Mediaboss Marketing

Forty-five years ago last Sunday, Vietnamese troops seizedPhnom Penh and ended Cambodia's 45-month reign of terror known as the "killing fields." Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge government implemented policiesforced labor, resettlements, torture, starvationthat led to the death of 1.7-to-3 million people, or at least 20 percent of the nation's population. The regime destroyed the country, caused untold suffering, and left permanent scars.

Painful as it is, we should not let these grimanniversariesgo unremembered. For context, imagine a "political experiment" that obliterated our society and left a quarter of our 331-million population dead. It's inconceivable. As the son of a Nazi concentration camp survivor and grandson of peasants who fled Russian pogroms, I've always been fascinated by a simple question: What are the conditions that lead to such horrors?

The obvious answer is these horrors always are rooted in ideas, typically radical ones that try to implement some utopian vision. They typically are the work of governments. Large swaths of the population take partsome willingly, others by force. The Cambodian revolution wasn't spontaneous. Its leaders honed their philosophy while studying in Paris. And one usually finds intellectuals behind crazy notions. As the sayinggoes, "Ideas have consequences"and they're often tragic.

Cambodia's leaders sought to create an idyllic and classless agrarian society, one that harkened to the Angkor Empire from the 800s. "They wanted all members of society to be rural agricultural workers rather than educated city dwellers, who the Khmer Rouge believed had been corrupted by western capitalist ideas," according to theHolocaust Memorial Day Trust. Their philosophy echoed Mao Zedong, whose efforts to remake China led to unimaginable horrors.

For half of my life, the Cold War and the threat of communism was an ever-present feature. Time moves on, so it's no surprise that fewer Americans remember the widespread fear that totalitarianism might dominate. Communist regimes at one point controlled 30 percent of the world's population. Despite this history, a shocking 2019 poll found more than a third of U.S. millennials approve of communism, with only 57 percent preferring the Declaration of Independence to the Communist Manifesto, according to a reportin the Independent.

In 1999, the"Black Book of Communism"tried to detail the number of civilian deaths caused by the world's communist regimesnot deaths caused amid wars and civil strife, but direct massacres from the kind of policies so efficiently carried out in Cambodia. The authors came up with a figure of 100 million. These deaths don't tell the entire story of fear, slavery, and repression. It's simply unfathomable that any modern American could have a view of communist regimes that were any more favorable than the views most of us hold of Nazism.

Then again, ideological narratives grab hold of people in ways that are hard to understand. So many young leftists are nurtured in a university hothouse that divvies up humanity into fixedgroups of "oppressor" and "oppressed." They learned to have an endless faith in the government's ability to reorder humanity. They probably haven't been taught about what happens when officials are given unlimited powers to launch a "Great Leap Forward," create "Year Zero" or design a "New Soviet Man."

That's too bad because the reason we live such free and prosperous lives is because we live within a system that limits the government's power to take our property, throw us in prison, depopulate cities, execute us, force us onto long marches and put us in re-education camps. History proves that many peopleincluding those who claim to have the best intentionswould do horrific things if they had such powers at their disposal. We can even point to horrorsin the history of our own country, of course.

What lessons can modern Americans draw from the Cambodian nightmare? I'd suggest we show no tolerance toward grandiose social experiments of any kind (such as radicallyreorderingsociety to avert a supposed climate doom) and focus instead on incrementally improving life within our current system. People get excited about big, transformative ideas even though they can upend society, yet lose interest in the nuts-and-bolts of the slow-moving democratic process. The latter can be hard work, so no wonder political radicals prefer dangerous shortcuts.

Back in Cambodia, the devastation from the 1970s still permeates the nation's politics. After Pol Pot was deposed, the country fell into a civil war that lasted until the 1990s, with an apparently unrepentant Pol Pot finallydyingin exile 1998. As Timereports, many former Khmer Rouge officials remain in power and the country "still grapples with Pol Pot's brutal legacy." Cambodia's population is young, so few remember the horrorsbut it still casts a pall over everything.

For the rest of us, all we can do is remember, or as authorElie Wieselsaid: "For the dead and the living, we must bear witness."

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

See more here:
Pol Pot's Atrocities Still Matter, 45 Years After Khmer Rouge's Fall - Reason

Facebook Twitter Reddit WhatsApp Messenger Email Print

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was described by John Reed author of Ten Days that Shook the World, an eyewitness account of the Russian Revolution as the most loved and most hated person alive. And this remains the case even a century since his death.

Lenin was loved by hundreds of millions of people who wanted to change society. But he was hated by the ruling class and their apologists.

The reason for this hatred is because Lenin was successful. In October 1917, for the first time in history, the working class took power and held it. They showed that they could run society without the help of bosses and bankers.

This was all possible because the working class had a leadership in the Bolshevik Party that was able to guide the revolution to success.

Livestream will play here at 3pm on 21 January

Lenin once said that capitalism is horror without end. Capitalism today offers us nothing but poverty, suffering and war. For that reason, the campaign of slander against Lenin continues. Workers and young people cant be allowed to think that a better future is possible. And so the name of Lenin and the Bolsheviks has to be smeared with all kinds of lies.

We think the time has come to set the record straight. The International Marxist Tendency is therefore launching a campaign to celebrate the life, works, and legacy of this great revolutionary.

Far from being old and outdated, Lenins ideas are more relevant than ever. They provide an invaluable tool in the hands of revolutionaries today.

As Lenin once said: Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. It is up to revolutionaries of today to study the works of Lenin, and to build a revolutionary party along the lines of the Bolsheviks, in order to bring about a successful struggle for communism.

We call on all our supporters to not only attend this #Lenin100 meeting, but to help us spread it far and wide. Invite your friends, family and colleagues. And help us reach an even wider audience by sharing the event on social media.

Lenin may have died 100 years ago, but his ideas live on today. In the words of the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky: Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin is to live forever!

Our Lenin lives! event will take place in London, at Hanover Primary School Sports Hall, N1 8BD. It will also be streamed live on our YouTube channel. You can buy tickets to the in-person event here.

Wellred Books

For those wanting to understand the person of Lenin, it is imperative to read him for themselves. With 45 volumes of collected works (in English), however, this is a significant challenge really the work of a lifetime.

Wellred Books upcoming biography of Lenin, In Defence of Lenin, provides an accessible overview, in this respect, presenting his ideas and their relevance for a new generation of revolutionaries.

The beauty of the book is that it is suitable for both the beginner and more advanced student of the history of Bolshevism. Someone completely fresh on their journey into Marxism has in their hands an extensive compendium of the figure of Lenin and his ideas, which have been subjected to so much distortion and calumny.

But even for comrades familiar with titles such as Lenin and Trotsky: What they really stood for, or who have already listened to the Bolshevism audiobook on their commute to work, this new publication will still offer many inspiring insights, painting a vivid portrait of a true revolutionary.

The first few chapters, for example, are of a more personal nature, containing facts about Lenins upbringing that few of us would previously have been familiar with. These are not just nice to know, but are crucial for setting the scene for the later sections on Lenins political development and radicalisation.

In Defence of Lenin is spread over two volumes, and spans over a thousand pages, setting the necessary context for various key events: the launch of Iskra; the various debates in the early Russian workers movement; the split in 1903; and the 1905 revolution in Lenins words, the dress rehearsal for the October Revolution in 1917.

Events such as the period of reaction before the First World War, and the war itself, aptly illustrate the importance Lenin attached to defending the banner of Marxism against all kinds of revisionism. This was a period where Lenin was extremely isolated, and often in a minority in his own party.

Chapter 20 on Lenins Response from Exile, with extensive quotations from his Letters from Afar, is a particularly effective transition to the fresh winds of revolution that had started blowing by this time.

Lenins essential role is unquestionable. Without his ideological rearming of the party which at times was bending to pressures, and was being swept along helplessly by events there would have been no October Revolution.

Volume one clearly shows how the road to creating the Bolshevik Party did not proceed in a straight line. It was a hard path, full of difficulties, setbacks, and frustrations.

Volume two, which deals with the October Revolution itself, and its aftermath, continues this theme. From the very start, it was a full on fight for survival for the nascent Soviet republic.

The authors, Alan Woods and Rob Sewell, deal with the various achievements of the revolution. But they dont shy away from the very real difficulties posed by the material and cultural backwardness of the early workers state, not to mention the brutal civil war and famine that stalked the land.

This sort of honesty is merely a continuation of the thoroughly honest approach that Lenin himself time and again adopted. His method was always to say what is; to tell the truth.

In fact, here is another aspect that permeates In Defence of Lenin: a demonstration of how thoroughly human he was. Lenin had a real sense of humour and personal warmth.

As the authors say in the introduction, all those who ever met Lenin were struck, not only by his intellect, but also by his great sense of humour an aspect which his detractors wish to eradicate or ignore. They make no mention of this for the simple reason that a sense of humour doesnt quite fit with the narrative of a bloodthirsty dictator.

The appendix Krupskaya on Lenin only reinforces this human side. Here, Lenins lifelong partner and comrade-in-arms amongst other things delves into Lenins meticulous methods; how he wrote for the masses; his literary tastes; the influence the old revolutionary Chernyshevsky had on Lenins development; and last but not least, how Lenin studied Marx.

Above all, however, In Defence of Lenin is a treasure trove of ideas which revolutionaries today can dig into. Like the first four congresses of the Communist International, dealt with in a separate chapter, this should serve as a veritable school of communism.

So dont hesitate pre-order your copy now!

Facebook Twitter Reddit WhatsApp Messenger Email Print

Read more:
Lenin lives! Join the communists to celebrate his life and ideas! - Socialist Appeal

Facebook Twitter Reddit WhatsApp Messenger Email Print

After more than 30 years of publishing, we are delighted to announce that this weeks issue no.400 is the final edition of Socialist Appeal. In its place, we are launching a brand new revolutionary paper: The Communist.

This is a bold and necessary change. It is essential that we, as Marxists, do not lag behind. We need to keep up with the rapidly changing situation worldwide; in particular, with the growing support for the ideas of communism, especially amongst the youth.

Socialist Appeal was established in April 1992, in quite a difficult period. There were those who said we would not last a few issues. Not only have these naysayers been proved wrong, but they themselves have gone into steep decline.

Over the decades, slowly and painfully, we grew. Even then, we faced many setbacks along the way, as we swam against the stream.

Not long before our papers launch, the Soviet Union had collapsed. This was accompanied by a tidal wave of euphoria and praise for capitalism and the free market. In this same year, meanwhile, the Tories won a further general election their fourth in a row.

We consistently lacked material resources. But we had powerful ideas: the ideas of Marxism. And we were determined to defend these against the most vicious of enemies.

The last 30 odd years have been a rollercoaster ride in Britain: the emergence of Blairism; the mass movement against the Iraq War in 2003; the titanic capitalist crash of 2008-09; the rise in support for Scottish independence, and the collapse of Labour north of the border; brutal austerity by successive Conservative governments; the emergence of Corbynism; the Brexit vote; the pandemic; and a string of ill-fated Tory leaders, from Boris Johnson, to Liz Truss, to Rishi Sunak.

The world has been turned upside down. Britain has gone from being the most stable country in Europe to being probably the most unstable. This is reflected in the deepening crisis of British capitalism. Reason has become unreason.

All of this has served to shake up consciousness. The anger and bitterness in society has grown exponentially, especially against the capitalist system and the powers that be. For the first time in living memory, support for communism is widespread.

Objective conditions in Britain are provoking revolutionary convulsions and upheavals. Growing layers, especially amongst the youth, are open to communism as never before. One poll in early 2023 showed that around 4.5 million young people in the UK believe that communism is the ideal economic system.

Our task is to win over and organise these people.

The International Marxist Tendency (IMT), especially over the last ten years, has steadily built up its forces. But in the recent period there has been an explosion of growth, in Britain and elsewhere, based on our Are you a communist? campaign.

The reasons for this success are clear: our emphasis on theory, combined with a bold revolutionary turn towards the youth.

It would be easy to slip into a routine and simply carry on as before. But that would be irresponsible. The objective situation is rapidly being transformed, in Britain and internationally. And this demands a bold reorientation towards those layers who are now drawing revolutionary conclusions.

Already, significant numbers have moved beyond the ideas of left reformism, especially in the wake of Corbynism. Instead, they are looking for a fundamental change namely revolution.

Socialism has become increasingly bland and unappealing. For many, this word is associated with betrayal, and with the false hope of reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it.

We need to draw all the necessary conclusions from this. It has become increasingly apparent that a far bolder and clearer image is needed to take advantage of the radicalised mood in society.

This is why we are abandoning the name Socialist Appeal, and are adopting a far more appropriate, fresh banner for these turbulent times.

But we are more than just a newspaper. The millions of potential communists in Britain and internationally represent a potentially mass force in society, providing that they can be organised.

That is why we are linking the launch of The Communist to the founding of a new political party: the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In truth, we are trailing behind events. We need to catch up. Now is the time for audacity and elan.

Our clarion call is the fight for a communist programme, capable of truly transforming society. We will not only challenge the ideas of the capitalists, but also of the reformists both right and left and of the pseudo Marxists, who hold the movement back.

We base ourselves on Britains real revolutionary traditions. We stand for class war, and for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, rooted in exploitation and oppression. And we maintain the legacy of Lenin, Trotsky, and Bolshevism; of those who built the Communist International, but were betrayed by Stalinism.

We turn our back on the sceptics, sectarians, and pessimists who fester on the fringes of the movement. And we oppose the peddlers of identity politics, whose only role is to sow division and confusion at every turn.

It is only our organisation the Marxists of the IMT that has understood the fundamental change that has taken place in society, and that is taking the necessary steps to foster and channel this radicalisation of consciousness amongst workers and youth.

We are at a turning point in history. The question of socialist revolution will be posed in the not too distant future, in one country after another.

On the basis of the mighty events that impend, we will create the instrument that can lead the working class to power.

If you are a communist, ready to dedicate yourself to the overthrow of capitalism, we invite you to join us in building the Revolutionary Communist Party. There was never a greater or more worthy task.

I became a Marxist in 1975, as a 17-year-old member of the Labour Party Young Socialists.

When the Militant tendency, the leading Marxist organisation, split in 1992, I joined Socialist Appeal with Ted Grant, Alan Woods, and Rob Sewell.

We had around two hundred comrades, with no resources, no office, and no printing facilities.

I remember going to work early every morning to print some of our first pamphlets on the office copier, hoping no one else would wonder what I was up to!

The 1990s and 2000s were difficult years. Many, including myself, dropped out of activity.

After Corbyns defeat in 2019, my partner and I re-joined Socialist Appeal.

There were three comrades in Bristol. We now have more than thirty members, three branches, and regular stalls across the city.

At 66 years old, I am more optimistic than ever that todays young generation will become the backbone of a mass Revolutionary Communist Party.

Kevin Ramage, former National Chair of LPYS

To me, the first party I believed in was the Communist Party (CP), I was in the CP for years. Now were gonna have a real CP that is true to the ideas. The way Im feeling is at last! A truly revolutionary communist party!

When I joined the CP I was proud to say Im a communist. And Im still proud to say that now. And the RCP will pick that up. Thats Ted Grants party, we will show that Teds party is alive and kicking, and a lot of people will come to us for that.

Jim Brookshaw, former National Chair of the Young Communist League

When I joined in 2019, we only had around 300 members. In the run up to the general election, the first paper I sold had the headline Corbyn to power on a socialist programme!

I remember the deep pessimism on the left after Corbyns defeat. But not us. We were the only group optimistic about the class struggle.

Through reading Socialist Appeal and educating myself in Marxism, I was able to understand the wider processes taking place, how events were transforming consciousness.

I remember the clarity of our perspectives: Johnson would preside over the most hated government in history, and wouldnt finish his term. We were proven right!

I knew then that this was an organisation like no other, because it based itself upon the rock of Marxism.

Maya Khan, York Communists

As a 19-year-old, I have only known Tory governments, attacks on education, and everyday sexism. During the pandemic, I was forced to teach myself through my GCSEs.

It became clear to me that these issues were systemic: the problem was capitalism. Five months ago, I joined after seeing an Are you a communist? poster in my city.

At the time, there was no Preston branch. But I am proud to report that we have built a branch of five members!

With few experienced comrades on the ground with us, we have had to educate ourselves together. By putting ourselves out there, we have learned on the job.

The Socialist Appeal newspaper has been an essential tool in our discussions, helping us raise our understanding of Marxism so we can continue recruiting and building.

We are all excited for the launch of The Communist, which will be just as vital!

CJ Rhodes, Preston Communists

Facebook Twitter Reddit WhatsApp Messenger Email Print

Read the rest here:
Goodbye Socialist Appeal The Communist is coming! - Socialist Appeal

In this year’s New Year’s address, Chinese leader Xi Jinping continued to portray China as being in a very favorable situation, although he acknowledged some difficulties. He highlighted significant achievements across various domains and affirmed the nation’s positive trajectory. 

However, multiple indicators suggest that the situation in China is far from optimistic, accompanied by a discernible weakening of Xi Jinping’s authority. While economic data supports the former, the prevailing sentiment among the Chinese people signifies the latter. This view has been shaped by years of failed policies and intensified by Xi’s handling of the COVID pandemic, now extending beyond economic concerns. 

The shift in China’s public opinion could have a significant impact on the country and the world, requiring careful observation.? 

Since assuming office, Xi Jinping has fervently sought to reaffirm the Communist Party’s legitimacy by championing the superiority of “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” over the Western liberal democratic system. This endeavor addresses an inherent contradiction in the rationale of the Communist Party rule. 

Initially founded on the promise of constructing a utopian communist society, the party’s economic reforms, starting from Deng Xiaoping’s era, progressively embraced capitalist elements, yielding benefits for the Chinese people but diminishing the party’s leadership. 

Should this trend persist, it will prompt the question of why the Communist Party remains in control when the economic system leans more towards capitalism than communism. Furthermore, the contradiction between the economic and political systems has greatly impeded China’s sustained and balanced development. 

Xi took upon himself the mission to rectify this disparity by trying to demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism. His goal was to harmonize China’s economic and political systems and to realize the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” within this integrated framework. 

During his first two terms, Xi embarked on a series of reforms, leveraging the economic gains from previous decades as a springboard. However, his policies have dissipated this economic foundation.

Notably, in August and September 2021, central policies instigated comprehensive overhauls across various industries, spanning from e-commerce, gaming and extracurricular tutoring to the real estate sector. Virtually every day witnessed devastation to a different industry. The Chinese population became concerned and confused, but the majority still maintained confidence in Xi. 

Then, in April 2022, Shanghai residents mounted a large-scale protest against lockdown measures, sparking a ripple effect across other regions in China and ultimately compelling the Communist Party to abandon its zero-COVID policy. 

This is significant because, during the initial two years of the pandemic, China’s stringent lockdown measures positioned it favorably in virus control compared to the West, leading to a prompt economic rebound. Xi strategically capitalized on this window to reinforce the narrative that China’s system is superior to that of the West. However, as the lockdown strategy faltered, the concept crafted by Xi began to crumble, marking the onset of his declining authority. 

With Xi’s authority eroding, Chinese citizens are gradually asserting more independent thinking. Their resistance is silent, expressing itself through voting with their feet and money: not seeking employment, not buying homes, not consuming, not investing and not having children. Most significantly, there is a lack of interest in pursuing wealth through avenues that promise sustained development and stable profits. 

Currently, the most profitable sectors in China thrive from economic downturns. A notable illustration is the dominance of live-streamed e-commerce platforms, where hosts showcase and sell products in real time, largely supplanting conventional distribution channels. This transition is driven by the growing reliance of Chinese consumers on e-commerce platforms for their cost-effectiveness. 

The fierce competition in this industry ensures that only a handful of top hosts can effectively sell products, leaving business owners vulnerable to the whims of these platforms. Consequently, a relentless pursuit of lower prices ensues, resulting in a deterioration of product quality and customer service. 

The dominant attitude in China emphasizes short-term gains, frequently disregarding the importance of brand development. Consumers tend to favor affordability over product quality, contributing to a general decline in consumption standards.  

This trend reflects heightened financial insecurity among the Chinese population, rooted in a lack of confidence in anything beyond immediate profits, driven by uncertainties about government policies and the future trajectory of the Chinese economy. 

Despite government efforts to inject cash into the economy, these funds remain largely stagnant in the banking system, pushing the overall economy into contraction. The prosperity of live-streamed e-commerce platforms serves as a stark indicator of the fragility of China’s real economy. 

Another deterrent to investing in China is the uncertainty among private entrepreneurs about the ownership of their earnings. In response to Xi’s “Common Prosperity” initiative in September 2021, Tencent and Alibaba donated the equivalent of $70 billion and $140 Billion, respectively. 

This amounts to a direct robbery of funds by Xi Jinping. The reality is that if the government hints at the necessity of donations, none of these private enterprises dare do otherwise. 

Dissatisfaction with Xi has also permeated the military ranks. Multiple sources of mine indicate widespread discontent within the military toward the ruler. The anti-corruption campaign has significantly affected the ability of military personnel to generate income, and Xi has also curtailed military benefits. Consequently, grievances within the military are intensifying. 

The Chinese Communist Party’s military structure is marked by factionalism. While outward compliance with Xi Jinping is maintained, there is an undercurrent of insincerity and passive resistance and the potential for more assertive actions. Xi Jinping’s recent personnel changes at the highest defense echelons underscore this sentiment and reveal the president’s lack of confidence in the military, offering another perspective on his diminishing authority. 

As Xi Jinping’s authority shows cracks, changes are beginning to brew. China currently lacks effective solutions to bridge the economic gap resulting from the real estate sector’s collapse, and Xi’s policy tools have proven ineffective. 

This year is anticipated to be exceptionally challenging for China, potentially heralding significant transformations for the country. 

Simone Gao is an independent journalist and host of the online program Zooming In with Simone Gao. 

Read more from the original source:
Xi Jinpings once-unquestioned authority is showing cracks - The Hill

In this article, through analyzing these similarities and differences and examining the views of the defenders of social democracy, we show how democracy/dictatorship under socialism is qualitatively different from these models and from any expansion or improvement of bourgeois democracy/dictatorship. At the end, we will take a look at Karl Popper's social democratic theory.

Today, defenders of social democracy as a desirable model for Iran's future are an active force on the political scene, and this idea has great influence among intellectuals. These intellectuals completely separate the history of democracy in Iran from the larger historical context of Iran's integration into the framework of global capitalism (capitalist imperialism). Like the other countries of the global South, Iran is a country under the domination of imperialism. It is subordinate to the requirements of capital accumulation in the central countries (the metropole) and, internally, its [development] is lopsided and fragmented.

The development of capitalism in Iran has gone through various turning points, each of which was dependent on major changes in the global capitalist system. (For further discussion refer to the chapter on economics of the Manifesto and Program of the Communist Revolution in Iran-2017.) The defenders of social democracy in Iran reject this decisive fact. As a result, their solution for Iranto extend to Iran the political superstructure that prevails in the imperialist capitalist countries of the Westis futile and impossible to implement in Iran.

Bob Avakian explains in his book Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?, the tendency of social democrats can be divided into two groups: one of these focuses on various reformist schemes to achieve economic democracy in Europe (the so-called social democrat defenders of the welfare state). Those in this first group, who became partners-in-power inside their own bourgeois states, emphasize that democracy is impossible without economic justice. Therefore, the distribution of imperialist plunder among wider sections of the population is at the center of their program. In relation to democracy, the practice and essential role of this group has been to defend and advocate for bourgeois society and its traditions in the Westagainst the challenge of Soviet social imperialism in the past, and now against genuine revolution and revolutionary communism.

The other group of social democrats tries to distinguish themselves from the usual cheerleaders for Western imperialism by presenting their views on democracy with a more radical, and even Marxist, formulation. But, in the final analysis, their attempts to make Marxism align with bourgeois democracy are futile, as well.

Let's look at some of the views of Iranian supporters of social democracy. One of the most well-know names among these intellectuals is Mohammad Reza Nikfar. During the Jina uprising, he theorized and idealized how this type of democracy could counter theocratic and monarchic rule. Ultimately, there are no more than two ways to deal with the current chaos and disarray: an integration [of the populist movement with the existing system] based on equality and participation, or consolidation based on authoritarian power, repression and control. This is a choice between the honor and dignity of [being] a citizen versus the historical degradation and indignity of [being] a peasant.1Apart from the fact that the historical conditions of degradation and subjugation of the Iranian people have not been so selective as all that, we must emphasize that Nikfars ideal of equality and citizen participationthe essence of the bourgeois democratic idealhas already failed.

Because Nikfar ignores the larger context of Iran's integration into the global capitalist system (though he is well aware of its history), he cannot factually and scientifically explain why all bourgeois-democratic efforts have failed in Iran, and continue to fail. There are two world-historical obstacles: first, in an imperialist world, bourgeois democracy cannot be extended to the countries it dominates (especially of the kind of welfare state specific to a handful of countries). To do so would require radical changes in the relationship between the countries of the Global North and the Global South, and any such attempt would disrupt the internal cohesion of the imperialist countries (aside from the fact that bourgeois democracy in these countries itself is today threatened by fascist forces).

What makes social democracyand bourgeois democracy more generallypossible in those very few countries is their plunder of countries in the Global South. Dictatorial regimes [in the dominated countries] are synonymous with the relative prosperity and domestic political stability needed for the existence of bourgeois democracy in the imperialist countries.

Second, although a large part of what was considered the communist movement in Iran thinks that the era of bourgeois revolutions in the Global South is still ongoing, the reality is that the era of bourgeois revolutions has ended. This kind of thinkingthat the bourgeois revolution has not yet been exhausted because it has yet to become pure in the Global North and because the Global South has not yet benefited from the many blessings it has conferred on the Global Northcan be seen in the ideas formulated by the likes of Habermas,2 and are fostered by many intellectuals of the Global South.

However, any problem that remained unresolved in the era of bourgeois revolutions can no longer be solved within that same framework, because in practice (and not in fantasy), that framework has become the globalized framework of capitalist imperialism. And today in particular, any attempt at bourgeois democracy turns into an outpost for imperialism, which ultimately contributes to the spread of the influence of Islamic fundamentalism (and elsewhere, Christian fundamentalism), as an alternative. Simply put, to solve all the leftovers from the past, such as the horrible return to dark-age ideology and more traditional social relations, requires the two radical ruptures that Marx emphasized, breaking with traditional property relations and breaking with traditional ideas.

In order to validate his political theory of social democracy, Nikfar turns an important fact upside down. He writes: "The duality of situations in the world result from discrimination which leads to the duality of position and to the conditions that are a result of exploitation. Discrimination precedes exploitation, from an analytical and logical standpoint, and also from a historical standpoint.3But in reality, unlike what exists in someone's mind, the relation between discrimination and exploitation is the other way around. Not necessarily in a one-to-one way, but in a complex relationship, exploitation ultimately lays the foundation for a system that is an inseparable part of all forms of oppression and discrimination.

The relationship between discrimination and exploitation is multifaceted and multilayered. When Marx formulated the 4 Alls,4he explained their inner and dialectical relationships. He also clarified which is primary and their interval [what proceeds from what]. By turning this reality upside down (saying that discrimination precedes exploitation), Nikfar concludes that it is possible to solve the problem of discrimination within the framework of capitalism, and sees no need for a revolution with the aim of crushing the capitalist system and replacing it with a socialist system working to abolish the 4 Alls.

Other defenders of social democracy also see such a revolution as unrealistic. For example, Mehrdad Darvishpour, borrowing from Frederic Jamison,5writes that defending the achievements of the welfare staterather than romantic and unrealistic declarations about the abolition of classes and abolition of wage laboris the important task of Left forces today.6He considers the project of social democracy to be integrating the defense of democracy with social justice, the defense of the environment, gender equality and the elimination of discrimination (including combating racism and ethnic discriminations) that has stood opposed to classical Left projects, such as the negative expropriation of private property and the establishment of state socialism.

But expropriation of private ownership of the means of production and the establishment of socialism (proletarian democracy/dictatorship), which he calls a classical project, is a vital requirement for creating a material basis for social justice and for ending discrimination and protecting the environment. Because in reality, despite what anyone thinks, the source of these problems is the actual workings and dynamics of capitalism. Although it is a necessity for socialism, today and in the future, to rupture with the practices of early socialism in the Soviet Union and China (as Bob Avakian did by summing up the first wave of communist revolutions and laying the foundations of the new communism), this never was and never will be possible with a social democratic outlook. Expecting to achieve the 4 Alls within a bourgeois democracy, by something called intertwining, is not realistic, but utopiansomething we revolutionary communists are accused of.

Of course, Darvishpour writes that his pet project, both from the point of view of making progress and [to maintain] it in the long-term, is a far more effective way to simultaneously defend and expand the public welfare.

Similarly, Faraj Sarkohi, in a program called The Necessity of Social Democracy in Iran,7asserts that the survival of society, its sustainable development, and even the growth of capital in it cannot be based on discrimination. In his statements, we see a more honest example of social democracy and its purpose: to make capitalism rational! This project attempts to prove to the capitalist system and its uncontrollable driving force of expand or die, that it will be more effective and sustainable to take into account the rights of women, blacks, immigrants and the environment. He intends to use the capitalist mode of production based on the exploitation of labor power, but make profits more fair, and thereby reduce the oppression that is woven into this system.

Occasionally, he borrows sayings from Marxist literature, like the final goal is to eliminate exploitation. But how does he intend to achieve this goal? By simultaneous emphasis on socialism and on democracy, and implementing them step by step, until the majority of the workers become conscious (according to Faraj Sarkohi). This type of analysis and his proposals are examples of separating the political superstructure from societys economic base.

One of the most important theorists of this kind of error is Agnes Heller.8In her collection of essays, shelike other theorists of the Budapest schoolsought a democratic socialism that would be the opposite of what Bob Avakian calls the mechanical and economist socialism of the Soviet bloc. But instead of rupturing with it, she gets caught up in idealism. She misconstrues the relationship between societys economic base and its political and ideological superstructure. This ultimately leads her to regard democracy as an ideal that can be grafted onto either a capitalist economic infrastructure or a socialist one!

Agnes Heller writes, [T]he same democratic principles, to the extent that they are formal principles, can serve as fundamental principles in the constitution of either a capitalist or a socialist society, and adds: formal democracy, indeed, can be transformed into socialist democracy without undergoing the slightest modification. The principles of formal democracy prescribe how to proceed in dealing with the affairs of society, how to find solutions to problems, but in no way do they impose a limit on the content of various social aspirations. (Emphasis added by Atash)

In contrast to the idealist fantasy of Agnes Heller, Avakian emphasizes:

.[D]emocracy, as a set of formal principles, cannot be made to service socialism as well as capitalism without undergoing the slightest modification.... to repeat the most basic point, democracy under socialism must undergo a qualitative, radical transformation from what it was under capitalismit must be invertedso that democracy is practiced among the ranks of the new ruling class, the proletariat, while dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat over the former ruling class, the bourgeoisie.

Without the two radical ruptures Marx and Engels spoke of as decisive without the uphill battle that must be waged for it after socialism is first established there is no socialism, let alone the ultimate achievement of communism. What are needed in the political realm are principles that reflect this and serve the struggle to overcome the resistance of the overthrown bourgeoisie (and newborn bourgeois class forces) and to enable the masses of people to become masters of society in every sphere. what is needed is the application of democracy (and dictatorship) with an open, explicit, class content, and not the principles of formal democracy without the slightest modification.9

Another of the social democratic theorists is Karl Popper (a philosopher of Austrian descent). He laid out his theory, a critique of Marxism, in his well-known book The Open Society and Its Enemies.10Popper's criticism of Marxism is that it takes an essentialist approach to capitalist exploitation and the state, because it doesnt consider them to be reformable. In the 1990s, the reformist wing of the Islamic Republic zealously promoted Popper's theory and this book. In fact, it became a major theoretical prop of their policy of reforms and was used to mobilize a section of the intellectual community around a belief in the reformability of the Islamic Republic.

According to Popper, the Marxist theorythat any form of state, without exception, represents the dictatorship of this or that class, and that even the most democratic of them is in fact a class dictatorshipis an essentialist theory. In his view, it is possible for a state to exist that is not a dictatorship. Popper sees democracy and dictatorship as two different planets, saying that where democracy is there is no dictatorship and vice versa. One of his important criteria for a state to be democratic and non-dictatorial is that people can vote out their political leaders. In a very important critique of Popper's comments, Bob Avakian responds:

the people can dismiss (vote out of office) particular politicians, they cannot by this meansor any means, other than revolution"dismiss the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) which in reality rules society, which exerts control over the electoral process itself, and which in any case dominates the political decision-making process, and, most essentially, exercises a monopoly of legitimate armed force no seriousand certainly no genuinely scientificanalysis of the dynamics of political power and of the political decision-making process in democratic countries, such as the U.S., can lead to any other conclusion than that all this is, in reality, completely monopolized and dominated by the ruling class of capitalist-imperialists, and that others, besides this ruling class, are effectively excluded from the exercise of political power and meaningful political decision-making, notwithstanding the participation of the populace in elections.11

Ultimately, Popper's solution is this: instead of asking what class is ruling, Marxists should ask how to contain it! But there is no experience to show that the masses of people can contain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which has a security and military apparatus. The existence of such illusions (which have always been promoted by the ruling class) have always dealt irreparable blows to the opponents of capitalism and to freedom fighters on the path to liberation.

Popper's solution to capitalist exploitation is also to contain it. He opposes the unlimited freedom of capitalism, saying: Under an unbridled capitalist system, the economically strongest person is free to bully the economically weak and steal his freedom.... We must demand that the policy of unlimited economic freedom be replaced by state-planned economic intervention.12

Here we are up against a theoretical bait-and-switch, in which Popper shifts words around to distort the nature of capital. As Raymond Lotta writes, Capital is a social relation and a process, whose essence is indeed the domination by alien, antagonistic interests over labor. (Raymond Lotta, America in Decline.)13And the bourgeois state (whether its form is social-democratic or liberal-democratic or fascist), is vital to the imposition of this [social] relation. Without it, the bourgeoisie can never dominate the labor force. No demand can stop unbridled capitalism, because the law of expand or die is the intrinsic law of capitalism, and physical violence the inevitable result: even to the extent of causing devastating wars and the destruction of the environment.

All the countries that the Iranian social democrats present as examples and models of social democracyincluding the Scandinavian countriesare imperialist capitalist countries that as a result of the plunder and super-exploitation of the Global South, to some extent and for a period of time, are able to provide welfare and certain political rights in order to secure their own headquarters.

But today, we are seeing these same countries take off their democratic gloves and openly show their fascist iron fist. And it is astonishing to see so many of our social-democratic intellectuals adopt a deafening silence toward Israel's genocidal crime against the Palestinian peoplethat is much like their deafening silence about the massacre of political prisoners in 1988 [in Iran]!

Read more:
The Reality of CommunismWhat Is Social Democracy and Why Is It a Capitalist Dictatorship? - revcom.us