End the Aggression Against Syria! Stop the Drive to War Against Iran!

Canadian Peace Congress Executive Council

The Canadian Peace Congress condemns the ongoing foreign intervention in Syria and the escalating drive to war against Iran, and calls for the immediate withdrawal of all Canadian, NATO and foreign mercenary forces from the region. We further call upon the Conservative government of Stephen Harper to restore and normalize its diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran, and to re‑orient Canadian foreign policy toward peace, international cooperation and solidarity.

The Harper government’s decision to adopt an international policy of belligerence, and to do so without consulting Parliament, is further evidence of its abandonment of a foreign policy of peace and diplomacy in favour of aggressive and hostile interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. Syria and Iran are member states of the United Nations and have expressed no hostile intent towards Canada or its people. Prime Minister Harper is actively contributing to the danger of war, through hostile policies that are out of step with the Canadian peoples’ longstanding support for peace. Continue reading

Advertisements

CLC Welcomes Decision to Create New Union: Georgetti Says CEP, CAW Choosing Best Way Forward

Canadian Labour Congress

The President of the Canadian Labour Congress has welcomed a decision by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada to create a new union along with the Canadian Auto Workers.

CLC President Ken Georgetti addresses delegates to the B.C. Federation of Labour’s 50th Convention.

“The members and leaders of the CEP and CAW are choosing the best way forward for their unions,” Georgetti says.

Delegates to the annual CEP convention meeting in the City of Québec voted in favour of a proposal to create the new union. Delegates to a CAW convention had earlier voted unanimously in favour of the same proposal at their August 2012 convention in Toronto. Continue reading

The Road to Socialism in China

by Sitaram Yechury

The tremendous strides made by the Chinese economy during the last two decades have been recognised, even by its worst critics, as being incomparable in the 20th century.  The average annual rate of growth during the last two decades registered an amazing 9.8%. The Chinese economy continues to grow over and above this record at roughly 8% in the current year.  The IMF has predicted that by the year 2007, People’s Republic of China  will surpass the United States of America as the largest economy in the world (World Economic Outlook, IMF, 1997).

Pictures of Chinese leaders Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao on parade to celebrate the 60th anniversary of socialism in China.

How was such a remarkable development possible?  Particularly, in a period when the mighty Socialist Soviet Union was dismantled? When all pen-pushers of imperialism and the bourgeoisie were busy seeking to nail the coffin of socialism and claiming that “capitalism is eternal”, socialist China continued to register  such impressive  economic successes.  In a period when imperialist ideologues are churning out theories such as the `end of ideology’, socialist China continues to  speak of upholding Marxism-Leninism.  While the right-wing intellectuals and academicians are in a haste to state that China’s successes have nothing to do with either Marxism or socialism, some amongst the Left are also concerned whether these successes in China represent the restoration of capitalism?  Has Mao’s China been abandoned?  Have `capitalist roarders’ taken over China?  What are the consequences of the current economic reforms for the future of socialism in China? These are some of such questions that we seek to explore. Continue reading

Communist Party of China Delegate Election Shows Improved Intra-Party Democracy

Xinhua/People’s Daily Online

BEIJING, Aug. 16 (Xinhua) — After almost one year of campaigning, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has elected its delegates to the 18th National Congress, demonstrating both its understanding of democratic procedure and an optimized lineup with more younger, grassroots-level Party members.

Image from the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China

Earlier this week, the CPC published a list of names for the 2,270 delegates for its 18th National Congress, which will be held in the second half of this year.

Improved election measures have shown that the Party does not regard the election as mere routine, but as an important demonstration of intra-Party democracy that will serve as a critical factor in establishing a substantial democracy in a socialist country. Continue reading

The Bund, It’s Nationalism, It’s Separatism: Marxism and the National Question

by Joseph Stalin

We said above that Bauer, while granting the necessity of national autonomy for the Czechs, Poles, and so on, nevertheless opposes similar autonomy for the Jews. In answer to the question, “Should the working class demand autonomy for the Jewish people?” Bauer says that “national autonomy cannot be demanded by the Jewish workers.” According to Bauer, the reason is that “capitalist society makes it impossible for them (the Jews – J. St.) to continue as a nation.”

In brief, the Jewish nation is coming to an end, and hence there is nobody to demand national autonomy for. The Jews are being assimilated.

A demonstration of the General Jewish Labour Bund, 1917

This view of the fate of the Jews as a nation is not a new one. It was expressed by Marx as early as the ‘forties, in reference chiefly to the German Jews. It was repeated by Kautsky in 1903, in reference to the Russian Jews. It is now being repeated by Bauer in reference to the Austrian Jews, with the difference, however, that he denies not the present but the future of the Jewish nation.

Bauer explains the impossibility of preserving the existence of the Jews as a nation by the fact that “the Jews have no closed territory of settlement.” This explanation, in the main a correct one, does not however express the whole truth. Continue reading

The Vulgarisation of Marxism by the Opportunists: The State and Revolution

by Vladimir Lenin

The question of the relation of the state to the social revolution, and of the social revolution to the state, like the question of revolution generally, was given very little attention by the leading theoreticians and publicists of the Second International (1889-1914). But the most characteristic thing about the process of the gradual growth of opportunism that led to the collapse of the Second International in 1914 is the fact that even when these people were squarely faced with this question they tried to evade it or ignored it.

In general, it may be said that evasiveness over the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state–an evasiveness which benefited and fostered opportunism–resulted in the distortion of Marxism and in its complete vulgarization.

To characterize this lamentable process, if only briefly, we shall take the most prominent theoreticians of Marxism: Plekhanov and Kautsky.

1. Plekhanov’ s Controversy with the Anarchists

Plekhanov wrote a special pamphlet on the relation of anarchism to socialism, entitled Anarchism and Socialism, which was published in German in 1894.

Georgi Plekhanov

In treating this subject, Plekhanov contrived completely to evade the most urgent, burning, and most politically essential issue in the struggle against anarchism, namely, the relation of the revolution to the state, and the question of the state in general! Continue reading

Cultural-National Autonomy: Marxism and the National Question

by Joseph Stalin

We spoke above of the formal aspect of the Austrian national programme and of the methodological grounds which make it impossible for the Russian Marxists simply to adopt the example of Austrian Social-Democracy and make the latter’s programme their own.

Let us now examine the essence of the programme itself

What then is the national programme of the Austrian Social-Democrats?

Nations and Nationalities of Austria-Hungary

It is expressed in two words: cultural-national autonomy.

This means, firstly, that autonomy would be granted, let us say, not to Bohemia or Poland, which are inhabited mainly by Czechs and Poles, but to Czechs and Poles generally, irrespective of territory, no matter what part of Austria they inhabit.

That is why this autonomy is called national and not territorial. Continue reading