are set into necklaces with wax and fibre; the fat is combined with red ochre as a cosmetic, and blood is mixed with charcoal as paint... They have some knowledge of simple mechanical principles and will trim a boomerang again and again to give it the correct curve...</blockquote>They were much more ‘clever’ than us in dealing with the problems of surviving in the Australian desert. What they had not learnt was to plant seeds and grow their own food – something our own ancestors learnt only about 5,000 years ago, after being on the Earth for 100 times that period.

The development of new techniques of producing wealth – the means of human life – has always given birth to new forms of cooperation between humans, to new social relations.

For example, when people first learnt to grow their own food (by planting seeds and domesticating animals) and to store it (in earthenware pots) there was a complete revolution in social life – called by archaeologists ‘the neolithic revolution’. Humans had to cooperate together now to clear the land and to harvest food, as well as to hunt animals. They could live together in much greater numbers than before, they could store food and they could begin to exchange goods with other settlements.

The first towns could develop. For the first time there was the possibility of some people leading lives that did not involve them just in providing food: some would specialise in making pots, some in mining flints and later metal for tools and weapons, some in carrying through elementary administrative tasks for the settlement as a whole. More ominously, the stored surplus of food provided a motive for war.

People had begun by discovering new ways of dealing with the world around them, or harnessing nature to their needs. But in the process, without intending it, they had transformed the society in which they lived and with it their own lives. Marx summed up this process: a development of the ‘forces of production’ changed the ‘relations of production’ and, through them, society.

There are many more recent examples. Some 300 years ago the vast majority of people in this country still lived on the land, producing food by techniques that had not changed for centuries. Their mental horizon was bounded by the local village and their ideas very much influenced by the local church. The vast majority did not need to read and write, and never learned to.

Then, 200 years ago, industry began to develop. Tens of thousands of people were drawn into the factories. Their lives underwent a complete transformation. Now they lived in great towns, not small villages. They needed to learn skills undreamt of by their ancestors, including eventually the ability to read and write. Railways and steamships made it possible to travel across half the Earth.

The old ideas hammered into their heads by the priests no longer fitted at all. The material revolution in production was also a revolution in the way they lived and in the ideas they had.

Similar changes are still affecting vast numbers of people. Look at the way people from villages in Bangladesh or Turkey have been drawn to the factories of England or Germany seeking work. Look at the way many find that their old customs and religious attitudes no longer fit.

Or look at the way in the past 50 years the majority of women have got used to working outside the home and how this has led them to challenge the old attitude that they were virtually the property of their husbands.

Changes in the way humans work together to produce the things that feed, clothe and shelter them cause changes in the way in which society is organised and the attitude of people in it. This is the secret of social change – of history – that the thinkers before Marx (and many since), the idealists and the mechanical materialists, could not understand.

The idealists saw there was change – but said it must come out of the skies. The mechanical materialists saw that humans were conditioned by the material world but could not understand how things could ever change. What Marx saw was that human beings are conditioned by the world around them, but that they react back upon the world, working on it so as to make it more habitable.

But in doing so they change the conditions under which they live and therefore themselves as well.

The key to understanding change in society lies in understanding how human beings cope with the problem of creating their food, shelter and clothing. That was Marx’s starting point. But that does not mean Marxists believe that improvements in technology automatically produce a better society, or even that inventions automatically lead to changes in society. Marx rejected this view (sometimes called technological determinism). Again and again in history, people have rejected ideas for advancing the production of food, shelter or clothing because these clash with the attitudes or the forms of society that already exist.

For example, under the Roman Empire there were many ideas about how to produce more crops from a given amount of ground, but people didn’t put them into effect because they required more devotion to work than you could get from slaves working under fear of the whip. When the British ruled Ireland in the 18th century they tried to stop the development of industry there because it clashed with the interests of businessmen in London.

If someone produced a method of solving the food problem of India by slaughtering the sacred cows or providing everyone in Britain with succulent steaks by processing rat meat, they would be ignored because of established prejudices.

Developments in production challenge old prejudices and old ways of organising society, but they do not automatically overthrow those old prejudices and social forms. Many human beings fight to prevent change – and those wanting to use new methods of production have to fight or change. If those who oppose change win, then the new forms of production cannot come into operation and production stagnates or even goes backwards.

In Marxist terminology: as the forces of production develop they clash with the pre-existing social relations and ideas that grew up on the basis of old forces of production. Either people identified with the new forces of production win this clash, or those identified with the old system do. In the one case, society moves forward, in the other it remains stuck in a rut, or even goes backwards.

== Class struggle ==
We live in a society that is divided into classes, in which a few people have vast amounts of private property, and most of us have virtually none. Naturally, we tend to take it for granted that things have always been like this. But in fact, for the greater part of human history, there were no classes, no private property, and no armies or police. This was the situation during the half a million years of human development up to 5,000 or 10,000 years ago.<ref group="ProleWiki 4.">See [[Primitive communism]]</ref>

Until more food could be produced by one person’s work than was needed to keep that person fit for work, there could be no division into classes. What was the point of keeping slaves if all that they produced was needed to keep them alive?

But beyond a certain point, the advance of production made class divisions not only possible but necessary. Enough food could be produced to leave a surplus after the immediate producers had taken enough to stay alive. And the means existed to store this food and to transport it from one place to another.

The people whose labour produced all this food could simply have eaten the extra ‘surplus’ food.

Since they lived fairly meagre, miserable lives, they were strongly tempted. But that left them unprotected against the ravages of nature, which might mean famine or a flood the next year, and against attacks from angry tribes from outside the area.

It was, at first, of great advantage to everyone if a special group of people took charge of this extra wealth, storing it against future disaster, using it to support craftsmen, building up means of defence, exchanging part of it with distant peoples for useful objects. These activities came to be carried out in the first towns, where administrators, merchants and craftsmen lived. Out of the markings on tablets used to keep a record of the different sorts of wealth, writing began to develop.

Such were the first, faltering steps of what we call ‘civilisation’. But – and it was a very big but – all this was based on control of the increased wealth by a small minority of the population. And the minority used the wealth for its own good as well as the good of society as a whole.

The more production developed, the more wealth came into the hands of this minority – and the more it became cut off from the rest of society. Rules, which began as a means of benefiting society, became ‘laws’, insisting that the wealth and the land that produced it was the ‘private property’ of the minority. A [[ruling class]] had come into existence – and laws defended its power.

You might perhaps ask whether it would have been possible for society to have developed otherwise, for those who laboured on the land to control its produce?

The answer has to be no. Not because of ‘human nature’, but because society was still very poor.

The majority of the Earth’s population were too busy scratching the soil for a meagre living to have time to develop systems of writing and reading, to create works of art, to build ships for trade, to plot the course of the stars, to discover the rudiments of mathematics, to work out when rivers would flood or how irrigation channels should be constructed. These things could only happen if some of the necessities of life were seized from the mass of the population and used to maintain a privileged minority which did not have to toil from sunrise to sunset.

However, that does not mean that the division into classes remains necessary today. The last century has seen a development of production undreamt of in the previous history of humanity.

Natural scarcity has been overcome – what now exists is artificial scarcity, created as governments destroy food stocks.

Class society today is holding humanity back, not leading it forward.

It was not just the first change from purely agricultural societies to societies of towns and cities that gave rise, necessarily, to new class divisions. The same process was repeated every time new ways of producing wealth began to develop.

So, in Britain 1,000 years ago, the ruling class was made up of feudal barons who controlled the land and lived off the backs of the serfs. But as trade began to develop on a big scale, there grew up alongside them in the cities a new privileged class of wealthy merchants. And when industry began to develop on a substantial scale, their power in turn was disputed by the owners of industrial enterprises.

At each stage in the development of society there was an oppressed class whose physical labour created the wealth, and a ruling class who controlled that wealth. But as society developed both the oppressed and the oppressors underwent changes.

In the slave society of Ancient Rome the slaves were the personal property of the ruling class. The slave owner owned the goods produced by the slave because he owned the slave, in exactly the same way as he owned the milk produced by a cow because he owned the cow.

In the feudal society of the Middle Ages the serfs had their own land, and owned what was produced from it; but in return for having this land they had to do a number of days work every year on the land owned by the feudal lord. Their time would be divided – perhaps half their time they would be working for the lord, half the time for themselves. If they refused to do work for the lord, he was entitled to punish them (through flogging, imprisonment or worse).

In modern capitalist society the boss does not physically own the worker nor is he entitled to physically punish a worker who refuses to do unpaid work for him. But the boss does own the factories where the worker has to get a job if he or she wants to keep alive. So it is fairly easy for him to force the worker to put up with a wage which is much less than the value of the goods the worker makes in the factory.

In each case the oppressing class gets control of all the wealth that is left over once the most elementary needs of the workers have been met. The slave owner wants to keep his property in a good condition, so he feeds his slave in exactly the same way as you might oil your car. But everything surplus to the physical needs of the slave, the owner uses for his own enjoyment. The feudal serf has to feed and clothe himself with the work he puts in on his own bit of land. All the extra labour he puts in on the lord’s fields goes to the lord.

The modern worker gets paid a wage. All the other wealth he creates goes to the employing class as profit, interest or rent.

=== The class struggle and the state ===
The workers have rarely accepted their lot without fighting back. There were slave revolts in Ancient Egypt and Rome, peasant revolts in Imperial China, civil wars between the rich and poor in the cities of Ancient Greece, in Rome and Renaissance Europe.

That is why Karl Marx began his pamphlet [[Library:Manifesto of the Communist Party|''The Communist Manifesto'']] by insisting, ‘The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggles.’ The growth of civilisation had depended on the exploitation of one class by another, and therefore on the struggle between them.

However powerful an Egyptian pharaoh, a Roman emperor or a medieval prince, however luxurious their lives, however magnificent their palaces, they could do nothing unless they guaranteed that the products grown by the most miserable peasant or slave passed into their possession. They could only do this if alongside the division into classes there also grew something else – control over the means of violence by themselves and their supporters.

In earlier societies there had been no army, police or governmental apparatus separate from the majority of the people. Even some 50 or 60 years ago, for instance, in parts of Africa, it was still possible to find societies in which this was still so. Many of the tasks done by the state in our society were simply done informally by the whole population, or by meetings of representatives.

Such meetings would judge the behaviour of any individual who was considered to have broken an important social rule. Punishment would be applied by the whole community – for instance by forcing miscreants to leave. Since everyone was agreed on the necessary punishment, separate police were not needed to put it into effect. If warfare occurred all the young men would take part, under leaders chosen for the occasion, again without any separate army structure.

But once you had a society in which a minority had control over most of the wealth, these simple ways of keeping ‘law and order’ and organising warfare could no longer work. Any meeting of representatives or any gathering of the armed young men would be likely to split along class lines.

The privileged group could only survive if it began to monopolise in its own hands the making and implementation of punishments, laws, the organisation of armies, the production of weapons. So the separation into classes was accompanied by the growth of groups of judges, policemen and secret policemen, generals, bureaucrats – all of whom were given part of the wealth in the hands of the privileged class in return for protecting its rule.

Those who served in the ranks of this ‘state’ were trained to obey without hesitation the orders of their ‘superiors’ and were cut off from all normal social ties with the exploited mass of people. The state developed as a killing machine in the hands of the privileged class. And a highly effective machine it could be.

Of course, the generals who ran this machine often fell out with a particular emperor or king, and tried to put themselves in his place. The ruling class, having armed a monster, could often not control it. But since the wealth needed to keep the killing machine running came from the exploitation of the working masses, every such revolt would be followed by continuation of society along the old lines.

Throughout history people who have really wanted to change society for the better have found themselves up against not just the privileged class, but also an armed machine, a state, that serves its interest.

Ruling classes, together with the priests, generals, policemen and legal systems that backed them up, all grew up in the first place because without them civilisation could not develop. But once they are established in power, they come to have an interest in hindering the further development of civilisation. Their power is dependent upon their ability to force those who produce wealth to hand it over to them. They become wary of new ways of producing wealth, even if more efficient than the old, lest control escape from their hands.

They fear anything that could lead to the exploited masses developing initiative and independence.

And they also fear the growth of new privileged groups with enough wealth to be able to pay for arms and armies of their own. Beyond a certain point, instead of aiding the development of production, they began to hinder it.

For example, in the Chinese Empire, the power of the ruling class rested upon its ownership of the land and its control over the canals and dams that were necessary for irrigation and to avoid floods.

This control laid the basis for a civilisation that lasted some 2,000 years. But at the end of this period production was not much more advanced than at the beginning – despite the flourishing of Chinese art, the discovery of printing and gunpowder, all at a time when Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages.

The reason was that when new forms of production did begin to develop, it was in towns, through the initiative of merchants and craftsmen. The ruling class feared this growth in power of a social grouping that was not completely under its control. So periodically the imperial authorities took harsh measures to crush the growing economies of the towns, to drive production down, and to destroy the power of the new social classes.

The growth of new forces of production – of new ways of producing wealth – clashed with the interests of the old ruling class. A struggle developed, the outcome of which determined the whole future of society.

Sometimes the outcome, as in China, was that new forms of production were prevented from emerging, and society remained more or less stagnant for very long periods of time.

Sometimes, as in the Roman Empire, the inability of new forms of production to develop meant that eventually there was no longer enough wealth being produced to maintain society on its old basis.

Civilisation collapsed, the cities were destroyed and people reverted to a crude, agricultural form of society.

Sometimes a new class, based upon a new form of production, was able to organise to weaken and finally overthrow the old ruling class, together with its legal system, its armies, its ideology, its religion. Then society could go forward.

In each case whether society went forwards or backwards<ref group="ProleWiki 4.">The author doesn't mean the general trend of how society progresses, but individual revolutions.</ref> depended on who won the war between the classes. And, as in any war, victory was not ordained in advance, but depended on the organisation, cohesion and leadership of the rival classes.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 4." />

== Capitalism – how the system began ==
One of the most ludicrous arguments you hear is that things could not be different to the way they are now. Yet things were different. And not on some distant part of the globe, but in this country, not so long ago. A mere 250 years ago people would have regarded you as a lunatic if you had described to them the world we live in now, with its huge cities, its great factories, its aeroplanes, its space expeditions – even its railway systems were beyond the bounds of their imagination.

For they lived in a society which was overwhelmingly rural, in which most people had never travelled ten miles outside their local village, in which the pattern of life was determined, as it had been for thousands of years, by the alternation of the seasons.

But already, 700 or 800 years ago, a development had begun which was eventually to challenge this whole system of society. Groups of craftsmen and traders began to establish themselves in towns, not giving their services for nothing to some lord as the rest of the population did, but exchanging products with various lords and serfs for foodstuffs. Increasingly they used precious metals as a measure of that exchange. It was not a big step to seeing in every act of exchange an opportunity to get a little extra of the precious metal, to make a profit.

At first the towns could only survive by playing one lord off against another. But as the skills of their craftsmen improved, they created more wealth, and they grew in influence. The ‘burghers’, the ‘bourgeois’ or the ‘middle classes’ began as a class within the [[Feudalism|feudal society]] of the Middle Ages.

But they obtained their riches in a quite different way to the feudal lords who dominated that society.

A feudal lord lived directly off the agricultural produce he was able to force his serfs to produce on his land. He used his personal power to make them do this, without having to pay them. By contrast the wealthier classes in the towns lived off the proceeds of selling non-agricultural goods. They paid workers wages to produce these for them, by the day or week.

These workers, often escaped serfs, were ‘free’ to come and go as they liked – once they had finished the work for which they had been paid. The ‘only’ compulsion on them to work was that they would starve if they did not find employment with someone. The rich could only grow richer because rather than starve, the ‘free’ worker would accept less money for his work than the goods he produced were worth.

We will return to this point later. For the present what matters is that the middle class burghers and the feudal lords got their wealth from quite different sources. This led them to want society organised in different ways.

The feudal lord’s ideal was a society in which he had absolute power in his own lands, unbound by written laws, with no intrusion from any outside body, with his serfs unable to flee. He wanted things to stay as in the days of his father and grandfather, with everyone accepting the social station into which they were born.

The newly rich bourgeoisie necessarily saw things differently. They wanted restraints on the power of individual lords or kings to interfere with their trade or steal their wealth.

They dreamed of achieving this through a fixed body of written laws, to be drawn up and enforced by their own chosen representatives. They wanted to free the poorer classes from serfdom, so that they could work (and increase the burghers’ profits) in the towns.

As for themselves, their fathers and grandfathers had often been under the thumb of feudal lords, and they certainly did not want that to continue.

In a word, they wanted to revolutionise society. Their clashes with the old order were not only economic, but also ideological and political. Ideological chiefly meant religious, in an illiterate society where the chief source of general ideas about society was church preaching.

Since the medieval church was run by bishops and abbots who were feudal lords in their own right, it propagated pro-feudal views, attacking as ‘sinful’ many of the practices of the urban bourgeoisie.

So in [[Holy Roman Empire (800–1806)|Germany]], [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Holland]], [[Kingdom of England (927–1707)|Britain]] and [[Kingdom of France (987–1792)|France]] in the 16th and 17th centuries the middle classes rallied to a religion of their own: [[Protestantism]] – a religious ideology that preached thrift, sobriety, hard work (especially for the workers!) and the independence of the middle class congregation from the power of bishops and abbots.

The middle class created a God in their image, in opposition to the God of the Middle Ages.

Today we are told at school or on television about the great religious wars and civil wars of that period as if they were just about religious differences, as if people were daft enough to fight and die merely because they disagreed over the role of the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Communion. But much more was at stake – the clash between two completely different forms of society, based upon two different ways of organising the production of wealth.

In Britain the bourgeoisie won. Horrific as it must seem to our present ruling class, their ancestors consecrated their power by cutting off a king’s head, justifying the act with the rantings of Old Testament prophets.

But elsewhere the first round went to feudalism. In France and Germany the Protestant bourgeois revolutionaries were wiped out after bitter civil wars (although a feudal version of Protestantism survived as the religion of northern Germany). The bourgeoisie had to wait two centuries and more before enjoying success, in second round that began without religious clothing in [[French Revolution|1789 Paris]].

=== Exploitation and surplus value ===
In [[Slavery|slave]] and feudal societies the upper classes had to have legal controls over the mass of the working population. Otherwise those who worked for the feudal lord or the slave owner would have run away, leaving the privileged class with no one to labour for it.

But the capitalist does not, usually, need such legal controls over the person of the worker. He doesn’t need to own him or her, provided he ensures that the worker who refuses to work for the capitalist will starve. Instead of owning the worker, the capitalist can prosper providing he owns and controls the worker’s source of livelihood – the machines and factories.

The material necessities of life are produced by the labour of human beings. But that labour is next to useless without tools to cultivate the land and to process naturally occurring materials. The tools can vary enormously – from simple agricultural implements such as ploughs and hoes to the complicated machines you find in modern automated factories. But without the tools even the most highly skilled worker is unable to produce the things needed for physical survival.

It is the development of these tools – usually referred to as ‘the means of production’ – that separates modern human beings from our distant ancestors of the Stone Age. Capitalism is based on the ownership of these means of production by a few people. In Britain today, for instance, 1 percent of the population owns 84 percent of the stocks and shares in industry. In their hands is concentrated effective control over the vast majority of the means of production – the machines, the factories, the oil fields, the best agricultural land. The mass of the population can only get a liveli- hood if the capitalists allow them to work at and with those means of production. This gives the capitalists immense power to exploit the labour of other people – even though in the eyes of the law ‘all men are equal’.

It took some centuries for the capitalists to build up their monopoly control over the means of production. In this country, for instance, the parliaments of the 17th and 18th centuries had first to pass a succession of Enclosure Acts, which drove peasants away from their own means of production, the land which they had cultivated for centuries. The land became the property of a section of the capitalist class and the mass of the rural population were forced to sell their labour to capitalists or starve.

Once capitalism had achieved this monopoly of the means of production, it could afford to let the mass of the population enjoy apparent freedom and equality of political rights with the capitalists.

For however ‘free’ the workers were, they still had to work for a living.

Pro-capitalist economists have a simple explanation of what then happens. They say that by paying wages the capitalist buys the labour of the worker. He must pay a fair price for it. Otherwise the worker will go and work for someone else. The capitalist gives a ‘fair day’s wage’. In return the worker should give a ‘fair day’s work’.

How then do they explain profit? This, they claim, is a ‘reward’ to the capitalist for his ‘sacrifice’ in allowing the means of production (his capital) to be put to use. It is an argument that can hardly convince any worker who gives it a moment’s thought.

Take a company that announces a ‘net rate of profit’ of 10 percent. It is saying that if the cost of all the machinery, factories and so on that it owns is £100 million, then it is left with £10 million profit after paying the wages, raw material costs and the cost of replacing the machinery that wears out in a year.

You don’t have to be a genius to see that after ten years the company will have made a total profit of £100 million – the full cost of its original investment.

If it is ‘sacrifice’ that is being rewarded, then surely after the first ten years all profits should cease.

For by then the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they put in in the first place. In fact, however, the capitalist is twice as wealthy as before. He owns his original investment and the accumulated profits.

The workers, in the meantime, have sacrificed most of their life’s energy to working eight hours a day, 48 weeks a year, in the factory. Are they twice as well off at the end of that time as at the beginning? You bet your boots they’re not. Even if a worker saves assiduously, he or she won’t be able to buy much more than a colour television set, a cheap central heating system or a second hand car. The worker will never raise the money to buy the factory he or she works in.

The ‘fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay’ has multiplied the capital of the capitalist, while leaving the worker with no capital and no choice but to go on working for roughly the same wage. The ‘equal rights’ of the capitalist and the worker have increased inequality.

One of Karl Marx’s great discoveries was the explanation for this apparent anomaly. There is no mechanism that forces a capitalist to pay his workers the full value of the work they do. A worker employed, for example, in the engineering industry today might create £400 of new output a week.

But that does not mean he or she will be paid this sum. In 99 cases out of 100, they will get paid considerably less.

The alternative they have to working is to go hungry (or live on the miserable sums handed out by the social security). So they demand not the full value of what they produce, but rather just enough to give them a more or less acceptable living standard. The worker is paid only enough to get him to put all his efforts, all his capacity for work (what Marx called his labour power) at the disposal of the capitalist each day.

From the capitalist’s point of view, providing the workers are paid enough to keep them fit for work and to bring up their children as a new generation of workers, then they are being paid a fair amount for their labour power. But the amount of wealth needed to keep workers fit for work is considerably less than the amount of wealth they can produce once working – the value of their labour power is considerably less than the value created by their labour.

The difference goes into the pocket of the capitalist. Marx called it ‘surplus value’.

=== The self expansion of capital ===
If you read the writing of apologists for the present system, you will soon notice that they share a strange belief. Money, according to them, has a magical property. It can grow like a plant or animal.

When a capitalist puts his money in a bank he expects it to increase in amount. When he invests it in the shares of ICI or Unilever he expects to be rewarded by offshoots of fresh money every year, in the form of dividend payments. Kari Marx noted this phenomenon, which he called the ‘self expansion of capital’, and set out to explain it. As we saw previously, his explanation began not with money, but with labour and the means of production. In present society, those with enough wealth can buy control of the means of production. They can then force everyone else to sell to them the labour needed to work the means of production. The secret of the ‘self expansion of capital’, of the miraculous capacity of money to grow for those who have plenty of it, lies in the buying and selling of this labour.

Let’s take the example of a worker, who we’ll call Jack, who gets a job with an employer, Sir Browning Browne. The work Jack can do in eight hours will create an additional amount of wealth – worth perhaps £48. But Jack will be willing to work for much less than this, since the alternative is social security. The efforts of pro-capitalist MPs, such as the obnoxious Tory Peter Lilley, ensure that he will only get £12 a day on social security to keep himself and his family. They explain that to give more would be to ‘destroy the incentive to work’.

If Jack wants to get more than £12 a day he has to sell his ability to work, his labour power, even if he is offered much less than the £48 worth of wealth he can create in eight hours. He will be willing to work for, perhaps, the average wage, £28 a day. The difference, £20 a day, goes into the pocket of Sir Browning. It is Sir Browning’s surplus value.

Because he had enough wealth to buy control of the means of production in the first place, Sir Browning Browne can guarantee growing richer by £20 a day for every worker he employs. His money keeps growing, his capital expanding, not because of some law of nature, but because his control of the means of production allows him to get someone else’s labour on the cheap.

Of course, Sir Browning does not necessarily have all the £20 to himself – he may rent the factory or the land, he may have borrowed some of his initial wealth from other members of the ruling class. They demand in return a cut of the surplus value. So perhaps he forks out £10 to them as rent, interest and dividend payments, leaving himself with only £10 profit.

Those who live off dividends have probably never seen Jack in their lives. Nevertheless, it was not the mystical power of pound coins that gave them their income, but the all too physical sweat of Jack. The dividend, the interest payments and the profit all came out of the surplus value.

What decides how much Jack gets for his work? The employer will try to pay as little as possible.

But in practice there are limits below which he cannot go. Some of these limits are physical – it is no good giving workers such miserable wages that they suffer from malnutrition and are unable to put any effort into their work. They also have to be able to travel to and from work, to have somewhere they can rest at night, so that they do not fall asleep over the machines.

From this point of view it is worth even paying for what the workers think of as ‘little luxuries’ – like a few pints in the evening, the television, the occasional holiday. These all make the worker more refreshed and capable of doing more work. They all serve to replenish his labour power. It is an important fact that where wages are ‘held too low’ the productivity of labour falls.

The capitalist has to worry about something else as well. His firm will be in business for many years, long after the present set of workers have died out. The firm will require the labour of their children. So they have to pay the workers enough to bring up their children. They also have to ensure that the state provides these children with certain skills (such as reading and writing) through the educational system.

In practice, something else matters as well – what the worker thinks is a ‘decent wage’. A worker who gets paid considerably less than this may well neglect his work, not worrying about losing his job since he thinks it is ‘useless’.

All these elements that determine his wage have one thing in common. They all go towards making sure he has the life energy, the labour power, that the capitalist buys by the hour. The workers are paid the cost of keeping themselves and their families alive and fit for work.

In present capitalist society, one further point has to be noted. Huge amounts of wealth are spent on such things as police forces and weapons. These are used in the interests of the capitalist class by the state. In effect, they belong to the capitalist class, although they are run by the state. The value which is spent on them belongs to the capitalists, not the workers. It too is part of the surplus value.

Surplus value = profit + rent + interest + spending on the police, army and so on.

== The labour theory of value ==
But machinery, capital, produces goods as well as labour. If so, it’s only fair that capital as well as labour gets a share of the wealth produced. Every ‘factor of production’ has to get its reward.

That is how someone who has been taught a little pro-capitalist economics replies to the Marxist analysis of exploitation and surplus value. And at first sight the objection seems to make some sense. For, surely, you cannot produce goods without capital?

Marxists have never argued that you could. But our starting point is rather different. We begin by asking: where does capital come from? How did the means of production come into existence in the first place?

The answer is not difficult to find. Everything people have used historically to create wealth – whether a Neolithic stone axe or a modern computer – once had to be made by human labour. Even if the axe was shaped with tools, the tools in turn were the product of previous labour.

That is why Karl Marx used to refer to the means of production as ‘[[Dead labor|dead labour]]’. When businessmen boast of the capital they possess, in reality they are boasting that they have gained control of a vast pool of the labour of previous generations – and that does not mean the labour of their ancestors, who laboured no more than they do now.

The notion that labour was the source of wealth – usually referred to as the ‘[[labour theory of value]]’ – was not an original discovery of Marx. All the great pro-capitalist economists until his time accepted it.

Such men, like the Scottish economist [[Adam Smith]] or the English economist [[David Ricardo]], were writing when the system of industrial capitalism was still fairly young – in the years just before and just after the French Revolution. The capitalists did not yet dominate and needed to know the real source of their wealth if they were ever to do so. Smith and Ricardo served their interests by telling them that labour created wealth, and that to build up their wealth they had to ‘free’ labour from the control of the old pre-capitalist rulers.

But it was not long before thinkers close to the working class began to turn the argument against the friends of Smith and Ricardo: if labour creates wealth, then labour creates capital. And the ‘rights of capital’ are no more than the rights of usurped labour.

Soon the economists who supported capital were pronouncing the labour theory of value to be a load of nonsense. But if you kick truth out the front door, it has a habit of creeping in the back.

Turn on the radio. Listen to it long enough and you will hear some pundit or other claim that what is wrong with the British economy is that ‘people do not work hard enough’ or, another way of saying the same thing, ‘productivity is too low’. Forget for a minute whether the argument is correct or not.

Instead look closely at the way it is put. They never say ‘machines do not work hard enough’. No, it is always people, the workers.

They claim that if only the workers worked harder, more wealth would be created, and that this would make possible more investment in new machinery. The people who use this argument may not know it, but they are saying that more work will create more capital. Work, labour, is the source of wealth.

Say I have a £5 note in my pocket. Why is that of use to me? After all, it’s only a piece of printed paper. Its value to me lies in the fact that I can get, in exchange for it, something useful that has been made by someone else’s labour. The £5 note, in fact, is nothing more than an entitlement to the products of so much labour. Two £5 notes are an entitlement to the products of twice as much labour, and so on.

When we measure wealth we are really measuring the labour that has been expended in creating it.

Of course, not everyone produces as much with their labour in a given time as everyone else. If I set out, for instance, to make a table, I might take five or six times as long as a skilled carpenter. But no one in their right mind would regard what I had made as five or six times as valuable as a table made by a skilled carpenter. They would estimate its value according to how much of the carpenter’s labour would be needed to make it, not mine.

Say it would take a carpenter an hour to make a table, then they would say that the value of the table to them was the equivalent of one hour’s labour. That would be the labour time necessary to make it, given the usual level of technique and skill in present society.

For this reason, Marx insisted that the measure of the value of something was not simply the time it took an individual to make it, but the time it would take an individual working with the average level of technology and the average level of skill – he called this average level of labour needed ‘the socially necessary labour time’. The point is important because under capitalism advances in technology are always taking place, which means that it takes less and less labour to produce goods.

For example, when radios were made with thermionic valves they were very expensive items, because it took a great deal of labour to make the valves, to wire them together and so on. Then the transistor was invented, which could be made and wired together with much less labour. Suddenly, all the workers in the factories still making valve radios found that the value of what they were producing slumped, for the value of radios was no longer determined by the labour time needed to make them from valves, but instead by the time needed to make them with transistors.

One final point. Prices of some goods fluctuate wildly – on a day-to-day or a week-to-week basis.

These changes can be caused by many other things besides changes in the amount of labour needed to make them.

When the frost in Brazil killed all the coffee plants the price of coffee shot up, because there was a shortage throughout the world and people were prepared to pay more. If tomorrow some natural catastrophe was to destroy all the televisions in Britain, there is no doubt the price of televisions would shoot up in the same way. What economists call ‘supply and demand’ continually causes such fluctuations in price.

For this reason, many pro-capitalist economists say that the labour theory of value is nonsense.

They say that only supply and demand matter. But that is nonsense. For this argument forgets that when things fluctuate they usually fluctuate around an average level. The sea goes up and down because of tides, but that doesn’t mean we cannot talk of a fixed point around which it moves, which we call ‘sea level’.

Similarly, the fact that prices go up and down from day to day does not mean that there are not fixed values around which they fluctuate. For instance, if all the televisions were destroyed, the first new ones to be produced would be very much in demand and fetch a high price. But it would not be long before more and more were on the market, competing with each other until the price was forced down close to their value in terms of the labour time needed to make them.

=== Competition and accumulation ===
There was a time when capitalism did seem like a dynamic and progressive system. For most of human history, the lives of most men and women have been dominated by drudgery and exploitation. Industrial capitalism did not change this when it made its appearance in the 18th and 19th centuries.

But it did seem to put this drudgery and exploitation to some useful purpose. Instead of wasting vast amounts of wealth on luxury for a few parasitic aristocrats or in building luxury tombs for dead monarchs or in futile wars over which son of an emperor should rule some God-forsaken hole, it used wealth to build up the means of creating more wealth. The rise of capitalism was a period of growth in industry, cities, means of transportation – on a scale undreamt of in previous human history.

Strange as it may seem today, places such as Oldham, Halifax and Bingley were the home of miracles. Humanity had never before seen so much raw cotton and wool turned so quickly into cloth to clothe millions. This did not happen because of any special virtues possessed by the capitalists. They were always rather noxious people, obsessed only with getting wealth into their own hands by paying as little as possible for the labour they used.

Many previous ruling classes had been like them in this respect without building up industry. But the capitalists were different in two important respects.

The first we have dealt with – that they did not own workers, instead paying them by the hour for their ability to work, their labour power. They used wage slaves, not slaves. Secondly, they did not themselves consume the goods their workers produced. The feudal landlord lived directly from the meat, bread, cheese and wine produced by his serfs. But the capitalist lived by selling to other people the goods produced by workers.

This gave the individual capitalist less freedom to behave as he pleased than the individual slave owner or feudal lord had. To sell goods, the capitalist had to produce them as cheaply as possible.

The capitalist owned the factory and was all-powerful within it. But he could not use his power as he wished. He had to bow down before the demands of competition with other factories.

Let’s go back to our favourite capitalist. Sir Browning Browne. Assume that a certain quantity of the cotton cloth produced in his factory took ten hours of workers’ time to turn out, but that some other factory could produce the same amount in five hours of workers’ time. Sir Browning would not be able to charge the price for it equivalent to ten hours of labour. No one in their right mind would pay this price when there was cheaper cloth just down the road.

Any capitalist who wanted to survive in business had to ensure that his workers worked as fast as possible. But that was not all. He also had to make sure that his workers were working with the most up to date machinery, so that their labour produced as many goods in an hour as did the labour of those working for other capitalists. The capitalist who wanted to stay in business had to make sure he owned ever greater amounts of means of production – or, as Marx put it, to accumulate capital!

The competition between capitalists produced a power, the market system, that had each and every one of them in its grip. It compelled them to speed up the work process all the time and to invest as much as they could afford in new machinery. And they could only afford the new machinery (and, of course, have their own luxuries on the side) if they kept workers’ wages as low as they could.

Marx writes in his major work, [[Library:Capital, vol. I|Capital]], that the capitalist is like a miser, obsessed with getting more and more wealth. But:<blockquote>What in the miser is mere idiosyncracy is, in the capitalist, the effect of a social mechanism in which he is but one of the wheels … The development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital in order to preserve it. But extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation. Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!</blockquote>Production does not take place to satisfy human need – even the human needs of the capitalist class – but in order to enable one capitalist to survive in competition with another capitalist. The workers employed by each capitalist find their lives dominated by the drive of their employers to accumulate faster than their rivals.

As Marx’s The Communist Manifesto put it:<blockquote>In bourgeois society living labour is but a means to accumulate dead labour … Capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.</blockquote>The compulsive drive for capitalists to accumulate in competition with one another explains the great rush forward of industry in the early years of the system. But something else resulted as well – repeated economic crisis. Crisis is not new. It is as old as the system itself.

== Economic crisis ==
<blockquote>''The accumulation of wealth on the one hand, of poverty on the other.''</blockquote>That was how Marx summed up the trend of capitalism. Every capitalist fears competition from every other, so he works his employees as hard as possible, paying wages as low as he can get away with.

The result is a disproportion between the massive growth of means of production on the one hand, and the limited growth in wages and the number of workers employed on the other. This, Marx insisted, was the basic cause of economic crisis.

The easiest way to look at this is to ask: who buys the greatly expanding quantity of goods? The low wages of the workers mean they cannot afford the goods produced by their own labour. And the capitalists cannot increase wages, because that would be to destroy profit, the driving force of the system.

But if firms cannot sell the goods they produce, they have to shutdown factories and sack workers.

The total amount of wages then falls still more, and yet more firms cannot sell their goods. A ‘crisis of overproduction’ sets in, with goods piling up throughout the economy that people cannot afford to buy.

This has been a recurrent feature of capitalist society for the past 160 years.

But any quick-witted apologist for the system will soon point out that there should be an easy way out of the crisis. All that’s needed is that capitalists invest their profit in new factories and machines. That will provide jobs for workers, who in turn will then be able to buy the unsold goods.

This means that as long as there’s new investment all the goods produced can be sold and the system can provide full employment.

Marx was no fool and recognised this. Indeed, as we’ve seen, he realised that the competitive pressure on capitalists to invest was central to the system. But, he asked, does this mean the capitalists will invest all their profits, all the time?

The capitalist will only invest if he thinks he is guaranteed a ‘reasonable’ profit.

If he doesn’t think there is such a profit to be made, he won’t risk his money in investment. He’ll put it in the bank and leave it there.

Whether the capitalist invests or not depends on how he assesses the economic situation. When it looks right, the capitalists all rush to invest at the same time, falling over each other searching for construction sites, buying up machines, scouring the earth for raw materials, paying over the odds for skilled labour.

This is usually called the ‘boom’.

But the frenzied competition for land, raw materials and skilled labour forces up the prices of these things. And suddenly a point is reached where some firms discover their costs have risen so much that all their profits have disappeared.

The investment boom all at once gives way to an investment ‘slump’. No one wants new factories – construction workers are sacked. No one wants new machines – the machine tool industry goes into crisis. No one wants all the iron and steel that is being produced – the steel industry is suddenly working ‘below capacity’ and becomes ‘unprofitable’. Closures and shutdowns spread from industry to industry, destroying jobs – and with them the ability of workers to buy the goods of other industries.

The history of capitalism is a history of such periodic lurches into crisis, into the insanity of unemployed workers going hungry outside empty factories, while stocks of ‘unwanted’ goods rot.

Capitalism creates these crises of overproduction periodically because there is no planning, so there’s no way to stop the stampede of capital into and out of investment all at once.

People used to think that the state could stop this. By intervening in the economy, increasing state investment when private investment was low, then reducing it when private investment caught up, the state would keep production on an even keel. But nowadays state investment too is part of the lunacy.

Look at British Steel. Some years ago, when the firm was still nationalised, steel workers were told their jobs were being scrapped to make way for vast modern automatic furnaces designed to produce more steel more cheaply. Now they are being told that yet more workers must lose their jobs – because Britain was not the only country to embark on these massive investment plans.

France, Germany, the United States, Brazil, Eastern Europe, even South Korea, all did the same.

Now there’s a world surplus of steel – a crisis of overproduction. State investment is being cut.

Steel workers, of course, suffer both ways. This is the price humanity is still paying for an economic system where the production of massive wealth is controlled by a small privileged group interested only in profit. It does not matter whether these small privileged groups own industry directly, or control it indirectly through their control of the state (as with British Steel). While they use this control to compete with each other for the largest share of the profits, whether nationally or internationally, it is the workers who suffer.

The final lunacy of the system is that the ‘crisis of overproduction’ is not overproduction at all. All that ‘surplus’ steel, for instance, could help solve world hunger. Peasants around the world have to plough the land with wooden ploughshares – steel ploughshares would increase food production.

But the peasants have no money anyway, so the capitalist system isn’t interested – there’s no profit to be made.

=== Why crises tend to get worse ===
Crises do not just take place with monotonous regularity. Marx also predicted they would get worse as time went on.

Even if investment took place at an even rate, without fits and starts, it could not stop the overall trend towards crisis. This is because the competition between capitalists (and capitalist nations) forces them to invest in labour saving equipment.

In Britain today almost all new investments are designed to cut the number of workers employed.

That is why there we fewer workers in British industry today than ten years ago, even though output has increased over that time.

Only by ‘rationalising production’, by ‘increasing productivity’ and by cutting the workforce can one capitalist get a bigger share of the cake than another. But the result for the system as a whole is devastating. For it means that the number of workers does not increase at anything like the same speed as investment.

Yet it is the labour of workers that is the source of the profits, the fuel that keeps the system going. If you make bigger and bigger investments, without a corresponding increase in the source of profits, you are heading for a breakdown – just as surely as if you expected to drive a Jaguar on the amount of petrol needed to keep a Mini going.

That is why Marx argued 100 years ago that the very success of capitalism in piling up huge investments in new equipment led to a ‘[[Tendency of the rate of profit to fall|tendency of the rate of profit to decline]]’ which means ever-worsening crises.

His argument can be applied very simply to capitalism today. Instead of the old picture of ‘bad times’ turning into ‘good times’, of slumps turning into booms, we seem to be in a never ending slump. Any spell of upturn, any drop in unemployment, is limited and short lived.

Apologists for the system say this is because investment is not high enough. Without new investment there are no new jobs, without new jobs there’s no money to buy new goods. So far, we can agree with them – but we don’t agree with their explanation of why this is happening.

They blame wages. Wages are too high, they say, which cuts profits to the bone. Capitalists are frightened to invest because they won’t get ‘sufficient reward’.

But the crisis has continued through long years in which government pay policies have cut workers’ living standards and pushed profits up. The years 1975-78 saw the biggest cut in workers’ living standards this century, while the rich grew richer – the top 10 percent pushed up their share of the national cake from 57.8 percent in 1974 to 60 percent in 1976.

There still isn’t enough investment to end the crisis – and that goes not just for Britain but for other countries where wages have been cut back, for France, for Japan, for Germany.

We would do better to listen to what Karl Marx said 100 years ago than to listen to those who apologise for capitalism today.

Marx predicted that as capitalism got older, its crises would get worse because the source of profit, labour, does not increase nearly as rapidly as the investment needed to put labour to work. Marx wrote when the value of the plant and machinery needed to employ each worker was fairly low. It has shot up since then, until today it can be £20,000 or even £30,000. Competition between capitalist firms has forced them to use ever bigger and evermore expensive machinery. The point has been reached where, in most industries, it is taken for granted that new machinery means fewer workers.

The international economic agency OECD has predicted that employment in the world’s major economies will fall, even if by some miracle investment soars.

Which it won’t. Because capitalists care about their profit, and if their investment increases fourfold but their profit only doubles, they get really upset. Yet this is what must happen if industry grows more quickly than the source of profit, labour.

As Marx put it, the rate of profit will tend to fall. He predicted that a point would eventually be reached at which any new investment would seem a perilous venture. The scale of expenditure needed for new plant and machinery would be colossal, but the rate of profit would be lower than ever before. When this point was reached, each capitalist (or capitalist state) would fantasise about huge new investment programmes – but be afraid to make them for fear of going bust.

The world economy today is very much like that. Rover plans new production lines – but fears it will lose money. British Steel dreams of those big plants it planned – but have to keep them on ice because it cannot sell its present output. The Japanese shipbuilders have given up investing in new yards – and some of the old ones are being shut down.

The very success of capitalism in building ever vaster and more productive machinery has brought the system to the point of seemingly permanent crisis.

A point was reached in the slave societies of the ancient world and the feudal societies of the Middle Ages where either a revolution would transform society or it would enter a permanent crisis that would drive it backwards. In the case of Rome, the lack of a revolution led precisely to the destruction of Roman civilisation and to the Dark Ages. In the case of some feudal societies – Britain and, later, France – revolution destroyed the old order and enabled new social advance to take place, under capitalism.

Now capitalism itself faces the choice between permanent crisis, which eventually will plunge humanity back into barbarism through poverty and war, or a socialist revolution.

== The working class ==
Marx began The Communist Manifesto with the statement, ‘The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggles.’ The question of how the ruling class was to force the oppressed class to keep producing wealth for it was crucial. Because of this, in every previous society, there had been enormous struggles between the classes which often culminated in civil war – the slave uprisings in Ancient Rome, the peasant uprisings in medieval Europe, the great civil wars and revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries.

In all of these great struggles, the mass of the insurgent forces were from the most oppressed section of society. But, as Marx hastened to add, at the end of the day all their efforts served only to replace one privileged ruling minority with another. So, for example, in [[History of China|Ancient China]] there were several successful peasant revolts – but they merely replaced one emperor with another. Similarly, those who made the greatest effort in the [[French Revolution of 1789|French Revolution]] were the ‘bras nus’ – the poorer classes of Paris, but at the end of the day society was ruled not by them but by bankers and industrialists instead of the king and courtiers.

There were two main reasons for this failure of the lower classes to keep control of the revolutions in which they fought.

Firstly, the general level of wealth in society was fairly low. It was only because the vast mass of people were kept in abysmal poverty that a small minority had time and leisure to develop the arts and sciences to maintain civilisation. In other words, class division was necessary if society was to progress.

Secondly, the life of the oppressed classes did not prepare them to run society. By and large they were illiterate, they had little idea of what things were like outside their own immediate locality, and, above all, their everyday life divided each of them against the other. Each peasant was concerned with cultivating his own plot of land. Each craftsman in the town ran his own small business and was to some extent in competition with other craftsmen, not united with them.

Peasant revolts would start with vast numbers of people rising up to divide the land of the local feudal lords, but once the lord was defeated they would fall to squabbling among themselves about how they would divide the land. As Marx put it, peasants were like ‘potatoes in a sack’; they could be forced together by some outside power but were not capable of linking permanently to represent their own interests.

The workers who create the wealth under modern capitalism differ from all the previous lower classes. Firstly, the division of classes is no longer necessary for human progress. So much wealth is created that capitalist society itself periodically destroys huge quantities through wars or economic crises. It could be divided up equally and society could still have a flowering of science, arts and so forth.

Secondly, life under capitalism prepares workers in many ways to take control of society. For example, capitalism needs workers who are skilled and educated. Also capitalism forces thousands of people into huge workplaces in huge conurbations where they are in close contact with one another, and where they can be a powerful force for changing society.

Capitalism makes workers cooperate in production within the factory, and those cooperative skills can easily be turned against the system, as when workers organise themselves into unions. Because they are massed together in huge concentrations it is much easier for workers to democratically control such bodies than it was for previously oppressed classes.

Furthermore, capitalism tends increasingly to turn groups of people who thought of themselves as a ‘cut above’ ordinary workers (such as clerks or technicians) into wage labourers who are forced to organise unions and so on as other workers do.

Lastly, the development of communications – railways, roads, air transport, postal systems, telephones, radio and television – allows workers to communicate outside their own locality or industry. They can organise as a class on a national and international scale – something beyond the wildest dreams of previous oppressed classes.

All these facts mean that the working class can not only be a force which rebels against existing society, but can organise itself, (electing and controlling its own representatives, so as to change society in its own interest, and not just to set up yet another emperor or group of bankers. As Karl Marx put it:<blockquote>All previous historical movements were movements of minorities in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.</blockquote>

== How can society be changed? ==
In Britain the overwhelming majority of socialists and trade unionists have generally argued that society can be transformed without violent revolution. All that is needed, they say, is for socialists to win enough popular support to gain control of the ‘traditional’ political institutions – parliament and the local councils. Then socialists will be in a position to change society by getting the existing state – the civil service, the judiciary, the police, the armed forces – to enforce laws to curtail the power of the employing class.

In this way, it has been claimed, socialism can be introduced gradually and without violence, by reforming the present set up.

This view is usually referred to as ‘reformism’, although occasionally you will hear it referred to as ‘revisionism’ (because it involves revising Marx’s ideas completely), ‘social democracy’ (although until 1914 that meant revolutionary socialism) or Fabianism (after the Fabian Society which has long propagated the reformist view in Britain). It is a view accepted by the left as well as the right of the Labour Party.

Reformism seems, at first sight, very plausible. It fits with what we are told at school, in the papers and on television – that ‘parliament runs the country’ and that ‘parliament is elected according to the democratic wishes of the people’. Yet despite that, every attempt to introduce socialism through parliament has ended in failure. Thus there were three majority Labour governments in Britain between 1945 and 1979 – with massive majorities in 1945 and 1966 – yet we are no nearer socialism than in 1945.

The experience abroad is the same. In Chile in 1970, the socialist Salvador Allende was elected president. People claimed that this was a ‘new way’ to move to socialism. Three years later the generals who had been asked to join the government overthrew Allende and the Chilean working class movement was destroyed.

There are three interconnected reasons why reformism must always fail.

Firstly, while socialist majorities in parliaments are ‘gradually’ introducing socialist measures, real economic power continues to lie in the hands of the old ruling class. They can use this economic power to shut down whole sections of industry, to create unemployment, to force up prices through speculation and hoarding, to send money abroad so creating a ‘balance of payments’ crisis, and to launch press campaigns blaming all this on the socialist government.

Thus Harold Wilson’s Labour government was forced in 1964 and again in 1966 to drop measures which would have benefited workers – by the wholesale movement of money abroad by wealthy individuals and companies. Wilson himself describes in his memoirs how:<blockquote>We had now reached the situation where a newly elected government was being told by international speculators that the policy on which we had fought the election could not be implemented... The queen’s first minister was being asked to bring down the curtain on parliamentary democracy by accepting the doctrine that an election in Britain was a farce, that the British people could not make a choice between policies.</blockquote>It only needs to be added that, despite Wilson’s alleged indignation, for the next six years he did indeed follow the sort of policies demanded by the speculators.

The same deliberate creation of balance of payments crises forced the Labour government elected in 1974 to introduce three consecutive sets of cuts in public spending in hospitals, schools and social services.

Allende’s government in Chile faced even greater disruption at the hands of big business. Twice, whole sections of industry were shut down by ‘bosses’ strikes’, as speculation increased prices to an enormous level and hoarding of goods by businessmen caused queuing for the necessities of life.

The second reason capitalism cannot be reformed is that the existing state machine is not ‘neutral’, but designed, from top to bottom, to preserve capitalist society.

The state controls nearly all the means of exercising physical force, the means of violence. If the organisations of the state were neutral, and did whatever any particular government told them, whether capitalist or socialist, then the state could be used to stop sabotage of the economy by big business. But look at the way the state machine operates and who really gives the orders, and you can see it is not neutral.

The state machine is not simply the government. It is a vast organisation with many different branches – the police, the army, the judiciary, the civil service, the people who run the nationalised industries and so on. Many of the people who work in these different branches of the state come from the working class – they live and get paid like workers.

But it is not these people who make the decisions. The rank and file soldiers don’t decide where wars are going to be fought or whether strikes are going to be broken; the counter clerk in the social security office does not decide how much dole will be paid out. The whole state machine is based on the principle that people on one rung of the ladder obey those on the rung above.

This is essentially the case in the sections of the state machine that exercise physical force – army, navy, air force, police. The first thing soldiers are taught when they enlist – long before they are allowed to touch weapons – is to obey orders, regardless of their personal opinions of those orders.

That is why they are taught to do absurd drills. If they will follow lunatic commands on the parade ground without thinking about it, it is reckoned they will shoot when ordered to without thinking about that either.

The most heinous crime in any army is a refusal to obey orders – mutiny. So seriously is the offence regarded, that mutiny during time of war is still punishable by execution in Britain. Who gives the orders?

If you look at the chain of command in the British army (and other armies are no different) it goes: general – brigadier – colonel – lieutenant – NCO – private. At no stage in that chain of command do elected representatives – MPs or local councillors – get a look in. It is just as much an act of mutiny for a group of privates to obey their local MP rather than the officer. The army is a massive killing machine. The people who run it – and have the power to promote other soldiers into commanding positions – are the generals.

Of course, in theory the generals are responsible to the elected government. But soldiers are trained to obey generals, not politicians. If generals choose to give orders to their soldiers which are at variance with the wishes of an elected government, the government cannot countermand those orders. It can only try to persuade the generals to change their minds. The government knows the sorts of orders that are being given – because military affairs are invariably secret, it is very easy for generals to hide what they are doing from governments they don’t like.

That doesn’t always mean that generals always, or even usually, ignore what governments say to them. Usually in Britain they have found it convenient to go along with most of what the government suggests. But, in a life and death situation, the generals are able to put their killing machine into operation without listening at all to the government, and there is little the government can do about it. This is what the generals eventually did in Chile when Allende was overthrown.

So the question, ‘Who runs the army?’ is really, ‘Who are the generals?’ In Britain about 80 percent of the senior officers went to fee-paying ‘public’ schools – the same proportion as 50 years ago (17 years of Labour government didn’t change that). They are related to the owners of big business, belong to the same posh clubs, mix at the same social functions, share the same ideas (if you doubt this, look at the letters column in virtually any copy of the Daily Telegraph). The same goes for the heads of the civil service, the judges, the chief constables.

Do you think these people are going to obey government orders to take economic power away from their friends and relatives in big business, just because 330 people walk into a lobby in the House of Commons? Would they not be much more likely to copy the example of the Chilean generals, judges and senior civil servants, who sabotaged the government’s orders for three years and then, when the time was ripe, overthrew it?

In practice the particular ‘constitution’ we have in Britain means that those who control the state machine would be able to thwart the will of an elected left wing government far short of physically overthrowing it. If such a government were elected, it would be faced with massive economic sabotage by the employing class (factory closures, flights of money abroad, hoarding of necessities, inflationary price rises). If the government attempted to deal with such sabotage using ‘constitutional means’ – by passing laws – it would find its hands tied behind its back.

The House of Lords would certainly refuse to ratify any such law – delaying it for nine months at a minimum. The judges would ‘interpret’ any law passed in such a way as to curtail its powers. The civil service chiefs, the generals and the police chiefs would use the decisions of the judges and the House of Lords to justify their own unwillingness to do what ministers told them. They would be backed by virtually the whole press, which would scream that the government was behaving ‘illegally’ and ‘unconstitutionally’. The generals would then use such language to justify preparations to overthrow an 'illegal’ government.

The government would be powerless to deal with the economic chaos – unless it really did act unconstitutionally and called upon rank and file civil servants, police and soldiers to turn against their superiors.

Lest anyone thinks this is all wild fantasy, it should be added that there have been at least two occasions in recent British history when generals have sabotaged government decisions they did not like.

In 1912 the House of Commons passed a bill providing for a ‘Home Rule’ parliament to run a united Ireland. The Tory leader, Bonar Law, immediately denounced the (Liberal!) government as an illegal ‘junta’ who had ‘sold the constitution’. The House of Lords naturally delayed the law as long as it could (two years then), while former Tory minister Edward Carson organised a paramilitary force in the north of Ireland to resist the law.

When the generals who commanded the British army in Ireland were told to move their troops northwards to deal with this force, they refused and threatened to resign their commissions. It was because of this action, usually called the ‘Curragh Mutiny’, that Ireland north and south didn’t get a single parliament in 1914, and remains a divided nation even today.

In 1974 there was a rerun of the events of 1912 in miniature. The right wing sectarian Loyalists of Northern Ireland organised a general stoppage of industry, using barricades to prevent people going to work, against being forced to accept a joint Protestant-Catholic government in Northern Ireland.

British ministers called on the British army and the Northern Ireland police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to dismantle the barricades and end the strike. The senior army officers and the police commanders told the government that this would be inadvisable, and neither soldiers nor police moved against the Loyalists. The joint Protestant-Catholic government was forced to resign, the views of army officers proving more powerful than the views of the British government.

If that could happen in 1914 and 1974 with middle-of-the-road governments trying to push through mild measures, imagine what would happen if a militant socialist government was elected. Any serious reformist majority in parliament would soon be forced to make a choice: either abandon reforms in order to placate those who own industry and control the key positions in the state, or prepare for an all out conflict, which will inevitably mean the use of some kind of force, against those who control those positions.

The third reason why reformism is a dead end is that parliamentary ‘democracy’ contains inbuilt mechanisms for preventing any revolutionary movement finding expression through it.

Some reformists argue that the best way to take on the power of those who control the key positions in the state machine is for the left to obtain a majority in parliament first. This argument falls because parliaments always understate the level of revolutionary consciousness of the mass of the population.

The mass of the people will only believe that they themselves can run society when they begin in practice to change society through struggle. It is when millions of people are occupying their factories or taking part in a general strike that ideas of revolutionary socialism suddenly seem realistic.

But such a level of struggle cannot be maintained indefinitely unless the old ruling class is removed from power. If it hangs on, it will wait until the occupations or strikes decline, then use its control over the army and police to break the struggle.

And once the strikes or occupations begin to falter, the feeling of unity and confidence among the workers begins to wane. Demoralisation and bitterness set in. Even the best begin to feel that changing society was just a wild dream.

That is why employers always prefer strike votes to be taken when workers are at home by themselves, getting their ideas from the television and the newspapers, not when they are united at mass meetings, able to hear other workers’ arguments.

That is also why anti-union laws nearly always include a clause forcing workers to call off strikes while secret, postal ballots are taken. Such clauses are accurately called ‘cooling off’ periods – they are designed to pour cold water on the confidence and unity of workers.

The parliamentary electoral system contains built in secret ballots and cooling off periods. For instance, if a government is brought to its knees by a massive strike, it is likely to say, ‘OK, wait three weeks until a general election can resolve the question democratically.’ It hopes that in the interim the strike will be called off. The workers’ confidence and unity will then fade. Employers may well be able to blacklist militants. The capitalist press and the television can begin functioning normally again, hammering home pro-government ideas. The police can arrest ‘troublemakers’.

Then when the election finally takes place, the vote will not reflect the high point of the workers’ struggles, but the low point after the strike.

In France in 1968, the government of General de Gaulle used elections in precisely this way. The reformist workers’ parties and unions told workers to end their strikes, and de Gaulle won the election.

The British Prime Minister Edward Heath tried the same trick when faced with a massively successful miners’ strike in 1974. But this time the miners were not conned. They kept their strike up – and Heath lost the election.

If workers wait for elections to decide the key issues in the class struggle, they will never reach that high point.

=== The workers’ state ===
Marx, in his pamphlet The Civil War in France, and Lenin in The State and Revolution outlined a completely different view of how socialism can be won. Neither simply pulled these ideas out of thin air: both developed their views by seeing the working class in action – Marx saw the Paris Commune, Lenin the Russian ‘Soviets’ (workers’ councils) of 1905 and 1917.

But Marx and Lenin insisted that the working class could not begin to construct socialism until it had first destroyed the old state based on bureaucratic chains of command, and secondly created a new state based on entirely new principles. Lenin underlined how completely different this state had to be from the old by calling it ‘a commune state, a state which is not a state’.<ref group="ProleWiki 9.">We've been unable to find this quote outside of this work.</ref>

A new state, Marx and Lenin said, was necessary if the working class was to impose its dictates on the remnants of the old ruling and middle classes. That was why they called it the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ – the working class had to dictate how society was to be run. It also had to defend its revolution against attacks from ruling classes elsewhere in the world. To do these two jobs, it had to have armed forces of its own, some form of policing of society, courts, even prisons.

But if this new army, police and legal system was to be controlled by the workers, and never turn against their interests, it had to be based on completely different principles from the capitalist state.

It had to be the means by which the working class as a majority dictated to the rest of society, not a dictatorship directed against the majority of the working class.

The main differences are these.

The capitalist state serves the interests of a small minority of society. The workers’ state has to serve the interests of the overwhelming majority. Force in the capitalist state is exercised by a minority of hired killers, cut off from the rest of society and trained to obey upper class officers.

But in a workers’ state, force would be needed only so the majority could protect themselves against anti-social acts by the remnants of the old privileged classes.

Soldiering and policing in a workers’ state can be done by ordinary workers, who mix freely with their fellow workers, share the same ideas and lead the same lives. Indeed, to make sure that groups of soldiers and police never develop separated from the mass of workers, the ‘soldiers’ and ‘police’ should be ordinary factory and office workers who take it in turns, on a rota system, to carry out these functions.

Instead of the armed forces and police being run by a small group of officers, they would be run by directly elected representatives of the mass of workers.

Parliamentary representatives in a capitalist state pass laws but leave it to full time bureaucrats, police chiefs and judges to implement them. This means that MPs and councillors can always hide behind a million excuses when their promises are not implemented. The workers’ representatives in a workers’ state would have to see their laws put into action. They, not an elite of top bureaucrats, would have to explain to the workers of the civil service, the army and so on how things should be done.

Again elected workers’ representatives would have to interpret the laws in courts.

Parliamentary representatives in a capitalist state are cut off from those who elect them by high salaries. In a workers’ state the representatives would get no more than the average workers’ wage.

The same goes for those who work full time in key posts implementing the decisions of the workers’ representatives (the equivalent of present-day civil servants).

Workers’ representatives, and all those concerned with implementing workers’ decisions, would not be, as MPs, immune to removal from office for five years (or for life in the case of senior civil servants). They would be subject to at least annual elections, and to immediate recall by those who elected them if they did not implement their wishes.

Parliamentary representatives are elected by all the people living in a certain locality – upper class, middle class and working class, slum landlords as well as tenants, stockbrokers as well as labourers.

In a workers’ state election would be by those who work only, with voting only after open discussion on the issues concerned. So the core of the workers’ state would be workers’ councils based on the factories, mines, docks, big offices, with groups such as housewives, pensioners, school students and students having their own representatives.

In this way, each section of the working class would have its own representative and be able directly to judge whether he or she was following their interests. In these ways, the new state cannot become a force separate from and against the majority working class – as it was in Eastern Bloc countries which called themselves ‘Communist’.

At the same time, the workers’ council system provides a means by which workers can coordinate their efforts in running industry according to a democratically decided national plan, and not end up running their factories in competition with each other. It is easy to see how modem computer technology would enable all workers to be given information on the various economic options open to society, and to direct their representatives to choose what the majority of workers thought the best set of options – for example, whether to spend resources on Concorde or on a cheap and reliable public transport system, whether to build nuclear bombs or kidney machines, and so on.

=== The withering away of the state ===
Because state power would not be something separate from the mass of the workers, it would be much less a matter of coercion than under capitalism. As the remnants of the old society against which it was directed became resigned to the success of the revolution, and as revolutions removed foreign ruling classes, there would be less and less need for coercion, until eventually workers need never take time off from work to staff the ‘police’ and the ‘army’.

This is what Marx and Lenin meant when they said the state would wither away. Instead of coercion against people, the state would become merely a mechanism of workers’ councils to decide how to produce and allocate goods.

Workers’ councils have come into being in one form or another whenever the struggle between the classes within capitalism has reached a really high level. ‘Soviet’ is the word the Russians used for workers’ councils in 1905 and 1917.

In 1918 in Germany workers’ councils were, briefly, the only power in the country.<ref name=":0" group="ProleWiki 9.">This is in reference to the German November Revolution of 1918-1919. When the nascent and not fully developed Communist Party of Germany led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht led a failed attempt to overthrow the newly formed Weimar Republic.</ref> In Spain in 1936 the various workers’ parties and unions were united by ‘militia committees’ which ran the localities and were very much like workers’ councils. In Hungary in 1956 the workers elected councils to run the factories and the localities as they fought Russian troops.<ref group="ProleWiki 9.">It must be noted the [[Hungarian counterrevolution of 1956|1956 Hungarian counter-revolution]] was a fascist uprising and attempt at a [[color revolution]]. They also did not fight 'Russian' troops but the ''Soviet'' [[Red Army]], in which there were Hungarian soldiers.</ref> In Chile in 1972-73 the workers began to build ‘cordones’ – workers’ committees that linked the big factories.

The workers’ council begins life as a body workers use to coordinate their struggle against capitalism. It may start with modest functions, raising strike funds maybe, but because these bodies are based on direct election from the workers, with workers’ representatives subject to recall, they can at the highest points in the struggle coordinate the efforts of the whole working class. They can lay the basis for workers’ power.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 9." />

== How do workers become revolutionary? ==
In Britain most workers this century have looked to the Labour Party and parliament to change society. A large minority have backed the reactionary ideas of the Tory party. The supporters of revolutionary socialism have generally been few in number.

This indifference or even opposition of workers to revolutionary socialism is hardly surprising. We have all been brought up in a capitalist society where it is taken for granted that everyone is selfish, where people are continually told by the newspapers and television that only a privileged minority have the ability to take the key decisions in industry and the state, where the mass of workers are taught from the first day they enter school to obey orders given by ‘their elders and betters’.

As Marx put it, ‘The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class,’ and vast numbers of workers accept them.

Yet despite this, repeatedly in the history of capitalism, revolutionary movements of the working class have shaken one country after another: France in 1871,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">The [[Paris Commune]]</ref> Russia in 1917,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">The [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]]</ref> Germany and Hungary in 1919, Italy in 1920, Spain and France in 1936, Hungary in 1956,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">See PW annotation 9.1</ref> France in 1968,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">The [[May 68]] crisis. Protesting students received some concessions from the French state, but nothing lasting: wages grew a little bit, a referendum was taken but did not pass, and a new Parliament was elected.</ref> Chile in 1972- 73, Portugal in 1975,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">The [[Carnation revolution]], which was waged internally by the army and was relatively peaceful. A socialist Portugal almost came out of it as the [[Portuguese Communist Party|PCP]] was very powerful at the time, but the [[United States of America|USA]] posted one of their aircraft carriers outside of Lisbon, threatening to invade if that happened. The revolution led to Portugal relinquishing control of their colonies and the end of the fascist dictatorship by Antonio Salazar.</ref> Iran in 1979,<ref group="ProleWiki 10.">The [[1979 Iranian revolution]] which led to the creation of the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]].</ref> Poland in 1980.

The explanation for these upheavals lies in the very nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism is a crisis-prone system. In the long run it cannot provide full employment, it cannot provide prosperity for all, it cannot secure our living standards today against the crisis it will produce tomorrow. But during the capitalist ‘booms’ workers come to expect these things.

So, for instance, in the 1950s and early 1960s, workers in Britain came to expect permanent full employment, a ‘welfare state’ and gradual but real improvements in living standards. By contrast, over the last 25 years successive governments have allowed unemployment to increase to a real figure of more than 4 million, have cut the welfare state to shreds, and have attempted again and again to cut living standards.

Because we are brainwashed into accepting many capitalist ideas, we accept some of these attacks.

But inevitably a point is reached where workers find they can stand it no more. Suddenly, often when no one expects it, their anger suddenly flares and they take some action against employer or government. Perhaps they stage a strike, or organise a demonstration.

When this happens, whether they like it or not, workers begin doing things that contradict all the capitalist ideas they have previously accepted. They begin to act in solidarity with one another, as a class, in opposition to the representatives of the capitalist class.

The ideas of revolutionary socialism that they used to reject out of hand now begin to fit in with what they are doing. Some at least of the workers begin to take those ideas seriously – providing those ideas are accessible.

The scale on which this takes place depends on the scale of the struggle, not on the ideas in workers’ heads to begin with. Capitalism forces them into struggle even if they begin with pro- capitalist ideas. The struggle then makes them question these ideas.

Capitalist power rests on two planks – control of the means of production and control of the state. A real revolutionary movement begins among the vast mass of workers when struggles over their immediate economic interests lead them to clash with both planks of capitalist rule.

Take for example a group of workers who have been employed in the same factory for years. The whole normal humdrum pattern of their lives is dependent on their jobs there. One day the employer announces that he is going to close the factory down. Even the Tory voters in the workforce are horrified and want to do something. In desperation they decide that the only way to continue to lead the sort of lives capitalism has taught them to expect is to occupy the factory – to challenge the employer’s control over the means of production.

They may soon find themselves up against the state as well, as the employer calls in the police to return control of ‘his’ property back to him. If they are to have any chance of keeping their jobs, the workers now must also confront the police, the state machine, as well as the employer.

Thus capitalism itself creates the conditions of class conflict which open workers’ minds to ideas quite opposed to those which the system has taught them. This explains why the history of capitalism has been marked by periodic upsurges of revolutionary feeling among millions of workers, even if most of the time most workers accept the ideas the system feeds them.

One final point. One of the biggest things holding many workers back from support for revolutionary ideas is the feeling that it is not worth them personally doing anything because other workers will never support them. When they find that other workers are doing things, they suddenly lose their own apathy. In the same way people, who feel that they, as workers, are quite incapable of running society, suddenly learn otherwise when they find, in the course of massive struggles against existing society, that they’re taking over much of its running.

It is because of this that once revolutionary movements start, they can snowball at amazing speed.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 10." />

== The revolutionary socialist party ==
The basic premise of Marxism is that the development of capitalism itself drives workers into revolt against the system.

When such revolts break out – whether a mass demonstration, an armed insurrection or even a big strike – the transformation of working class consciousness is astonishing. All the mental energy that workers previously frittered away on a hundred and one diversions – from doing the horses to watching the telly – is suddenly directed towards trying to deal with the problem of how to change society. Millions of people working on such problems produce solutions of amazing ingenuity, which often leave established revolutionaries as bewildered as the ruling class by this turn of events.

So, for instance, in the first Russian revolution of 1905 a new form of workers’ organisation, the soviet – the workers’ council – grew out of the strike committee set up during a printing strike. At first the Bolshevik Party – the most militant of the revolutionary socialists – treated the Soviets with distrust: they did not believe it was possible for the mass of previously non-political workers to create a genuinely revolutionary instrument.

Such experiences are found in many strikes: the established militants are taken completely by surprise when workers who have ignored their advice for so long, suddenly begin to organise militant action themselves.

This spontaneity is fundamental. But it is wrong to draw the conclusion – as anarchists and near-anarchists do – that because of spontaneity, there is no need for a revolutionary party.

In a revolutionary situation, millions of workers change their ideas very, very quickly. But they do not all change all their ideas at once. Inside every strike, every demonstration, every armed uprising there are always continual arguments. A few workers will see the action they are taking as a prelude to the working class taking control of society. Others will be half against taking any action at all, because it is disturbing the ‘natural order of things’. In the middle will be the mass of workers, attracted first by one set of arguments, then by the other, Onto one side of the balance the present ruling class will throw all the weight of its newspaper propaganda machine, denouncing the workers’ actions. It will throw too its strikebreaking forces, whether police, army or right wing organisations.

And on the workers’ side of the argument there must be an organisation of socialists who can draw on the lessons of past class struggle, who can throw the arguments about socialism into the balance.

There must be an organisation that can draw together the growing understanding of workers in struggle, so they can act together to change society.

And this revolutionary socialist party needs to be there before the struggle starts, for organisation is not born spontaneously. The party is built through the continual interplay of socialist ideas and experience of the class struggle – for merely to understand society is not enough: only by applying these ideas in the day-to-day class struggle, in strikes, demonstrations, campaigns, will workers become aware of their power to change things, and gain the confidence to do it.

At certain points, the intervention of a socialist party can be decisive, can tip the balance towards change, towards a revolutionary transfer of power to the workers, towards a socialist society.

=== What sort of party? ===
The revolutionary socialist party needs to be democratic. To fulfil its role, the party must be continually in touch with the class struggle, and that means with its own members and supporters in the workplaces where that struggle takes place. It needs to be democratic because its leadership must always reflect the collective experience of the struggle.

At the same time, this democracy is not merely a system of election but a continual debate within the party – a continual interaction of the socialist ideas on which the party is based with the experience of class struggle.

But the revolutionary socialist party must also be centralised – for it is an active party, not a debating society. It needs to be able to intervene collectively in the class struggle, and to respond quickly, so it must have a leadership capable of taking day-to-day decisions in the name of the party.

If the government orders the jailing of pickets, for instance, the party needs to react at once, without the need to convene conferences to take democratic decisions first. So the decision is made centrally and acted upon. Democracy comes into play afterwards, when the party hammers out whether the decision was correct or not – and maybe changes the party leadership if it was out of touch with the needs of the struggle.

The revolutionary socialist party needs to maintain a fine and delicate balance between democracy and centralism. The key is that the party does not exist for its own sake, but as a means for bringing a revolutionary change to socialism – and that can only be through class struggle.

So the party must continually adapt itself to the struggle. When the struggle is low, and few workers believe in the possibility of revolutionary change, then the party will be small – and must be content to be so for to dilute its political ideas in order to increase its membership would be pointless. But when the struggle increases, large numbers of workers can change their ideas very fast, realising through struggle their power to change things – and then the party must be able to open its doors, otherwise it will be left on the sidelines.

The party cannot substitute for the working class. It must be part of the class struggle, continually trying to unite the most class-conscious workers to provide a leadership for the struggle. Nor can the party dictate to the class. It cannot simply proclaim itself the leadership, but must win that position, proving the correctness of socialist ideas in practice – which means anything from a small strike to the revolution itself.

Some people see the revolutionary socialist party as the precursor of socialism. This is completely wrong. Socialism can only come about when the working class itself takes control of the means of producing wealth and uses this to transform society.

You cannot build an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism. Attempts by small groups of socialists to cut themselves off and lead their lives according to socialist ideas always fail miserably in the long term – for a start, the economic and ideological pressures are always there. And in cutting themselves off from capitalism, such small groups also cut themselves off from the only force that can bring socialism: the working class.

Of course, socialists fight against the degrading effects of capitalism every day – against racism, against sexism, against exploitation, against brutality. But we can only do so by taking the strength of the working class as our base.

== Imperialism and national liberation ==
Throughout the history of capitalism the employing class has always looked to an additional source of wealth – the seizure of wealth produced in other countries.

The growth of the first forms of capitalism at the close of the Middle Ages was accompanied by the seizure by western states of vast colonial empires – the empires of Spain and Portugal, of Holland and France, and, of course, of Britain. Wealth was pumped into the hands of the ruling classes of western Europe, while whole societies in what has become known as the Third World (Africa, Asia and South America) were destroyed.

Thus, the ‘discovery’ of America by Europeans in the 16th century produced a vast flow of gold into Europe. The other side of that coin was the destruction of whole societies and the enslavement of others. For example, in Haiti, where Columbus first established a settlement, the native Harawak Indians (perhaps half a million in all) were exterminated in just two generations. In Mexico the Indian population was reduced from 20 million in 1520 to 2 million in 1607.

The Indian population of the West Indies and of parts of the mainland was replaced by slaves captured in Africa and transported across the Atlantic under abominable conditions. An estimated 15 million slaves survived the Atlantic crossing while about 9 million died in transit. About half the slaves were transported in British ships – which is one reason why British capitalism was the first to expand industry.

The wealth from the slave trade provided the means to finance industry. As an old saying put it, ‘The walls of Bristol are cemented with the blood of the negroes’ – and this applied just as much to other ports. As Karl Marx put it, ‘The veiled slavery of the wage worker in Europe required for its pedestal slavery pure and simple in the New World.’ The slave trade was complemented by pure looting – as when the British conquered India. Bengal was so advanced that the first British visitors were stunned by the magnificence of its civilisation.

But this wealth did not stay long in Bengal. As Lord Macaulay wrote in his biography of the conqueror, Clive:<blockquote>The immense population was given up as prey. Enormous fortunes were thus rapidly accumulated at Calcutta, while 30 million of human beings were reduced to the extremity of wretchedness. They had been used to living under tyranny, but never tyranny like this.</blockquote>From that point onwards Bengal became renowned not for its wealth, but for a grinding poverty that every few years saw millions starve to death in famines, a poverty that continues to this day.

Meanwhile, in the 1760s, at a time when total capital investment in England was no more than £6 million to £7 million, the annual tribute to England from India was £2 million.

The same processes were at work in relation to England’s oldest colony – Ireland. During the Great Famine of the late 1840s when Ireland’s population was halved by starvation and emigration, more than enough wheat to feed the starving population was sent from the country as rent to English landlords.

Today, it is usual to divide the world into ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ countries. The impression is given that the ‘underdeveloped’ countries have been moving in the same direction for hundreds of years as the ‘developed’ countries, but at a slower speed.

But, in fact, one reason for the ‘development’ of the Western countries was that the rest were robbed of wealth and pushed backwards. Many are poorer today than they were 300 years ago.

As Michael Barratt Brown has pointed out:<blockquote>The wealth per head of the present underdeveloped lands, not only in India, but in China, Latin America and Africa, was higher than in Europe in the 17th century, and fell as wealth grew in Western Europe.</blockquote>The possession of an empire enabled Britain to develop as the world’s first industrial power. It was in a position to stop other capitalist states getting their hands on the raw materials, markets and profitable areas of investment within its third of the world.

As new industrial powers such as Germany, Japan and the United States grew up, they wanted these advantages for themselves. They built up rival empires or ‘spheres of influence’. Faced with economic crisis, each of the major capitalist powers tried to solve its problems by encroaching on the spheres of influence of its rivals. Imperialism led to world war.

This in turn produced huge changes within the internal organisation of capitalism. The tool for waging war, the state, became much more important. It worked ever more closely with the giant firms to reorganise industry for foreign competition and war. Capitalism became state monopoly capitalism.

The development of imperialism meant that capitalists did not just exploit the working class of their own country; they also took physical control of other countries and exploited their populations. For the most oppressed classes in the colonial countries, this meant that they were exploited by foreign imperialists as well as by their own ruling class. They were doubly exploited.

But sections of the ruling classes in the colonial countries also suffered. They saw many of their own opportunities to exploit the local population stolen from them by imperialism. In the same way, the middle classes in the colonies, who would have liked to see a rapid expansion of locally run industry so as to provide them with good career opportunities, suffered as well.

The last 60 years have seen all these various classes in colonial and ex-colonial countries rise up against the effects of imperialism. Movements have developed that have attempted to unite the whole population against foreign imperialist rule. Their demands have included:

* Expulsion of foreign imperialist troops.
* Unification of the whole national territory under a single national government, as against its division between different imperialisms.
* The re-establishment of the original language in everyday life, as opposed to some language imposed by the foreign rulers.
* The use of the wealth produced by the country to expand local industry to bring about ‘development’ and ‘modernisation’ of the country.

Such were the demands of successive revolutionary upsurges in China (in 1912, 1923-27 and in 1945-48), in Iran (in 1905-12, 1917-21 and in 1941-53), in Turkey (after the First World War), in the West Indies (from the 1920s onwards), in India (in 1920-48), in Africa (after 1945) and in Vietnam (until the United States was defeated in 1975).

These movements were often led by sections of the local upper classes or middle classes, but they meant that the ruling classes of the advanced countries faced an additional opponent as well as their own working class. The national movement in the so-called Third World challenged the imperialist capitalist states at the same time as did their own working classes.

For the working class movement in the advanced countries this had great importance. It meant that in its fight against capitalism, it had an ally in the liberation movements of the Third World. So, for example, a Shell worker in Britain had an ally in the liberation forces in South Africa who were fighting to take over the property which Shell owned there. If Shell can thwart the aims of the liberation movements in the Third World, then it will be more powerful when it comes to resisting the demands of workers in Britain.

This is true, even if the liberation movement in the Third World country does not have a socialist leadership – indeed, even if its leadership merely wants to replace foreign rule by the rule of a local capitalist or state capitalist class.

The imperialist state which is trying to smash that liberation movement is the same imperialist state that is the greatest enemy of the Western worker. That is why Marx insisted that ‘a nation that oppresses others cannot itself be free’, and why Lenin argued for an alliance between the workers of the advanced countries and the oppressed people of the Third World, even when these had a non-socialist leadership.

This does not mean that socialists will agree with the way in which non-socialists in an oppressed country lead a national liberation struggle (any more than we necessarily agree with how a trade union leader leads a strike). But we have to make it clear before anything else that we support that struggle. Otherwise we an all too easily end up supporting our own ruling class against ieople it is oppressing.

We have to support a liberation struggle unconditionally, before we are entitled to criticise the way it is led.

However, revolutionary socialists in a country which is oppressed by imperialism cannot leave matters there. They have to argue, day in day out, with other people about how the struggle for national liberation should be waged.

Here, the most important points are contained in the theory of permanent revolution developed by Trotsky.<ref group="ProleWiki 11.">The [[Permanent Revolution|permanent revolution]] theory of Trotsky does not talk about national liberation against colonialism, rather it talks about how the revolution that started in a country would extend through the other, making it "permanent", theory which is incorrect</ref> Trotsky began by recognising that often movements against oppression are initiated by people from middle class or even upper class backgrounds.

Socialists support such movements because they aim to ‘move one of the burdens that weighs upon the most oppressed classes and groups in society. But we also have to recognise that those from the upper or middle classes cannot lead such struggles consistently. They will be afraid of unleashing a full-blooded class struggle, in case this challenges not merely oppression from outside, but also their own ability to live by exploiting the most oppressed classes.

At a certain point they will run away from the struggle they themselves initiated, and, if necessary, unite with the foreign oppressor to smash it. At this point, if socialist, working class does do not take the leadership of the national liberation struggle, it will be defeated.

Trotsky also made one final point. It is true that in most Third World countries the working class is only a minority, often a small minority, of the population. But it is nevertheless often quite big in absolute terms (for example in India and China it is tens of millions strong), it often creates a huge proportion of the national wealth in relation to its size, and it is concentrated in overwhelming numbers in the cities which are key when it comes ruling the country. So in a period of revolutionary turmoil, the working class can take the leadership of all other oppressed classes and seize control of whole countries. The revolution can be permanent, beginning with demands for national liberation and ending with socialist demands. But only if socialists in the oppressed country have from the beginning organised the workers on an independent, class basis – supporting the general movement for national liberation, but always warning that its middle class or upper class leaders cannot be trusted.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 11." />

== Marxism and feminism ==
There are two different approaches to women’s liberation – feminism and revolutionary socialism.

Feminism was the dominant influence on the women’s movements which sprung up in the advanced capitalist countries during the 1960s and 1970s. It started from the view that men always oppress women, that there was something in men’s biology or psychological make up which made them treat women as inferior. This led to the view that liberation was possible only by the separation of women from men – either the total separation of the feminists who sought ‘liberated lifestyles’ or the partial separation of women’s committees, women’s caucuses or women-only events.

Many of those who supported this partial separation called themselves socialist feminists. But later radical feminist ideas of total separation made the running inside the women’s movement.

Separatist ideas ended time and again as a slightly radical wing of the social services, as with women’s refuges.

This failing led many feminists in another direction – towards the Labour Party. They believed that getting the right women in the right places, as MPs, trade union officials, local councillors, would somehow help all women to find equality.

The tradition of revolutionary socialism starts from a very different set of ideas. Marx and Engels, writing as far back as 1848, argued, first, that women’s oppression did not arise from the ideas in men’s heads, but from the development of private property and with it the emergence of a society based on classes. For them, the fight for women’s liberation was inseparable from the fight to end all class society – the struggle for socialism.

Marx and Engels also pointed out that the development of capitalism, based on the factory system, brought profound changes in people’s lives, and especially in the lives of women. Women were brought back into social production, from which they had been progressively excluded with the development of class society.

This gave women a potential power which they had never had before. Organised collectively, women as workers had greater independence and ability to fight for their rights. This was in great contrast to their lives previously, when their main role in production, through the family, made them completely dependent on the family head – the husband or father.

From this Marx and Engels concluded that the material basis of the family, and so of women’s oppression, no longer existed. What stopped women from benefiting from this was the fact that property remained in the hands of the few. What keeps women oppressed today is the way capitalism is organised – in particular the way capitalism uses a particular form of the family in order to make sure that its workers bring their children up to be the next generation of workers. It is a great advantage that while it pays men – and increasingly women – to work, women will devote their lives, unpaid, to making sure their men are fit to work in the factories and their children will grow up to do the same.

Socialism, by contrast, would see society taking on many of the family functions which weigh so heavily on women.

This didn’t mean that Marx, Engels and their successors went about preaching the ‘abolition of the family’. The family’s supporters have always been able to mobilise many of the most oppressed women in its support – they see the ‘abolition of the family’ as giving their husbands licence to abandon them with the responsibility for the children. Revolutionary socialists have always tried instead to show how in a better, socialist society, women would not be forced into the miserable, cramped life provided by the present day family.

Feminists have always rejected this sort of analysis. Far from approaching women where they have the power to change the world and end their oppression – where they are collectively strong at work – they approach women as sufferers. Campaigns of the 1980s, for example, focused on such issues as prostitution, rape or the threat to women and families from nuclear weapons. These all start from positions where women are weak.

Feminism starts with the assumption that oppression overrides class division. This leads to conclusions which leave class society intact while improving the position of some women – a minority. The women’s movement has tended to be dominated by women from the ‘new middle class’ – journalists, writers, lecturers, higher grade white collar workers. The typists, filing clerks, machinists have got left out.

It is only during periods of radical change and revolutionary upsurge that the question of women’s liberation becomes reality, not just for a minority, but for all working class women as well. The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 produced a much greater equality for women than ever known in the world before. Divorce, abortion and contraception were made freely available. Childcare and housework became the responsibility of society. There were the beginnings of communal restaurants, laundries and nurseries which gave women far more choice and control over their lives.

Of course, the fate of these advances couldn’t be separated from the fate of the revolution itself.

Famine, civil war, the decimation of the working class, and the failure of revolution internationally meant the eventual defeat of socialism in Russia itself. The moves towards equality were reversed.

But the early years of the soviet republic showed what socialist revolution could achieve, even in the most unfavourable conditions. Today, the prospects for women’s liberation are far better. In Britain – and much the same is true of other advanced capitalist countries – two workers in every five are women.

Women’s liberation can be achieved only through the collective power of the working class. This means rejecting the feminist idea of women’s separate organisations. Only women and men workers acting together as part of a united revolutionary movement can destroy class society, and with it the oppression of women.

== Socialism and war ==
The present century has been a century of wars. Some 10 million people were killed in the First World War, 55 million in the Second, 2 million in the wars in Indochina. And the two great nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, still possess the means to destroy the human race many times over.<ref group="ProleWiki 12.">The [[Soviet Union]] developed the nuclear bombs in response to the development of the nuclear bombs of the USA, since without them, the United States would have had the path paved to destroy the country of the Soviets.</ref>

Explaining this horror is difficult for those who take existing society for granted. They are driven to conclude that there is some innate, instinctive drive in human beings that leads them to enjoy mass slaughter. But human society has not always known war. Gordon Childe noted of Europe in the Stone Age:<blockquote>The earliest Danubians seem to have been a peaceful folk; weapons of war as against hunters' tools are absent from their graves. Their villages lacked military defences. [But] in the later phases of the Neolithic period armaments became the most conspicuous items...</blockquote>War is not caused by some innate human aggressiveness. It is a product of the division of society into classes. When, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, a class of property owners first emerged, it had to find the means to defend its wealth. It began to construct armed forces, a state, cut off from the rest of society. This then became a valuable means of further increasing its wealth, by plundering other societies.

The division of society into classes meant that war became a permanent feature of human life.

The slave owning ruling classes of Ancient Greece and Rome could not survive without continual wars which procured more slaves. The feudal lords of the Middle Ages had to be heavily armed in order to subdue the local serfs and to protect their loot from other feudal lords. When the first capitalist ruling classes began 300 or 400 years ago, they too repeatedly had to have recourse to war. They had to fight bitter wars in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in order to establish their supremacy over the remnants of the old feudal rulers. The most successful capitalist countries, such as Britain, used warfare to expand their wealth—reaching overseas, looting India and Ireland, transporting millions of people as slaves from Africa to the Americas, turning the whole world into a source of plunder for themselves.

Capitalist society built itself through war. No wonder that those who lived within it came 'to believe that war was both 'inevitable' and 'just'.

Yet capitalism could never be based entirely on war. Most of its wealth came through exploiting workers in factories and mines. And that was something which could be disrupted by any fighting within the 'home country' itself.

Each national capitalist class wanted peace at home while waging war abroad. So while encouraging belief in 'military virtues' it also bitterly attacked 'violence'. The ideology of capitalism combines, in a completely contradictory way, exaltation of militarism and pacifist phrases.

In the present century war preparations have become more central to the system than ever before. In the 19th century capitalist production was based on many small firms competing with each other.

The state was a relatively small body that regulated their relations with each other and with their workers. But in the present century big firms have eaten up most of the small firms, so eliminating much of the competition within each country. Competition is more and more international, between the giant firms of different nations.

There is no international capitalist state to regulate this competition. Instead, each national state exerts all the pressure it can to help its capitalists get an advantage over their foreign rivals. The life and death struggle of different capitalists with each other can become the life and death struggle of different states, each with its huge array of destructive weaponry.

Twice this struggle has led to world war. The First and Second World Wars were imperialist wars,<ref group="ProleWiki 12.">The second world war was not an inter-imperialist war, given the class character it had, because the main military goal of Nazi Germany was to eliminate the Soviet Union, through their GeneralOst plan. The soviet union went to the lengths of even doing a non-agression pact in order to avoid conflict the furthest possible, but Nazi Germany broke it.</ref> conflicts between alliances of capitalist states over the domination of the globe. The Cold War was a continuation of that struggle, with the most powerful capitalist states lined up against each other in NATO and the Warsaw Pact.<ref group="ProleWiki 12.">The Warsaw pact was a pact of socialist countries, which also fought with the colonized in their decolonization processes, supporting them militarely and economically</ref>

In addition to this global conflict, many hot wars have raged in different parts of the world. Usually they have been struggles between different capitalist states over who should control a particular region, such as the Iran-Iraq war which broke out in 1980 and the Gulf War in 1991. All the major powers stoke the fires of war by selling the most sophisticated military technology to Third World states.

Many people who accept the rest of the capitalist system do not like this grim reality. They want capitalism but not war. They try to find alternatives within the system. For example, there are those who believe the United Nations can prevent war.

But the UN is merely the arena where different states that embody the drive to war meet together.

There they compare their strengths with each other, like boxers measuring up before a bout. If one state or alliance is easily more powerful than another, then both will see the pointlessness of a war whose outcome is known in advance. But if there is any doubt about the outcome, they know of only one way of settling the issue, and that is to go to war.

This was true of the two great nuclear alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even though the West had the military edge over the Eastern Bloc, the gap was not so great for the Russians to believe themselves at a hopeless disadvantage. So, despite the fact that a Third World War would wipe out most of the human race, both Washington and Moscow drew up plans for fighting and winning a nuclear war.<ref group="ProleWiki 12.">See PW annotation 12.1</ref>

The Cold War came to an end with the political upheaval in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR into its constituent republics in 1991. There was then much talk of a 'new world order' and a 'peace dividend'.

Instead, however, we have seen a succession of barbaric wars—the war of the West against its former ally Iraq, the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the former USSR, the horrific civil wars in Somalia and former Yugoslavia.

No sooner is one military rivalry between capitalist powers resolved than another takes its place.

Everywhere, ruling classes know that war is a way of increasing their influence and of blinding workers and peasants with nationalism.

You can loathe and fear war without opposing capitalist society. But you cannot end it. War is the inevitable product of the division of society into classes. The threat of it will never be ended by begging existing rulers to make peace. The armaments have to be wrested from their hands by a movement fighting to overturn class society once and for all.

The peace movements which emerged in Europe and North America at the end of the 1970s did not understand this. They fought to stop the introduction of Cruise and Pershing missiles, for unilateral disarmament, for a nuclear freeze. But they believed that the fight for peace could succeed in isolation from the struggle between capital and labour.

So they failed to mobilise the only power capable of stopping the drive towards war, the working class. Only socialist revolution can end the horror of war.

=== ProleWiki annotations ===
<references group="ProleWiki 12." />

[[Category:Library works by Chris Harman]]
[[Category:Library works about philosophy]]

Category:Library works about anti-communist economists

2024-01-07T01:58:17Z

Dragon: Created blank page

ProleWiki:Library

2024-01-07T01:57:33Z

Dragon:

{{#seo:
| title=ProleWiki Library - ProleWiki
| image=lenin_library.jpg
| description= Read more than 300 books from Marx, Engels, Lenin and more free on ProleWiki!
| robots= index,follow
}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:ProleWiki Library}}
{{Library homepage}}
Read more than 300 books and documents from [[:Category:Library works by Karl Marx|Marx]], [[:Category:Library works by Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[:Category:Library works by Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]] and more free on ProleWiki!

''Don't see a certain author? Look in Topics (near the bottom of the page)!''

== Selected authors ==
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Karl Marx|image=Marx_colorised_thumb.jpeg|category=Library works by Karl Marx|left=-30}}
{{Library card|name=Friedrich Engels|image=Engels colorised thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Friedrich Engels|left=-15}}
{{Library card|name=Vladimir Lenin|image=Lenin colorised thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Vladimir Lenin}}
{{Library card|name=Joseph Stalin|image=Iosif Stalin colorised thumb.png|category=Library works by Joseph Stalin|left=9}}
</div>

== Marxist-Leninist theorists ==

=== Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Mao Zedong|image=Mao Zedong thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Mao Zedong|left=-10}}
{{Library card|name=Deng Xiaoping|image=Deng Portrait thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Deng Xiaoping|left=-25}}
{{Library card|name=Xi Jinping|image=Xi Jinping waving thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Xi Jinping}}
</div>

=== Juche ===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Kim Il Sung|image=Kim Il Sung thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Kim Il Sung|left=-20}}
{{Library card|name=Kim Jong Il|image=Kim Jong Il thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Kim Jong Il|left=-18}}
{{Library card|name=Kim Jong Un|image=Kim jong un portrait thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Kim Jong Un|left=-25}}
</div>

===Others===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Fidel Castro|image=Fidel Castro colorized thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Fidel Castro}}
{{Library card|name=Ho Chi Minh|image=Uncle Ho thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Ho Chi Minh}}
{{Library card|name=Alexandra Kollontai|image=Alexandra-kollontai-color thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Alexandra Kollontai|}}
{{Library card|name=Evo Morales Ayma|image=EvoMorales thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works by Evo Morales Ayma}}
{{Library card|name=Thomas Sankara|image= Thomas-Sankara thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works by Thomas Sankara}}
</div>

==Communist and socialist authors==

===Communists===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Frantz Fanon|image=Frantz fanon colorised thumbnail.png|category=Library works by Frantz Fanon}}
{{Library card|name=Enver Hoxha|image=Enver_Hoxha_picture.jpg|category=Library works by Enver Hoxha|left=-45}}
{{Library card|name=Domenico Losurdo|image=Losurdo thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works by Domenico Losurdo|left=-10}}
{{Library card|name=Rosa Luxemburg|image=Rosa Luxemburg colorised thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Rosa Luxemburg}}
{{Library card|name=Michael Parenti|image=Michael_Parenti,_Democracy_and_the_Pathology_of_Wealth,_44m30s.jpg|category=Library works by Michael Parenti|left=-15}}
{{Library card|name=Vijay Prashad|image=Vijay Prashad thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Vijay Prashad|left=-10|top=10}}
</div>

===Socialists ===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card|name=Eugene V. Debs|image=Eugene V. Debs color thumb.jpeg|category=Library works by Eugene V. Debs|left=-20|top=5}}
{{Library card|name=Muammar Gaddafi|image=Muammar Gaddafi colorised thumb.jpeg|category=Library works by Muammar Gaddafi}}
{{Library card|name=Martin Luther King Jr.|image=MLKJr colorised thumb.jpg|category=Library works by Martin Luther King Jr.|left=-20}}
{{Library card|name=Kwame Nkrumah|image=Portrait of Kwame Nkrumah thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works by Kwame Nkrumah}}
</div>

==Works about countries==

=== Actually existing socialism ===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card mid|name=Soviet Union|image=Soviet union at night thumbnail.png|category=Library works about the Soviet Union}}
{{Library card mid|name=China|image=China monument thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about China|scale=1.0}}
{{Library card mid|name=GDR|image=GDR flags thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about the GDR}}
{{Library card mid|name=Cuba|image=Cuba monument thumbnail.png|category=Library works about Cuba|scale=1.2}}
{{Library card mid|name=DPRK|image=WPK statue.png|category=Library works about the DPRK|scale=2.3}}
{{Library card mid|name=Laos|image=Laos monument thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about Laos}}
{{Library card mid|name=Vietnam|image=Vietnam monument thumbnail .png|category=Library works about Vietnam|scale=0.92}}
{{Library card mid|name=Yugoslavia|image=Yugoslav flag.png|category=Library works about Yugoslavia|scale=1.8}}
</div>

=== Other countries ===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card mid|name=India|image=Kerala communist monument thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about India}}
{{Library card mid|name=Palestine|image=Man with Palestinian flag thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about Palestine}}
{{Library card mid|name=USA|image=Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg|category=Library works about the United States of America}}
</div>

==Documents from communist parties and countries==

===Ruling parties===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card mid|name=Soviet Union|image=The Motherland Is Calling thumbnail.jpeg|category=Library documents from the Soviet Union}}
{{Library card mid|name=China|image=Shaomin Red Lantern thumbnail.jpg|category=Library documents from China}}
{{Library card mid|name=DPRK|image=Chollima poster thumbnail.jpg|category=Library documents from the DPRK|}}
{{Library card mid|name=Vietnam|image=Ho Chi Minh thumbnail.jpg|category=Library documents from Vietnam|}}
{{Library card mid|name=Albania|image=Socialist albania thumbnail.png|category=Library documents from Albania}}
{{Library card mid|name=Mongolia|image=Mongolian communist poster thumbnail.jpg|category=Library documents from Mongolia}}
</div>

===Non-ruling parties===
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card mid|name=Brazil|image=Map of brazil from soviet atlas 1928 thumbnail.png|category=Library documents from Brazil}}
{{Library card mid|name=Palestine|image=Soviet_anti-Zionist_poster_thumbnail.jpg|category=Library documents from Palestine}}
{{Library card mid|name=Russia|image=KPRF flag thumbnail.png|category=Library documents from Russia}}
{{Library card mid|name=USA|image=Map of USA from soviet atlas 1928 thumbnail.png|category=Library documents from the United States of America}}
</div>

==Other topics==
<div class="library-container">
{{Library card mid|name=Decolonisation|image=The_chains_are_breaking.png|category=Library works about decolonisation|scale=1.4}}
{{Library card mid|name=Economics|image=Exploitation oppression war poster.png|category=Library works about economics|scale=2}}
{{Library card mid|name=Anticommunist economists|image=Exploitation oppression war poster.png|category=Library works about anti-communist economists|scale=2}}
{{Library card mid|name=Fascism|image=Soviet poster against hitler's advance 1941.jpeg|category=Library works about fascism}}
{{Library card mid|name=Feminism|image=Soviet_feminism_poster.jpg|category=Library works about feminism}}
{{Library card mid|name=Geopolitics|image=Comrade Lenin cleans the Earth thumbnail.jpg|category=Library works about geopolitics}}
{{Library card mid|name=Imperialism|image=Imperialism.jpg|category=Library works about imperialism|scale=2.2}}
{{Library card mid|name=LGBTQ+|image=Communist_LGBTQ+_symbol_midcard_size.png|category=Library works about LGBT+|scale=.9}}
{{Library card mid|name=Military theory|image=Vietnam propaganda poster 1961.jpeg|category=Library works about military theory}}
{{Library card mid|name=Philosophy|image=Knowledge_will_break_the_chains_of_slavery_-_Soviet_Poster.webp|category=Library works about philosophy}}
{{Library card mid|name=Revisionism|image=Chinese-soviet-propaganda-posters (10).jpg|category=Library works about revisionism|scale=0.95}}
{{Library card mid|name=Non-communist authors|image=Bourgeois_internationalism_poster.png|category=Library works by non-marxists and other authors}}
</div>

== Interviews, speeches and transcripts ==
<div class="library-container-mini">
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Interviews|Interviews]]|image=Lenin with Stalin.png|link=:Category:Interviews|name=Interviews}}
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Speeches|Speeches]]|image=Speech-of-lenin-on-the-red-square-1959.jpg|link=:Category:Speeches|name=Speeches}}
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Video Transcripts|Transcripts (video)]]|image=Vsevolod-Medvedev-1912-1985.-Lenin-reading-a-newspaper-Pravda.-Oil-on-canvas.-1965.jpg|link=:Category:Video Transcripts|name=Transcripts (video)}}
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Song lyrics|Songs]]|image=Dj stalin.jpg|link=:Category:Song lyrics|name=Songs}}
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:PDF works|PDF files]]|image=kim jong un computer.jpeg|link=:Category:PDF works|name=PDF files}}
</div>

== Study guides and reading lists==
<div class="library-container-mini">
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Crit's absolute beginner reading list|Absolute beginner list]]|image=marx_to_lenin_beginner_reading_list.png|link=:Category:Crit's absolute beginner reading list|name=Crit's absolute beginner list}}
{{Library card mini|text=[[:Category:Palestinian resistance reading list|Palestinian resistance reading list]]|image=Palestine-flag.jpg|link=:Category:Palestinian resistance reading list|name=Palestinian resistance reading list}}
{{Library card_mini|text=[[:Category:Reading lists|All reading lists]]|image=Mao reading book thumbnail.png|link=:Category:Reading lists|name=All reading lists}}
</div>

[[Category:ProleWiki official pages]]

Armed Proletarian Justice

2023-12-30T21:18:58Z

Dragon: Created page with "{{Message box/currentevent}} '''Armed Proletarian Justice''' is an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist organization in Greece. In its first announcement,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Ένοπλη Προλεταριακή Δικαιοσύνη|newspaper=iefimerida|title=Ανάληψη Ευθύνης γιά την επίθεση στο Στρατόπεδο ΜΑΤ/ΕΚΑΜ|date=2023-12-24|url=https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1..."

{{Message box/currentevent}}

'''Armed Proletarian Justice''' is an [[anti-capitalist]], [[anti-imperialist]] and [[anti-Zionist]] organization in [[Hellenic Republic|Greece]].

In its first announcement,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Ένοπλη Προλεταριακή Δικαιοσύνη|newspaper=iefimerida|title=Ανάληψη Ευθύνης γιά την επίθεση στο Στρατόπεδο ΜΑΤ/ΕΚΑΜ|date=2023-12-24|url=https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1628274/}}</ref> it said that is is going to combat the police state which has been created in Greece and against the repressive, [[imperialist]] and [[neoliberal]] [[New Democracy (political party in the Hellenic Republic)|New Democracy]] government.

It propagates for exiting the two imperialist organizations: [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[European Union]] and for supporting [[State of Palestine|Palestine]].

The organization also claims it will make sure no civilians are ever harmed during attacks.

== Attacks ==
Its first attack was in December 18, 2023, when a bomb was placed in the headquarters of the Greek Riot Police (MAT). The organization phoned twice the police so as to make sure that no civilians are harmed.

Juan Chávez Alonso

2023-12-28T19:23:41Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox revolutionary
| name = Juan Chávez
| native_name = Juan Chavesï
| image = Juan_Chávez_crop.png
| image_size = 250px
| image_upright =
| image_alt =
| caption = Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the [[COCOPA law]], March 28, 2001.
| nationality = [[Purépecha]][[Mexico|Mexican]]
| birth_date = {{birth date|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| birth_name = Juan Chávez Alonso
| birth_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|2012|6|2|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| death_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| political_line =
|political_party= }}
'''Juan Chávez Alonso''' (Spanish pronunciation:<big> [xwaŋˈ ˈtʃaβes]; 3 January 1941 — 2 June 2012), better known as '''Juan Chávez''', was a [[Purépecha]] indigenous leader, political activist, peasant and musician. He was part of the [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|EZLN]], which participated in the dialogue of San Andrés Sacamch'én de los Pobres, in the first dialogue table between the EZLN and the federal government, regarding indigenous rights and culture, from April 1995 to February 1996.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Gloria Muñoz Ramírez|newspaper=La Jornada|title=Por un accidente en su casa muere Juan Chávez Alonso, líder indígena|date=2012-6-3|url=https://www.jornada.com.mx/2012/06/03/sociedad/036n1soc|retrieved=in December 28, 2023.}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Juan Chávez Alonso

2023-12-28T19:22:39Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox revolutionary
| name = Juan Chávez
| native_name = Juan Chavesï
| image = Juan_Chávez_crop.png
| image_size = 250px
| image_upright =
| image_alt =
| caption = Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the [[COCOPA law]], March 28, 2001.
| nationality = [[Purépecha]][[Mexico|Mexican]]
| birth_date = {{birth date|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| birth_name = Juan Chávez Alonso
| birth_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|2012|6|2|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| death_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| political_line =
|political_party= }}
'''Juan Chávez Alonso''' (Spanish pronunciation:<big> [xwaŋˈ ˈtʃaβes]; 3 January 1941 — 2 June 2012), better known as '''Juan Chávez''', was a [[Purépecha]] indigenous leader, political activist, peasant and musician. He was part of the [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|EZLN]], which participated in the dialogue of San Andrés Sacamch'én de los Pobres, in the first dialogue table between the EZLN and the federal government, regarding indigenous rights and culture, from April 1995 to February 1996.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Gloria Muñoz Ramírez|newspaper=La Jornada|title=Por un accidente en su casa muere Juan Chávez Alonso, líder indígena|date=2012-6-3|url=https://www.jornada.com.mx/2012/06/03/sociedad/036n1soc|retrieved=Retrieved in December 28, 2023.}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Juan Chávez Alonso

2023-12-28T19:22:16Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox revolutionary
| name = Juan Chávez
| native_name = Juan Chavesï
| image = Juan_Chávez_crop.png
| image_size = 250px
| image_upright =
| image_alt =
| caption = Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the COCOPA law, March 28, 2001.
| nationality = [[Purépecha]][[Mexico|Mexican]]
| birth_date = {{birth date|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| birth_name = Juan Chávez Alonso
| birth_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|2012|6|2|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| death_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| political_line =
|political_party= }}
'''Juan Chávez Alonso''' (Spanish pronunciation:<big> [xwaŋˈ ˈtʃaβes]; 3 January 1941 — 2 June 2012), better known as '''Juan Chávez''', was a [[Purépecha]] indigenous leader, political activist, peasant and musician. He was part of the [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|EZLN]], which participated in the dialogue of San Andrés Sacamch'én de los Pobres, in the first dialogue table between the EZLN and the federal government, regarding indigenous rights and culture, from April 1995 to February 1996.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Gloria Muñoz Ramírez|newspaper=La Jornada|title=Por un accidente en su casa muere Juan Chávez Alonso, líder indígena|date=2012-6-3|url=https://www.jornada.com.mx/2012/06/03/sociedad/036n1soc|retrieved=Retrieved in December 28, 2023.}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Juan Chávez Alonso

2023-12-28T19:21:53Z

Dragon: Added reference

{{Infobox revolutionary
| name = Juan Chávez
| native_name = Juan Chavesï
| image = Juan_Chávez_crop.png
| image_size = 250px
| image_upright =
| image_alt =
| caption = Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the COCOPA law, March 28, 2001.
| nationality = [[Purépecha]][[Mexico|Mexican]]
| birth_date = {{birth date|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| birth_name = Juan Chávez Alonso
| birth_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|2012|6|2|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| death_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| political_line =
|political_party= }}
'''Juan Chávez Alonso''' (Spanish pronunciation:<big> [xwaŋˈ ˈtʃaβes]; 3 January 1941 — 2 June 2012), better known as '''Juan Chávez''', was a [[Purépecha]] indigenous leader, political activist, peasant and musician. He was part of the [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|EZLN]], which participated in the dialogue of San Andrés Sacamch'én de los Pobres, in the first dialogue table between the EZLN and the federal government, regarding indigenous rights and culture, from April 1995 to February 1996.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Gloria Muñoz Ramírez|newspaper=La Jornada|title=Por un accidente en su casa muere Juan Chávez Alonso, líder indígena|date=2012-6-3|url=https://www.jornada.com.mx/2012/06/03/sociedad/036n1soc|retrieved=Retrieved in December 28, 2023.}}</ref>

Juan Chávez Alonso

2023-12-28T19:19:39Z

Dragon: Created page

{{Infobox revolutionary
| name = Juan Chávez
| native_name = Juan Chavesï
| image = Juan_Chávez_crop.png
| image_size = 250px
| image_upright =
| image_alt =
| caption = Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the COCOPA law, March 28, 2001.
| nationality = [[Purépecha]][[Mexico|Mexican]]
| birth_date = {{birth date|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| birth_name = Juan Chávez Alonso
| birth_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|2012|6|2|1941|1|3|df=yes}}
| death_place = Nurio, Michoacán, [[Mexico]]
| political_line =
|political_party= }}
'''Juan Chávez Alonso''' (Spanish pronunciation:<big> [xwaŋˈ ˈtʃaβes]; 3 January 1941 — 2 June 2012), better known as '''Juan Chávez''', was a [[Purépecha]] indigenous leader, political activist, peasant and musician. He was part of the [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|EZLN]], which participated in the dialogue of San Andrés Sacamch'én de los Pobres, in the first dialogue table between the EZLN and the federal government, regarding indigenous rights and culture, from April 1995 to February 1996.

File:Juan Chávez crop.png

2023-12-28T18:58:34Z

Dragon:

File:Juan Chávez en la Cámara de Diputados.jpg

2023-12-28T18:57:16Z

Dragon: Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the COCOPA law, March 28, 2001.

== Summary ==
Juan Chavez speaks in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies to defend the COCOPA law, March 28, 2001.

State of Kuwait

2023-12-28T18:48:15Z

Dragon: Fixed the bold letters

{{Infobox country|name=State of Kuwait|native_name=دَوْلَةُ الْكُوَيْت|image_flag=Flag_of_Kuwait.svg.png|image_coat=Emblem_of_Kuwait.svg.png|capital=Kuwait City|mode_of_production=Capitalism|government_type=Unitary parliamentary constitutional elective monarchy|leader_title1=Emir|leader_name1=[[Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah]]|leader_title2=Crown Prince|leader_name2=Vacant|leader_title3=Prime Minister|leader_name3=Ahmad Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah|image_map=KWT_orthographic.svg.png|image_map_size=260px|area_km2=17,818|population_estimate=4,294,621|population_estimate_year=2022}}

'''Kuwait''', officially the '''State of Kuwait''' is a [[Western Asia|Western Asian]] country on the Persian gulf bordered by [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] and [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]].'''
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

File:Guyana Disputed Areas.svg.png

2023-12-03T16:47:37Z

Dragon:

Javier Milei

2023-11-19T23:11:04Z

Dragon: Zionist

{{Infobox politician|name=Javier Milei|image_size=200|caption=Milei dressed as "General Ancap" at an anime convention|birth_date=22 October 1970|birth_place=Buenos Aires, [[Argentina]]|nationality=Argentine|political_orientation=[[Anarcho-capitalism]] [[Right-libertarianism]] [[Neoliberalism]] [[Zionism]]|political_party=[[Libertarian Party (Argentina)|Libertarian]]|image=Javier Milei.png}}

'''Javier Gerardo Milei''' (born 22 October 1970) is a [[Far-right politics|far-right]] Argentine politician and presidential candidate. Despite identifying as a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], he wants to strengthen the military and give the [[police]] more authority to arrest people.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=Argentina adopting US dollar to fight inflation would be ‘insane’ neocolonialism, says economist Ha-Joon Chang|date=2023-05-25|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/05/25/argentina-us-dollar-inflation-neocolonialism/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230725215613/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/05/25/argentina-us-dollar-inflation-neocolonialism/|archive-date=2023-07-25}}</ref> He claimed that the Argentine military dictatorship disappeared under 9,000 people instead of the widely accepted 30,000.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=Manuel Bertoldi|newspaper=[[People's Dispatch]]|title=10 points about Massa’s victory in Argentina|date=2023-10-23|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/23/10-points-about-massas-victory-in-argentina/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231025094011/https://mronline.org/2023/10/25/10-points-about-massas-victory-in-argentina/|archive-date=2023-10-25}}</ref>

== Presidential campaign ==
Milei was planning to will Argentina from joining [[BRICS]] if he won the 2023 presidential election. He wants to align with the [[United States of America|United States]] and [[State of Israel|Israel]]<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=BRICS expanding into economic powerhouse: Petrodollar under threat|date=2023-08-25|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/08/25/brics-expand-economy-petrodollar/|retrieved=2023-09-02}}</ref> and seeks to return Argentina to how it was in 1900 and make the [[United States dollar|U.S. dollar]] the national currency. His platform includes privatizing healthcare and state-owned companies, ending social spending, and abolishing the central [[bank]].<ref name=":0" />

Milei won the primary elections in August. In the first round, he lost to [[Sergio Massa]] with 30% of the vote compared to Massa's 37%. The final round will be on 19 November.<ref name=":1" />

In 2023, Milei claimed he intended to convert to [[Judaism]] once his political career ended.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=RT|title=Presidential frontrunner reveals Judaism conversion plans|date=2023-11-19|url=https://www.rt.com/news/587599-argentina-president-candidate-judaism/|retrieved=2023-11-19}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Milei, Javier}}
[[Category:Political candidates]]

File:Flag of North Macedonia.svg

2023-11-03T19:27:01Z

Dragon:

File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1922–1923).svg

2023-11-03T19:16:08Z

Dragon:

Trotskyism

2023-10-22T05:55:57Z

Dragon: Fixed little mistake

[[File:Trotskyite symbol.png|right|[[Hammer and sickle]] with the number 4 for the [[Fourth International]]]]
'''Trotskyism''' originated from [[Trotsky]]'s opposition against [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] in the theoretical struggle towards a scientific interpretation of [[Leninism]] for the case of world revolution. In contrast to [[Marxism–Leninism]], it emphasizes the abolition of bureaucratic [[dictatorship]]. It also advocates for a militant [[Proletarian revolution|workers' revolution]], unlike [[social democracy]], and rejects the alliance between the [[proletariat]] and the [[peasantry]].

Trotsky and his followers joined the [[bourgeoisie]] and their henchmen, the [[Mensheviks]], in a campaign to convince the workers, peasants and communists that socialism was impossible in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. They tried to undermine the confidence of the working people using an argument opposed to Lenin’s standpoint. The only conclusion is that Trotskyism played a [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionary]] role, hiding behind pseudo-left rhetoric. Promoting defeatism was the essential role of Trotskyism in regard to the Soviet Union.

== Permanent revolution ==
Trotsky occupied a middle position between the [[Bolsheviks]] and [[Mensheviks]] but in essence was closer to the Mensheviks.

He agreed with the Bolsheviks that the [[liberal]] [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] would have nothing to do with the coming revolution. At the same time he agreed with the Mensheviks that the peasantry could not be a dependable ally.

Tsarism, according to Trotsky could be replaced by a workers government. On no account could it be replaced by a joint dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry. And on coming to power it would be the function of the Workers government to attack private property, including the peasant holdings. By its attack on private property by the Workers government would alienate and arouse the hostility and resistance (thanks to Trotsky) of the majority of the population.

The resistance of the peasantry would endanger the workers government. But on the other hand the workers government would stimulate the working class of the industrially advanced European countries to wage ruthless struggle against their own bourgeoisie, seize state power and establish socialism.

In return, Western Europe would now come to the aid of the Russian workers government in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]] to crush by force the resistance of the peasantry. This is permanent revolution.<blockquote>“In the absence of direct State support on the part of the European proletariat, the Russian working class will not be able to keep itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a stable socialist dictatorship. No doubt as to the truth of this is possible.”</blockquote>''Trotsky, Our Revolution 1906, Pg. 278.''<blockquote>“A steady rise of socialist economy in Russia will not be possible until after the victory of the proletariat in the leading countries of Europe.”</blockquote>''Trotsky, (“Collected Works,” Vol. 3, Part I, Pgs.92-93.)''<blockquote>What this would mean in practice is Permanent Counter-Revolution. By the negation of the peasantry as a revolutionary role that the peasantry could play (and did play) it would mean depriving the Russian working class of a dependable ally and turning the peasantry into a tool of the liberal bourgeois. There would have been no revolution in Russia had this line followed and Lenin was to reject it for a second time in 1915 in the following:

To bring clarity into the alignment of classes in the impending revolution is the main task of a revolutionary party. This task is being shirked by the Organising Committee, which within Russia remains a faithful ally to Nashe Dyelo, and abroad utters meaningless “Left” phrases. This task is being wrongly tackled in Nashe Slovo by Trotsky, who is repeating his “original” 1905 theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of ten years, life has been bypassing this splendid theory.

From the Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has borrowed “repudiation” of the peasantry’s role. The peasantry, he asserts, are divided into strata, have become differentiated; their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a “national” revolution is impossible; “we are living in the era of imperialism,” says Trotsky, and “imperialism does not contra pose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”

Here we have an amusing example of playing with the word “imperialism”. If, in Russia, the proletariat already stands contra posed to the “bourgeois nation”, then Russia is facing a socialist revolution (!), and the slogan “Confiscate the landed estates” (repeated by Trotsky in 1915, following the January Conference of 1912), is incorrect; in that case we must speak, not of a “revolutionary workers’” government, but of a “workers’ socialist” government! The length Trotsky’s muddled thinking goes to is evident from his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the “non-proletarian [!] popular masses” as well (No. 217)! Trotsky has not realised that if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to confiscate the landed estates and overthrow the monarchy, then that will be the consummation of the “national bourgeois revolution” in Russia; it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry!

A whole decade—the great decade of 1905-15—has shown the existence of two and only two class lines in the Russian revolution. The differentiation of the peasantry has enhanced the class struggle within them; it has aroused very many hitherto politically dormant elements. It has drawn the rural proletariat closer to the urban proletariat (the Bolsheviks have insisted ever since 1906 that the former should be separately organised, and they included this demand in the resolution of the Menshevik congress in Stockholm). However, the antagonism between the peasantry, on the one hand, and the Markovs, Romanovs and Khvostovs, on the other, has become stronger and more acute. This is such an obvious truth that not even the thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky’s Paris articles will “refute” it. Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians in Russia, who by “repudiation” of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!</blockquote>-Lenin, Two Lines On The Revolution

It took only two years to prove Lenin's correctness

In conclusion, Trotskyism:

* Rejects the peasantry as a revolutionary force
* Rejects stages in the development of the revolution (Which amounted in practice skipping the first stage of the revolution: the majority of the Russian people, particularly the peasantry, against the Tsar. But only the working class who constituted a tiny minority at the time against the Tsar and the “bourgeois nation” including the peasantry)

It is noted that the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviets]] did eventually wage a war against the nascent bourgeois elements in the peasantry which did seriously de-stabilise the Soviet government. But this was done in the early 1930s when a lot of the peasantry had been drawn into the cities and into the proletariat. Not as immediate fact against the “bourgeois nation” in 1917 which would’ve seen the peasantry side with the White guardists
==Ideological differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism==
Ever since Lenin died in 1924, Trotskyism has challenged Marxism-Leninism for the ideological leadership of the international communist movement. J.V. Stalin, 1879-1953, was able to meet and saw off this challenge, to the extent that Trotskyism became a marginal, exterior tendency in relation to the communist movement. However, the attacks on Stalin by the [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchevite]] leadership in the Soviet Union, and the consequent rise of revisionism in some of the most influential parties of the communist movement, served to breathe new life into the project inspired by Trotsky.

This creed, Trotskyism, gained a substantial intellectual following in all the main imperialist countries due to its attacks on what they and the bourgeoisie call ‘Stalinism’. In attacking Stalin, and in fact, every country of socialist orientation, and regarding themselves as representing authentic Marxism, the activities of these pseudo-left sectarians promoted the propaganda interest of the imperialist bourgeoisie. However, the claims of Trotskyism rest not only on attacking Stalin and the countries of socialist orientation. These claims rest also on convincing certain intellectuals that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. This is why it may be considered useful for us to present a synoptic exposition of the main ideological differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as a guide for those who seek to examine this matter more deeply.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=EspressoStalinist|title=A Brief Guide to the Ideological Differences Between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism|url=https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/a-brief-guide-to-the-ideological-differences-between-marxism-leninism-and-trotskyism/|retrieved=29-03-2022}}</ref>
===Russian Revolution===
Trotskyites argue that the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October revolution of 1917]] was the realisation of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. The Marxist-Leninist position is that the revolution was made possible by the peculiar circumstances created by the 1914-1918 war and that without these conditions the transition to the socialist revolution would not have been possible.
=== Labour policy ===
Following the revolution and civil war, Trotskyites argued for the militarisation of the trade unions, that is a policy of coercion towards the unions. Marxist-Leninists around Lenin, including Stalin, opposed the Trotskyite militarisation policy, arguing instead that emphasis must be placed on persuasion rather than coercion. This led to a serious factional dispute in the communist party between the Marxist-Leninists and the Trotskyites between 1920-1921. Lenin himself regarded Trotsky’s policy on the trade unions as representing a ‘reactionary movement’.(See: Lenin: Collected Works, Vol.32)
===World revolutionary process in regard to socialism===
For Marxist-Leninists, socialism in one or several countries is a stage in the world revolution. Trotskyites argued that the policy of building socialism in one country was opposed to Marxism. The Marxist-Leninists argued building socialism in one country was an integral part of world revolution and, in fact would serve this process, in aiding the development of the latter. Since Trotsky did not raise the issue with Lenin, Marxist-Leninists can only assume that Trotsky’s real motives were of a factional nature. Or, with Lenin out of the way, following his death in 1924, Trotsky sought to impose his Permanent Revolution theory on the party.
===Industrialisation policy===
The Trotskyites sought to impose an industrialisation and [[Collectivization|collectivisation]] policy on the communist party at a time when the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat were in a weak position. Marxist-Leninists around Stalin wanted to wait until the party and the state had gathered enough strength to oversee such a policy. This meant defending the mixed economy of the [[NEP]] period until the party had strengthened itself in the working class and in the countryside.
===Fighting bureaucracy===
Trotskyites argue that after the death of Lenin a “Stalinist bureaucracy” emerged in the Soviet Union. This bureaucracy would undermine the revolution and to forestall this a political revolution would be necessary to remove the bureaucracy from power. Marxist-Leninists argue that the Soviet bureaucracy was more anti-Stalinist than ‘Stalinist’, a fact underlined by the frequent purges directed against it. In addition, Marxist-Leninists rejected the Trotskyite theory of a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy as completely one-sided, and argued that what was needed was not a political revolution to overthrow a supposedly counterrevolutionary bureaucracy, but rather there was a need to expose and purge the counterrevolutionary elements from the bureaucracy. The Trotskyite talk about a ‘political’ revolution to overthrow bureauracy represented a break from Marxism to [[anarchism]].
===Peaceful coexistence===
Soon after coming to power the Bolshevik communists, led by Lenin pursued a policy of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist states. The thinking behind this was to force the capitalist States, particularly the imperialists States, to live in peace with socialism, as far as foreign relations were concerned. This was not only based on the recognition that combined the imperialists States were by far stronger than the Socialist State, it was also because socialism, unlike capitalism, is not a warlike system. It is capitalism which needs war to increase profits for the monopolists, not socialism. While it is true that, on the one hand, the Khrushchevite revisionists distorted the communist policy of peaceful coexistence, it is also true, on the other hand, that the Trotskyites, and other pseudo-leftists rejected Lenin’s policy, wanting the socialist countries to act like capitalists and embroil the world into war.
==="Counterrevolution" in the Soviet Union===
Trotskyites claim that the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union was the work of a supposedly “Stalinist bureaucracy”. Such a claim made no sense because not only was there no entity which could be called the “Stalinist bureaucracy”, but the Stalinists, i.e., supporters of Stalin, had been purged by the Khrushchevites in the 1950s. Marxist-Leninists maintain that the Soviet counterrevolution was led by the [[Revisionism|revisionists]] who had come to power after Stalin’s death. This counterrevolution was begun by Khrushchev and completed by [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Gorbachev]]. Trotsky believed that, despite the supposed bureaucratization of the USSR, an internal restoration of capitalism was impossible.

Trotskyists often claim that Stalin purged all of the Old Bolsheviks even though many of Stalin's supporters ([[Lazar Kaganovich|Kaganovich]], [[Sergei Kirov|Kirov]], [[Vyacheslav Molotov|Molotov]], [[Andrei Zhdanov|Zhdanov]], etc.) were Old Bolsheviks. [[Karl Kautsky|Kautsky]] and [[Julius Martov|Martov]] were also very influential Marxist theorists who later became [[Revisionism|revisionists]].<ref name=":0223">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=121–122}}</ref>
===Communist history===
Trotskyites blame the defeat of revolutions in Germany, France and Spain on Stalin’s leadership of the [[Communist International (1919–1943)|Communist International]]. Marxist-Leninists have long argued that Stalin was in a minority in the Comintern. Therefore, the defeats experienced by the communist movement cannot simply be dumped at Stalin’s door. Only a concrete analysis, based on Marxism-Leninism, can throw light on how individual defeats came about.
===Revisionism===
One of the slanders aimed at Stalin by the open and concealed Trotskyites is that he led the international communist movement into the camp of revisionism. However, neither now or in the past, have they been able to provide any documentary evidence to support these claims based on Marxism-Leninism. The truth is, that any study of the writings of Stalin shows, without any shadow of doubt that he remained a committed Marxist-Leninist all his life.
===Evaluation of Stalin===
Trotskyites argue that Stalin betrayed the 1917 socialist revolution. However, in 1936, stunned by the gains that the Soviet Union had made under Stalin’s leadership, Trotsky had to pretend that the USSR's achievements had nothing to do with Stalin. Marxist-Leninists argue that Stalin was a defender of the socialist revolution in the most inauspicious of circumstances. Furthermore, in his time Stalin successfully defended the socialist orientation of the Soviet Union against revisionists and other two-faced elements posing as communists in the party and State. When these concealed enemies of socialism were found out they were unfailingly purged by Stalin.

== Influence ==
Trotskyism has had very little impact on the [[Third World]] except in [[Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka|Sri Lanka]], [[Bolivia]], and [[Argentine Republic|Argentina]] due to its opposition to [[Anti-colonialism|anti-colonial]] [[nationalism]] and the [[Non-Aligned Movement]].<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2017|title=Red Star over the Third World|chapter=Enemy of Imperialism|page=81|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecu7gb2ei65us6ip3r2ugcgkblneqcftbm456mb6bzvprkbqk55qm?filename=Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20Red%20Star%20Over%20the%20Third%20World-LeftWord%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=New Delhi|publisher=LeftWord Books}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Left-communism]]
* [[Fourth International]]
* [[Luxemburgism]]
* [[Posadism]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Trotskyism]]
[[Category:Left communism]]
[[Category:Left-wing ideologies]]
[[Category:Communist ideologies]]

Plurinationalism

2023-10-15T15:36:37Z

Dragon: Bolivia is not ML guys

{{Template:Stub}}
[[File:USSR national poster.png|thumb|"More than 100 nations and nationalities live in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|USSR]]."]]
'''Plurinationalism''', or '''plurinationality''' is the coexistence of two or more preserved [[Nation|national groups]] within a single polity, usually a nation state.{{Helper}}

In circumstances where the [[Leninism|Leninist]] conception of national [[self-determination]] is not necessary (i.e. the minority nation does not wish to secede into a new nation-state) nations can be adequately protected and represented by a plurinational state.

One example of this is the democratic-socialist state of [[Plurinational State of Bolivia|Bolivia]], which maintains the line of plurinationality in order to preserve the national character of indigenous groups while also dealing with the historical facts of [[Settler colonialism|colonization]]; particularly the large Mestizo population.
[[Category:Political terminology]]

Library:China: A Modern Social-Imperialist Power

2023-10-04T23:23:22Z

Dragon: :)

[[File:Rickroll.gif|thumb]]

File:Rickroll.gif

2023-10-04T23:23:03Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T21:29:09Z

Dragon: Updated some references

{{Infobox military person
|name = Yaroslav Hunka 
(Ярослав Гунька)
|image = Yaroslav Hunka, SS Galizien.jpg
|alt =
|caption = ''SS Galizien'' during World War II. Hunka says he is the man standing in the middle of the back row.<ref>The description of the photo provided by Hunka is as follows: Гайделяґер. Хлопці з мого села Урмань, Бережанського району. Я стою посередині. Клячать, зліва: Кіналь Михайло, поляк, що зжився з українськими хлопцями; після боїв під Бродами вступив до УПА й загинув у 1946 р. біля Бережан; Кулик Іван, загинув під Бродами; Каліщук Михайло, після Бродів загинув в УПА. Стоять, зліва: Фурдиґа Василь, після Бродів повернувся додому, згодом поїхав до Москви, де жив його брат, зголосився до Червоної армії, дослужився ранґи лейтенанта, воював проти японців; Ткачук Дмитро, служив у чоті польової жандармерії у Дивізії. Інші два з присілка й я їх добре не знав.</ref>
|native_name_lang = uk
|birth_date = 1925 (age 97–98)
|birth_place = [[Urmań]], [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]] (now Urman, [[Ukraine]])
|allegiance = [[German Reich (1933–1945)| Nazi Germany]]
|branch = {{flagicon image|Flag of the Schutzstaffel.svg|size=23px}} ''[[Waffen-SS]]''
|serviceyears = 1943–1945
|unit = {{flagicon image|Dyvizia Galychyna-rukav.svg|link=14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)|border=}} [[SS Division Galicia]]
|known_for = Being an SS volunteer soldier during WW2
|battles = [[World War II]]
|battles_label = War
}}
'''Yaroslav Hunka''' (Ukrainian: Ярослав Гунька; born {{circa}} 1925) is a Ukrainian-Canadian [[Second World War|World War II]] veteran who served in the [[14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)]],<ref name=":0" group="Note">Abbreviated as ''SS Galizien''.</ref> a predominantly-[[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] military formation of [[Nazi Germany]]. Born in Urman, then part of the [[Second Polish Republic]], Hunka volunteered for ''SS Galizien'' in 1943.

Former members of his unit bombed children at [[Toronto]]'s largest Ukrainian community center on [[Thanksgiving (Canada)|Canadian Thanksgiving]] back in 1949. [[File:Hunka Waffen-SS-warcrime1.png|right|thumb| Hunak's Waffen SS unit bombed children at Toronto's largest Ukrainian community center on Canadian Thanksgiving back in 1949.]]

In 2023, Hunka made international headlines after he was invited to the [[House of Commons of Canada]] by speaker [[Anthony Rota]] to be recognised, and he received two standing ovations from all house members, including Prime Minister [[Justin Trudeau]] and visiting Ukrainian President [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]]. Later, Hunka's identity as a former [[Waffen-SS]] member was revealed by the media (although he had been introduced by Rota as a "war veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians ") causing Rota to resign five days later and Canadian government officials to offer unconvincing apologies to the Jewish community.

==Biography==
Yaroslav Hunka was born in Urman,<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=Yaroslav Hunka|newspaper=Вісті Комбатанта [Combatant's News] (in Ukrainian)|title="Моє покоління"|date=2011-03-21|url=https://komb-a-ingwar.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_21.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925013139/https://komb-a-ingwar.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_21.html|archive-date=from the original on 25 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 25 September 2023}}</ref> [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]] (now Ukraine) {{circa}} 1925.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Alana Everson|newspaper=CTV News|title=Sudbury hosts rally for Ukraine|date=2022-05-07|url=https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sudbury-rally-for-ukraine-1.5893291|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220706124902/https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sudbury-rally-for-ukraine-1.5893291|archive-date=from the original on 6 July 2022|retrieved=Retrieved 24 September 2023}}</ref> In 1943, Hunka volunteered to join the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS at 18 years old.<ref name=":0" group="Note" /> He says his reason for enlisting was following the call of the [[Ukrainian National Committee]] to fight for Ukrainian independence.<ref name=":0" /> During his time in the ''SS Galizien'', he was photographed training in Munich and Neuhammer (present-day Świętoszów).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Lev Golinkin|newspaper=The Forward|title=Zelenskyy joins Canadian Parliament's ovation to 98-year-old veteran who fought with Nazis|date=2023-9-24|url=https://forward.com/fast-forward/561927/zelenskyy-joins-canadian-parliaments-ovation-to-98-year-old-veteran-who-fought-with-nazis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924124912/https://forward.com/fast-forward/561927/zelenskyy-joins-canadian-parliaments-ovation-to-98-year-old-veteran-who-fought-with-nazis/|archive-date=from the original on 24 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 24 September 2023}}</ref> In 1944, Hunka was deployed into combat against [[Workers' and Peasants' Red Army|Red Army]] forces on the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Christian Paas-Lang|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|title=House Speaker apologizes for honouring Ukrainian who fought in Nazi unit in WW II|date=2023-09-24|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925000224/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117|archive-date=from the original on 25 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 24 September 2023}}</ref>

=== Possible involvement in war crimes ===
Hunka's SS unit was found to have participated in war crimes in Poland. According to researcher [[Ivan Katchanovski]]:<blockquote>Members of this division [the 1st Galician] were involved in mass murder of Jews, Poles and Ukrainians during (the Second World War), and many of them did this before they joined this division. They're considered to be Nazi collaborators, and they are not regarded even as heroes in Ukraine by the Ukrainian government ... They massacred entire villages of Polish residents in this region, including women and children because they were accused of being associated with Soviet partisans ... In addition to this, the SS Galicia Division was involved in other cases of violence. They took part in the suppression of the anti-Nazi uprising in Slovakia, and they also took part in the brutal and violent suppression of the anti-Nazi partisan movement in Yugoslavia.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=CTV News|title=How was veteran Yaroslav Hunka's military unit linked to the Nazis?|date=2023-09-26|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-was-veteran-yaroslav-hunka-s-military-unit-linked-to-the-nazis-1.6578579}}</ref></blockquote>Since Hunka was able to evade trial by receiving refuge in Canada, his involvement in such crimes is unknown at this time.

On September 26 2023, following his standing ovation at the House of Commons, Poland’s Education Minister Przemysław Czarnek had announced that he had taken steps to start extraditing Hunka to face trial for his involvement in the Waffen SS.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Claudia Chiappa and Kyle Duggan|newspaper=Politico|title=Poland seeks extradition of Ukrainian SS veteran who was applauded in Canada|date=2023-09-26|url=https://www.politico.eu/article/yaroslav-hunka-poland-extradite-ukrainian-ss-veteran-canada/}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Peter Zimonjic|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|title=Poland's education minister says he's 'taken steps' to extradite Yaroslav Hunka|date=2023-09-26|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yaroslav-hunka-poland-minister-extradite-1.6978266|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926135923/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yaroslav-hunka-poland-minister-extradite-1.6978266|archive-date=from the original on 26 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 26 September 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Ellen Francis|newspaper=Washington Post|title=Polish official wants Canada to extradite 98-year-old Nazi veteran|date=2023-09-27|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/27/poland-ukrainian-nazi-veteran-canada-extradition/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927145645/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/27/poland-ukrainian-nazi-veteran-canada-extradition/|archive-date=from the original on 27 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 28 September 2023}}</ref> In a post made on the social media platform X (formerly known as [[Twitter]]), Czarnek said:<ref>{{Web citation|author=Daniel Tilles|newspaper=Notes From Poland|title=Poland may seek extradition of Ukrainian Nazi WW2 veteran Hunka from Canada|date=2023-09-26|url=https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/09/26/poland-may-seek-extradition-of-ukrainian-nazi-ww2-veteran-hunka-from-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926173724/https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/09/26/poland-may-seek-extradition-of-ukrainian-nazi-ww2-veteran-hunka-from-canada/|archive-date=from the original on 26 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 26 September 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Chloe Mayer|newspaper=Newsweek|title=Yaroslav Hunka extradition demanded by Poland over alleged Nazi past|date=2023-09-26|url=https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-alleged-nazi-justice-poland-1829892|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926192317/https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-alleged-nazi-justice-poland-1829892|archive-date=from the original on 26 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 26 September 2023}}</ref><blockquote>In view of the scandalous events in the Canadian Parliament, which involved honoring a member of the criminal Nazi SS Galizien formation in the presence of President Zelensky, I have taken steps towards the possible extradition of this man to Poland. #NOForFalsifyingHistory!</blockquote>

=== Emigration to Canada ===
Following the conclusion of [[Second World War|World War II in Europe]], Hunka settled in the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=CIUS Newsletter|title=New Endowments|date=2020|url=https://www.ualberta.ca/canadian-institute-of-ukrainian-studies/media-library/newsletters/2020/2020-cius_newsletter-eng-optimized.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926081118/https://www.ualberta.ca/canadian-institute-of-ukrainian-studies/media-library/newsletters/2020/2020-cius_newsletter-eng-optimized.pdf|archive-date=from the original on 26 September 2023|retrieved=Retrieved 25 September 2023}}</ref> He and his wife emigrated to Toronto, Canada in 1954, owing to the country's very lax

His sons established the ''Yaroslav and Margaret Hunka Ukrainian Research Endowment Fund'' at the University of Alberta. After the 2023 controversy surrounding Hunka, the interim provost of the University of Alberta announced it would close the endowment and return the approximately CA$30,000 to Hunka's sons, saying that the university "recognizes and regrets the unintended harm caused."

In Canada, Hunka remained active in ''SS Galizien'' veterans circles and contributed to a blog on the Internet in 2010 and 2011. As of 2022, Hunka lived in North Bay, Ontario.

==House of Commons of Canada visit==
In September 2023, Anthony Rota, the speaker of the House of Commons, invited Hunka to visit the Parliament of Canada, where Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] delivered remarks. On September 22, 2023, Rota recognized Hunka's presence in the chamber, characterizing him as "a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98." Rota praised Hunka, asserting that "He is a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service." After Rota's praise, the chamber gave a standing ovation to Hunka, which Zelenskyy and his wife also joined.

Reactions to the celebration of Hunka were negative and generated international headlines. The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies condemned ''SS Galizien'' as "responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians with a level of brutality and malice that is unimaginable," referencing events such as the 1944 [[Huta Pieniacka massacre]] of Polish civilians. In a statement released on September 24, Rota accepted responsibility for inviting Hunka to the ceremony, and on September 26, Rota announced his resignation over the controversy. President Zelenskyy did not comment on the incident.

==Notes==
<references group=Note />

==References==
<references/>
===Sources===

==External links==
*[https://news.sky.com/story/canadian-parliaments-standing-ovation-for-former-nazi-soldier-was-deeply-embarrassing-trudeau-says-12970074 Video: Canadian parliament's standing ovation for former Nazi soldier], Sky News (September 2023)

[[Category:Canadian white supremacists]]
[[Category:Members of the Galizien division]]
[[Category:Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts]]
[[Category:Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany]]

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T20:30:59Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:46:07Z

Dragon: Cleaned nazi-sympathetic bullshit

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:28:47Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:26:49Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:24:50Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:08:12Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T19:06:08Z

Dragon:

Yaroslav Hunka

2023-09-28T18:31:11Z

Dragon:

{{Infobox military person
|name = Yaroslav Hunka 
(Ярослав Гунька)
|image = Yaroslav Hunka, SS Galizien.jpg
|alt =
|caption = ''SS Galizien'' during World War II. ''The Forward'' identified the man in the front centre as Hunka,<ref name="Golinkin"/> although per Hunka himself he is the man ''standing'' in the middle.<ref>The description of the photo provided by Hunka is as follows: ''Гайделяґер. Хлопці з мого села Урмань, Бережанського району. Я стою посередині. Клячать, зліва: Кіналь Михайло, поляк, що зжився з українськими хлопцями; після боїв під Бродами вступив до УПА й загинув у 1946 р. біля Бережан; Кулик Іван, загинув під Бродами; Каліщук Михайло, після Бродів загинув в УПА. Стоять, зліва: Фурдиґа Василь, після Бродів повернувся додому, згодом поїхав до Москви, де жив його брат, зголосився до Червоної армії, дослужився ранґи лейтенанта, воював проти японців; Ткачук Дмитро, служив у чоті польової жандармерії у Дивізії. Інші два з присілка й я їх добре не знав.''</ref>
|native_name_lang = uk
|birth_date = 1925 (age 97–98)
|birth_place = Urmań, [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]] (now Urman, [[Ukraine]])
|allegiance = Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svg [[German Reich (1933–1945)| Germany]]
|branch = {{flagicon image|Flag of the Schutzstaffel.svg|size=23px}} ''[[Waffen-SS]]''
|serviceyears = 1943–1945
|unit = {{flagicon image|Dyvizia Galychyna-rukav.svg|link=14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)|border=}} [[SS Division Galicia]]
|known_for = Receiving a standing ovation from the [[House of Commons of Canada]] in 2023
|battles = [[World War II]]
|battles_label = War
}}
'''Yaroslav Hunka''' (Ukrainian: Ярослав Гунька; born c. 1925) is a Ukrainian-Canadian [[World War II]] veteran of the [[14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)]], a military formation of [[Nazi Germany]].<ref group=Note>Abbreviated as ''SS Galizien''.</ref> Born in Urman, then part of the [[Second Polish Republic]], Hunka volunteered for ''SS Galizien'' in 1943. He immigrated to [[Canada]] as a displaced person after the conclusion of the war, and is currently retired and lives in North Bay, Ontario.

His Waffen SS unit bombed children at Toronto's largest Ukrainian community center on Canadian Thanksgiving back in 1949. [[File:Hunka Waffen-SS-warcrime1.png|right|thumb| Hunak's Waffen SS unit bombed children at Toronto's largest Ukrainian community center on Canadian Thanksgiving back in 1949]]

In 2023, Hunka made international headlines after he was invited to the [[House of Commons of Canada]] by speaker [[Anthony Rota]] to be recognized and received two [[standing ovation]]s from all house members, including Canadian prime minister [[Justin Trudeau]] and visiting Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]]. Later, Hunka's identity as a former ''[[Waffen-SS]]'' member was revealed by the media, causing Rota to resign five days later, and Canadian government officials apologized to the worldwide Jewish community.

==Biography==
Yaroslav Hunka was born in Urman, Ukraine|Urman, [[Second Polish Republic]] (now Ukraine) {{circa}} 1925. In 1943, Hunka volunteered to join the [[14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)]] at 18 years old.<ref group=Note>Abbreviated as ''SS Galizien''.</ref> He says his reason for enlisting was following the call of the [[Ukrainian National Committee]] to fight for Ukrainian independence. During his time in the ''SS Galizien'', he was photographed training in Munich and Neuhammer (present day Świętoszów). In 1944, Hunka was deployed into combat against [[Red Army]] forces on the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front of World War II]]. Dominique Arel, the chair of Ukrainian studies at the University of Ottawa, told CBC News that thousands of Ukrainian volunteers had been drawn to the division, and that many aspired doing so could help attain Ukrainian independence from the [[USSR|Soviets]]. According to him, it was "difficult to determine" whether specific groups of the division took part in atrocities, but he said that by the time Hunka's unit reached the front, German operations relating to the [[Holocaust]] would have come to an end in that area. He said, however, that the ''SS Galizien'' had been found to be implicated in the killing of Polish civilians.

Following the conclusion of [[Second World War|World War II in Europe]], Hunka settled in the [[United Kingdom]] and joined the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain. In 1951, he married Margaret Ann Edgerton (1931–2018), and the couple [[Ratlines (World War II)|emigrated to Canada]] three years later, settling in Toronto, where they raised their two sons, Martin and Peter, and became active in the Ukrainian-Canadian community. After graduating from a technical college, Hunka worked in the aircraft industry, eventually becoming an inspector for [[De Havilland Canada|De Havilland]]. In retirement, Hunka was heavily involved in the Ukrainian community and his sons, Martin and Peter, established the ''Yaroslav and Margaret Hunka Ukrainian Research Endowment Fund'' at the University of Alberta to advance academic research in the underground Ukrainian Catholic Church. After the 2023 controversy surrounding Hunka, the interim provost of the University of Alberta announced it would close the endowment and return the approximately CA$30,000 to Hunka's sons, saying that the university "recognizes and regrets the unintended harm caused."

On August 20, 2004, Hunka was named an Honorary Citizen of the City of Berezhany by the Berezhany city council, in Ukraine.

In Canada, Hunka remained active in {{lang|de|SS Galizien}} veterans circles and contributed to a blog on the Internet in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, he compared the Ukrainian diaspora to the Israelites, arguing that both stateless groups were "exiled by God" from their homeland to return at a later time. As of 2022, Hunka lived in North Bay, Ontario, and travelled to Greater Sudbury to protest against the Russian special military operation in Ukraine that year. Describing the situation in Ukraine, Hunka told ''CTV News'' that the "Destruction is just unbelievable but it will take years and years to rebuild it, ... But Ukrainian [''sic''] will win and God Bless Ukraine and I pray for it."

==House of Commons of Canada visit==
In September 2023, [[Anthony Rota]], the [[Speaker of the House of Commons (Canada)|speaker of the House of Commons]], invited Hunka to visit the [[Parliament of Canada]], where Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] delivered remarks.<ref name=Ritchie>{{cite news|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jewish-group-demands-apology-after-mps-honoured-man-who-fought-for-nazis-1.6575593 |title=House Speaker Anthony Rota apologizes after inviting man who fought for Nazis to Parliament|last=Ritchie|first=Sarah |date=September 25, 2023 |orig-date=Originally published September 24, 2023|publisher=[[CTV News]] |access-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924190230/https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jewish-group-demands-apology-after-mps-honoured-man-who-fought-for-nazis-1.6575593 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Gillies2>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/canada-parliament-apology-ukraine-nazi-eedc22e1d810011c412953168a4cee46 |title=Leader of Canada's House of Commons apologizes for honoring man who fought for Nazis |last=Gillies |first=Rob |date=September 24, 2023 |website=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925014002/https://apnews.com/article/canada-parliament-apology-ukraine-nazi-eedc22e1d810011c412953168a4cee46 |url-status=live }}</ref> On September 22, 2023, Rota recognized Hunka's presence in the chamber, characterizing him as "a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98."<ref name="Duggan">{{cite web |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/24/nazi-linked-veteran-ovation-zelenkyy-canada-visit-00117857 |title=Nazi-linked veteran received ovation during Zelenskyy's Canada visit |last=Duggan |first=Kyle |date=September 24, 2023 |website=[[Politico]] |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924233632/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/24/nazi-linked-veteran-ovation-zelenkyy-canada-visit-00117857 |url-status=live }}</ref> Rota praised Hunka, asserting that "He is a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service."<ref name=Ritchie/><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brugen |first=Isabel van |date=2023-09-25 |title=Who is Yaroslav Hunka? Ukrainian With Nazi past honored in Canada |url=https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-nazi-ukraine-canada-parliament-1829520 |access-date=2023-09-26 |website=Newsweek |language=en |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926121815/https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-nazi-ukraine-canada-parliament-1829520 |url-status=live }}</ref> After Rota's praise, the chamber gave a [[standing ovation]] to Hunka, which Zelenskyy and his wife also joined.<ref name=Golinkin/>

Reactions to the celebration of Hunka were negative and generated international headlines. The Friends of [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] for Holocaust Studies condemned ''SS Galizien'' as "responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians with a level of brutality and malice that is unimaginable,"<ref name=Ritchie/> referencing events such as the 1944 [[Huta Pieniacka massacre]] of Polish civilians.<ref name=Golinkin/> In a statement released on September 24, Rota accepted responsibility for inviting Hunka to the ceremony,<ref name="Schroeder">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-house-speaker-apologizes-recognition-veteran-who-fought-nazis-2023-09-24/ |title=Canada House speaker apologizes for recognition of veteran who fought for Nazis |last=Schroeder |first=Pete |date=September 24, 2023 |publisher=[[Reuters]] |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925025302/https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-house-speaker-apologizes-recognition-veteran-who-fought-nazis-2023-09-24/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and stated that "I particularly want to extend my deepest apologies to [[History of the Jews in Canada|Jewish communities in Canada]] and around the world. I accept full responsibility for my action."<ref name=Gillies2/><ref>{{Cite web |date=September 25, 2023 |title='Deepest apologies': Canada official backtracks after Ukraine Nazi honoured |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/25/canada-house-speaker-apologises-for-recognition-of-veteran-linked-to |access-date=September 26, 2023 |website=Al Jazeera |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926144123/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/25/canada-house-speaker-apologises-for-recognition-of-veteran-linked-to |url-status=live }}</ref> Ann-Clara Vaillancourt, a spokeswoman for Trudeau, called Rota's apology "the right thing to do" and emphasized Rota's responsibility for inviting Hunka to the ceremony.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/24/canadian-speaker-apologizes-ukrainian-nazi/ |title=Canadian House speaker apologizes after honoring veteran of Nazi unit |last=Kaur |first=Anumita |date=September 24, 2023 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925060017/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/24/canadian-speaker-apologizes-ukrainian-nazi/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On September 26, Rota announced his resignation over the controversy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Anthony Rota resigns as House Speaker over tribute to veteran of Nazi unit - National {{!}} Globalnews.ca |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/9985690/anthony-rota-resigns-canada-parliament-nazi-unit-tribute/ |access-date=2023-09-26 |website=Global News |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926180306/https://globalnews.ca/news/9985690/anthony-rota-resigns-canada-parliament-nazi-unit-tribute/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Tasker |first=John Paul |date=September 26, 2023 |title=Anthony Rota resigns as Speaker after inviting former Ukrainian soldier with Nazi ties to Parliament |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-anthony-rota-resignation-1.6978422 |access-date=September 26, 2023 |website=CBC |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926181710/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-anthony-rota-resignation-1.6978422 |url-status=live }}</ref> President Zelenskyy did not comment on the incident.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1816304/Zelensky-Trudeau-WW2-Nazi |title=Fury after Zelensky and Trudeau gave WW2 Nazi unit veteran a standing ovation |website=[[Daily Express]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://forward.com/news/562072/anthony-rota-canada-parliament-resignation-yaroslav-hunka-ovation-nazi-ss-galichina/ |title=Canada’s House Speaker resigns over celebration of 98-year-old who fought in Nazi unit |website=[[The Forward]]}}</ref>

==Possible Polish extradition request==
On September 26, Polish education minister [[Przemysław Czarnek]] stated that his government may seek to extradite Hunka as a [[war criminal]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yaroslav-hunka-poland-minister-extradite-1.6978266 |title=Poland's education minister says he's 'taken steps' to extradite Yaroslav Hunka |last=Zimonjic |first=Peter |date=September 26, 2023 |website=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] |access-date=September 26, 2023 |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926135923/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yaroslav-hunka-poland-minister-extradite-1.6978266 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/27/poland-ukrainian-nazi-veteran-canada-extradition/ | title=Polish official wants Canada to extradite 98-year-old Nazi veteran | first=Ellen | last=Francis | date=September 27, 2023 | newspaper=[[Washington Post]] | accessdate=September 28, 2023 | archive-date=27 September 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927145645/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/27/poland-ukrainian-nazi-veteran-canada-extradition/ | url-status=live }}</ref> In a post made on the social media platform X (formerly known as [[Twitter]]), Czarnek said:<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tilles |first=Daniel |date=2023-09-26 |title=Poland may seek extradition of Ukrainian Nazi WW2 veteran Hunka from Canada |url=https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/09/26/poland-may-seek-extradition-of-ukrainian-nazi-ww2-veteran-hunka-from-canada/ |access-date=2023-09-26 |website=Notes From Poland |language=en-US |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926173724/https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/09/26/poland-may-seek-extradition-of-ukrainian-nazi-ww2-veteran-hunka-from-canada/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mayer |first=Chloe |date=2023-09-26 |title=Yaroslav Hunka extradition demanded by Poland over alleged Nazi past |url=https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-alleged-nazi-justice-poland-1829892 |access-date=2023-09-26 |website=Newsweek |language=en |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926192317/https://www.newsweek.com/yaroslav-hunka-alleged-nazi-justice-poland-1829892 |url-status=live }}</ref>
<blockquote>In view of the scandalous events in the Canadian Parliament, which involved honoring a member of the criminal Nazi SS Galizien formation in the presence of President Zelensky, I have taken steps towards the possible extradition of this man to Poland. #NOForFalsifyingHistory!</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references group=Note />

==References==
{{Reflist}}
===Sources===
* {{cite web |date=August 14, 2009 |title=1st-Division of the UNA: Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes |url=http://www.infoukes.com/galiciadivision/deschenes/ |access-date=September 25, 2023|archive-date=August 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090814153200/http://www.infoukes.com/galiciadivision/deschenes/}}
* {{cite web |title=Waffen-SS |url=https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/waffen-ss |access-date=September 25, 2023 |website=jewishvirtuallibrary.org |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924115143/https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/waffen-ss |url-status=live }}

==External links==
*[https://news.sky.com/story/canadian-parliaments-standing-ovation-for-former-nazi-soldier-was-deeply-embarrassing-trudeau-says-12970074 Video: Canadian parliament's standing ovation for former Nazi soldier], [[Sky News]] (September 2023)