People Before Profit blog

Combating Racism at the City College of New York-Open vs. Surreptitious Struggle in the Knickerbocker-Davis Cases 1946-49

Erwin Marquit — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:44:00 +0000

With a history of being born into a Communist family and membership in Communist-led and Communist-influenced children's and youth organizations, it was not surprising that on 9 March 1946 I joined the Wilford Mendelsohn Club of the Communist Party USA at the City College of New York (CCNY) upon resuming my studies as an engineering student three days after the end of my 22 months' service in the U.S. Navy

Upon joining the Party, I told the club chair that I would like to focus on the struggle against racism by joining the Hillel Foundation and stimulating its members into activity for the passage of a Fair Education Practices Act by the New York State legislature.

In the Hillel Foundation, without concealing my membership in the Communist Party, my proposal to form a committee for this purpose, subsequently named the Community Action Committee, was accepted and I was made its chair. With intensive campaigning by student groups at various New York colleges, the state, in 1948, became the first state to adopt a Fair Educations Practices Act that ended the quota system that restricted the acceptance of African Americans, Jews, and other minorities to medical schools and other graduate and undergraduate programs.

The account that follows is taken from a section of the memoirs that I am now writing. It begins with the struggle against anti-Semitic discrimination directed at Jewish students and faculty in the CCNY Romance Languages Department and the subsequent struggle against Jim Crow room assignments in a dormitory established by CCNY after World War II for returning U.S. veterans. These struggles were particularly important because they were an early example of the joining of Jewish and African American and other campus organization in the struggle against racism and to which the CPUSA made important contributions.

Charges of anti-Semitism against William Knickerbocker,

chair of the Romance Language Department

In November 1946, Professor Efraim Cross of the Department of Romance Languages came to the City College Hillel Foundation to ask the Hillel Foundation to support a struggle against anti-Semitism in which he was engaged in his department. He said that he and three other members of his department had filed a complaint of anti-Semitism in the department with the New York City Board of Higher Education (BHE-the governing body for what was then the four tuition-free city colleges in New York City: CCNY, Hunter College, Queens College, and Brooklyn College). The BHE directed CCNY President Harry N. Wright to appoint an Investigating Committee, which, in turn, whitewashed the matter. Prof. Cross said that the complainants had then asked the American Jewish Congress (AJC) to intercede and that the AJC was petitioning the BHE to reopen the case.

As chair of the Community Actions Committee of the CCNY Hillel Foundation and member of Hillel's Executive Council, I proposed that that the Executive Council appoint a committee of four to look into the charges. A committee of four was appointed and. As one of the four, I was appointed chair. Also, as a representative of Hillel to the Student Council, I introduced a motion that the Student Council join the Hillel Foundation in the effort. The motion was approved and I was designated chair of the Student Council committee established for that purpose.

Shortly after Prof. Cross's visit, the New York Times on 15 November 1946, carried a brief item headlined "Anti-Semitism Charged" The article read:

Charging Dr. William Knickerbocker [1885-1960-EM], chairman of the Department of Romance Languages at City College, with a "philosophy and program of anti-Semitism," the American Jewish Congress has called for his retirement, it was learned yesterday. The retirement of all others in the department eligible for this step was also asked.

In a sixty-page brief submitted to a Board of Higher Education committee investigating charges of anti-Semitism leveled at Dr. Knickerbocker last year by four members of his department, the congress declared that "Professor Knickerbocker does not possess the character for the high office he holds."

Last spring a faculty committee composed of City College teachers found "no evidence" to support these charges.

As we subsequently learned, the report, dated 10 September 1946, was an analysis of nine volumes of testimony (over 1,100 pages) accumulated during the hearing of the CCNY Investigating Committee (Commission on Law and Social Action 1946). The AJC had sent its analysis to the BHE with its recommendation that the BHE direct the Investigating Committee to reopen the case and either dispose of the matter by ordering a reorganization of the Department of Romance Languages by the retirement of several senior members of the department or convene an open hearing to take further testimony.

The four members of the Hillel committee then met with Will Maslow of the Commission on Law and Social Action of the American Jewish Congress to learn what the AJC was doing and to seek its guidance for any action that we could take. Maslow, who coauthored the AJC analysis with his colleague Shirley Adelson, told us that after submitting its petition to the BHE to act on its recommendation, it could take no further action until a response was received. He suggested that the first thing we should do was to familiarize ourselves with the nine volumes of testimony. That task fell to me.

I went to the college administration office that housed the transcripts of the hearing and asked to see them, whereupon the secretary then made a phone call reporting the request. I was then able to hear a voice in one of the back rooms of the office reporting (presumably to Dean of Administration John J. Theobald or CCNY President Harry N. Wright) that "a student named Marquit" was asking to see the transcript. I received permission to read the transcripts in the office. I did this for several days until I had read through all the volumes.

The AJC analysis detailed the important content of the transcript, so I will begin by using it for summarizing the charges.

Apart from Professor Cross, the other three complainants were Professor Otto Müller, Professor Elliot H. Polinger, and Dr. Pedro Bach-y-Rita. Prof. Müller and Dr. Bach-y-Rita were not Jewish; the other two were Jewish. Complaints of anti-Semitism in the Department of Romance Languages had been made repeatedly since 1943 to President Wright and other administrators, but no meaningful action was taken. On 9 April 1945, the four complainants submitted to President Wright for transmission to the BHE a letter in which they stated:

The Department has long been sharply divided into two opposing groups. The opponents of the Chairman for at least seven years have been subjected to continual harassment and what looks very much like discrimination and have had their usefulness to the college repeatedly impeded by acts which can be enumerated over a period of years." (Board of Higher Education 1948, 7)

The appeal was made to the BHE because President Wright and other high-level City College administrators had never acted on previous complaints about anti-Semitism in the department (Müller and Cross 1949, 15-17). In 1943 and 1944, affidavits signed by two former members of the department, Clifford T. McAvoy and George R. Hilton, detailed anti-Semitic statements by the department chair, William E. Knickerbocker, and other senior members of the department. These affidavits were shown to members of the BHE and to Dean Morton Gottschall of the CCNY College of Liberal Arts and Science in 1943. No action was taken until 1944, after the AJC asked President Wright to investigate complaints of anti-Semitism in the Romance Language Department. After a short while, Wright wrote the American Jewish Congress that "after very careful investigation" there was no basis for the charges of discrimination. According to Müller and Cross, Knickerbocker told a faculty meeting in 1945 that Wright never conducted an investigation, but had only asked him to submit a report (1949, 14).

On 8 May 1945, the City College Administrative Committee of the Board of Higher Education directed that President Wright and the General Faculty of City College conduct an investigation of the charges by Cross, Müller, Polinger, and Bach-y-Rita even though the four complainants had requested that the Board itself conduct the investigation. An Investigating Committee of five City College faculty, two of whom were Jewish, was appointed. One of the two Jews on the committee, Professor Lewis Meyers, was designated chair. In October 1945, the investigation committee held hearings that produced the nine volumes testimony on the charges that Knickerbocker, with the support of some other senior members of the department, discriminated against Jews in faculty appointments, in awards for Jewish students, and had repeatedly made anti-Semitic remarks. On 27 November 1945, the Investigating Committee submitted its report to President Wright, finding no substantiation of the charges. After the adoption of the report by the General Faculty on 29 January1946, along with a recommendation for disciplinary action against the complainants, the complainants asked the Commission on Law and Social Action of the AJC to analyze the proceedings and, if justified, to pursue the matter further. On 11 March 1945, the Commission of Law and Social Action of the AJC filed a petition to the BHE to reopen the case. On 22 April 1945, the BHE appointed a committee of three to consider the appeal and receive any additional evidence deemed fit and proper. On 23 May 1945, Will Maslow and Shirley Adelson, representing the AJC commission, met with the Board's committee, The Board's committee requested that the AJC commission prepare a digest of the testimony and an objective analysis of all the issues. The AJC analysis, dated 10 September 1946 was submitted to the Board's committee (AJC 1946, Appendix A; Board of Higher Education 1948, Müller and Cross 1949, 15).

AJC committee analysis of the record

According to the AJC committee's analysis, the complainants charged that several members of the Department of Romance Languages, all of professorial rank, had openly displayed anti-Semitic attitudes. The members so accused were Professor Knickerbocker, Chairman; Professor Lacuzzi, Sub-chairman; Professors Bergerson; Vailiant; and Dedeck-Hery. An affidavit by Clifford T. McAvoy, former member of the department, dated 4 October 1943, stated that while he was at the college in September 1930 assisting in entrance examinations, Professors Knickerbocker and Bergeron spoke to him approximately as follows:

These students are different. More than two-thirds of the students are Jewish. They are always trying to put something over; they have no respect for authority and you can't treat them like gentlemen. (AJC 1946, 6)

Knickerbocker, while denying the above remark, testified:

It is possible, that some of the students do try to put things over. They do. We all know that-whether they are Jews or Christians. You cannot treat them all like gentlemen. I may have said something along that line [stress added by AJC].

Knickerbocker attempted to minimize this testimony by adding that Mr. McAvoy was well known in the department as a Communist.

A deposition by George R. Hilton, a former member of the department, dated 21 June 1943, was put in evidence, relating a conversation with Knickerbocker on 18 September 1940, strikingly similar to that reported by McAvoy. On this occasion, Knickerbocker asked Hilton whether he had ever had any dealings with cheap Jews, thereupon stating that "the majority of the students could be so described and that they could not be treated as gentlemen." Hilton also swore he could testify to similar remarks "on at least two subsequent occasions" (7). In denying the above statement, Knickerbocker testified:

I do believe that there are both Jews and Christians among the students who cannot be treated as gentlemen* I may have said that there are Jews, and I may have added Christians, who cannot be treated as gentlemen; but to say that most of them are "cheap Jews," and that they cannot be treated as gentlemen, is contrary to any belief I have ever possessed.

Again, to offset the testimony, he added that "we" believed Prof. Hilton to be a Communist (7). The AJC analysis noted that "Prof. Knickerbocker's answer was a partial admission of the charge and here again he took refuge in a countercharge that his accuser was a Communist (8).

In a subsequent letter to the AJC commission dated 26 June 1946, McAvoy wrote:

I was appointed by the late Professor Downer at the personal request of President Robinson. Both President Robinson and Prof. Downer told me that they wanted to get young, white Gentile, Anglo-Saxons in the college as instructors, in order to counteract the high percentage of young Jewish instructors who were graduates of the College. Almost without exception, the older professors in the Romance Language Department, as well as some of the other departments (Economics, History, Mathematics), were anti-Semitic.

Professors Knickerbocker and Bergeron merely expressed a prevailing attitude when they informed me that if I was to succeed as a teacher, I would have to realize that most of the Jewish students were not "gentlemen" and would not behave unless treated with very strict discipline. It was also a prevailing myth, thoroughly believed by most of these older professors, that the Jewish students would try to take advantage of the teacher and put something over. . . .

It was the nostalgic wish of Professor Knickerbocker and Professor Bergeron that City College could have the same kind of pure white Anglo-Saxon faculty which they thought they saw in such colleges as Cornell, Princeton, Williams, and even to a certain extent at Columbia and Harvard. Their attitude stemmed from a curiously inverted inferiority complex and had a snobbism which was evidenced by their anti-Semitism. Neither they nor most of their colleagues of their age had any sympathy for or understanding of the problems, background and aspirations of the student body. (Appendix C)

Prof. Müller testified that in 1942 or 1943, Knickerbocker said to him:

Have you heard this one about the Jews? Their battle-hymn is "Onward Christian soldiers: we will make the uniforms."

To this charge, Knickerbocker replied:

That is a joke that I knew. Frankly, my honest impression was that Prof. Müller told it to me but I cannot take my oath on that. I may have said to him something of this sort: "Here is a joke that you will enjoy." (8)

The AJC criticized the "Investigating Committee for dismissing this 'joke' as 'without significance'" despite its relevance against the background of other testimony, and which made less credible. Knickerbocker's general denials that he engaged in such conversation (8).

As another example of Knickerbocker's anti-Semitic attitudes, Müller testified that Knickerbocker had said to him that "Hitler was all right when he attacked the Jews; when he began against the Poles, of course, that was bad." Knickerbocker denied that he ever said that. The AJC analysis notes that the Investigating Committee removed this allegation from consideration by stating that there was no indication that, if made, it was expressing Knickerbocker's own sentiments rather than being imputed to others (9n5).

In his testimony, Müller cited numerous other anti-Semitic statements by Knockerbocker: In 1938, "as long as I am Chairman there won't be any more 'kikes' appointed to this department." In 1939, Knickerbocker used the expression "our side" and "referred to the opposition as "that Jewish gang," or simply as "the Jews." Before several department meetings, Knickerbocker would bemoan the necessity of listening to "those Jews and their by-laws." In 1939, before the termination of a Jewish faculty member's appointment as Fellow, Knickerbocker said, "That young Jew won't be listening in next year" (9).

Knickerbocker denied categorically that he had made any of those statements, adding that it was the belief of the department that Müller was anti-Semitic and that "It is a fact that he spoke time and time again to me against Jews, against 'kikes'" (9-10).

The AJC analysis concluded:

It is significant that Prof. Knickerbocker did not testify that he rebuked Prof. Müller for the anti-Semitic remarks which he attributes to him. According to his own account, he apparently merely listened. Yet, it is hardly likely that conversations extending over so long a period of time would be as one-sided as Prof. Knickerbocker would have us believe. It is much more likely that Prof. Knickerbocker conversed freely with Prof. Müller on those topics and that Prof. Knickerbocker's explanation, putting the onus on Prof. Müller, is untrue. (10)

Müller testified about anti-Semitic statements made by other senior members of the department. He said that Prof. René Vaillant referred to Jews by the French derogatory expression for Jews, "les youpins." Prof. Bach-y-Rita testified that in 1941, Prof.Alfred Iacuzzi "made a remark about Prof. Polinger and Jews in the Department" and that before a departmental election Iacuzzi told him that "if Polinger is elected and it looks as if he might get enough votes, before we know, the Department will be full of Jews." Müller testified that, in 1937, 1938, and 1939, Prof. Maxime Bergeron stated that his reasons for not bringing to the disciplinary committee certain students detected cheating was "those damn Jews on the Committee will twist everything around and make out that I am the guilty one." According to the Investigating Committee transcript, the complainants had alleged that Müller indicated his readiness to testify that Bergeron told him especially to beware of Prof. Cross, and referring to Cross's name said, "Those damn Jews take on any old name. Müller also testified that after a Jewish instructor had been dropped, Bergeron showed him a laudatory recommendation that had been submitted for that instructor and said, "That's what you get when you do a Jew a favor." Professors Vaillant and Bergeron both denied having made such statements. Another charge against Bergeron made by the complainants but not pursued by the Investigating Committee was the response of Bergeron to a faculty member's shocked surprise that anti-Semitism could be found in educated persons despite the findings of science: "Well, you just can't get away from your ancestors." The AJC analysis criticized the Investigating committee for not calling Prof. Iacuzzi to explain or deny the remarks attributed to him, even though he was available in the city (10-12).

The AJC analysis criticized the Investigating Committing for not attempting to question McAvoy, even though, unlike Hilton, he was in New York City. The analysis noted that that "Prof. Knickerbocker did not testify that he rebuked Prof. Müller for the anti-Semitic remarks that were attributed to him and pointed to the unlikelihood that "conversations extending over so long a period of time would be as one-sided as Prof. Knickerbocker would have us believe." Prof. Vaillant denied having any recollection of using the term les youpins and that if he did use it, he did not use it with the inflection that would give it a derogatory sense in referring to Jews, adding that the French people have for a generation ceased using the term youpin. The AJC analysis cited several French dictionary references, all of which indicated that the term is used as a pejorative. In 2013, sixty-seven years after this AJC analysis, one can readily see the term still being used as a pejorative by French anti-Semites, as any Web search on the phrase les youpins will show.

In regard to the charges of anti-Semitic comments, the AJC analysis concludes:

It is our view that the examination of a number of the parties involved in these charges was inadequate at the hearings. Yet even this inadequate Record suggests strongly that Prof. Knickerbocker has on many occasions made anti-Semitic remarks. (13)

The AJC analysis then referred to the complainants' charge that anti-Semitism played a role in assigning student honors and awards, noting that Jewish students constituted 80-90 percent of the student body. It cited Müller's testimony that in 1942, Knickerbocker rejected his recommendation that a student named Morton Gurewitch receive the Ward medal for proficiency in French stating "That fellow Gurewitch may be an excellent student but he is a Jew." The medal was finally awarded to a non-Jewish student, Salvatore Ramondino (14).

Prof. Knickerbocker denied that had ever made such a remark about Gurewitch. Referring only to elective courses for a student majoring in French, the Investigating Committee, in its report, stated

From a comparison of the records of the two students in question it appears that while Gurewitch had attained in two courses a grade of A against the grade of B attained by the recipient of the medal, the latter had pursued several more advanced courses in French than had the former, receiving the grade of A in each. (14)

Since the exhibits in the transcript of the hearing did not contain the grades of Gurewitch and Ramondino, the AJC obtained a copy the grades from a letter to Prof. Polinger from by a person working init own copy that originated in a letter that Prof. Polinger had received from a person that had been working at the time in the Office of Records. It turned out that Romandino had only one more elective course than Gurevitch. "Altogether," stated the AJC report, "Gurewitch (Magna cum Laude) received fifteen credits, all A's, in his electives, in the Romance Languages Department and Ramonidino (cum Laude), ten credits of A plus six of B. The AJC report concludes Gurewitch was unjustly denied the Ward medal (15). Later, I will show that the Gurewitch's course record was actually better than what transcript showed.

The remaining charges against Knickerbocker concerned discrimination in faculty appointments and promotions. So many different factors enter into decisions in individual cases, that it will not be useful for the present account to detail the cases one by one. The AJC report notes that Müller had testified that Knickerbocker, shortly after his election as department chair, expressed the resolve not to admit any more "kikes" to the department. In summary form, the result of this resolve was that of 27 appointments to Day Session from 1938, when he became, department chair, only one Jew was appointed to regular faculty (and he served only 12 days) and two were appointed as fellows. Prior to Knickerbocker's chairmanship, Jewish faculty members made up one-third of the new faculty appointments. Similarly, under Knickerbocker's chairmanship not a single Jewish assistant or associate professor was recommended for promotion except for one professor, whose recommendation for promotion by the previous chair had not yet been acted upon (15-52).

In its point-by-point review of the charges by the four complainants, the AJC showed that the record of the Investigating Committee's sustained all the principle charges of anti-Semitism made by the complainants. The principal recommendation of the AJC analysis was that "the Department of Romance Languages should be reorganized by the retirement of all professors eligible therefore, including the Chairman." (53). This would remove Prof. Knckerbocker most of the clique around hm.

Investigation by the Hillel Community Actions Committee and the Student Council.

As it turned out, my fellow committee members left it to me to read the AJC report and do the greater part of the footwork needed to carry through the investigation. The intrigue within the department somewhat reflected what was later to appear in C. P Snow's 1951 book, The Masters. I was concerned that the issues concerning infighting in the department might overshadow the issue of anti-Semitism. Cross was politically progressive and was clearly the driving force for the complaint, but rather inept diplomatically in dealing with his opponents, generally going it alone rather than collectively, except in this particular case. As I read the transcript, I worried about the motivation of Müller, who had admitted that at one time had been pro-Nazi. In the hearing, he was the only one to offer testimony about Knickerbocker's voicing anti-Semitic comments about faculty and students, although affidavits had been filed earlier by former faculty members about the anti-Semitic remarks by Knickerbocker and others.

I asked Müller about the discrepancy between the Investigating Committeer transcript and the AJC analysis in regard to Gurewitch's grades. He had not known about the discrepancy and replied simply that Gurewitch had better a better record than Ramondino. On 3 January 1946, I asked for and received permission to look at Ramondino's and Gurewitch's grade transcripts, something that would never be allowed today. I was surprised to find that Gurewitch had an incomplete in an honors course, which had not been mentioned either in the Investigating Committee's report or the AJC analysis. When I reported this to Müller, he insisted that Gurewitch never had an incomplete for any French course.

I decided that I had to talk to Gurewitch. Müller did not know where he was. Gurewitch had graduated in 1942.

A search in the phonebooks for New York City's five boroughs did not reveal anyone named Morton Gurewitch, so I began to call everyone named Gurewitch to see if I could find a relative. On the eighth call, I did indeed find a relative, who gave me a phone number at which he could be reached. Morton Gurewitch answered the phone when I called. After I explained to him what the call was about, he said that he had had a straight A average in French with no incompletes, but would rather discuss this with me in Müller's presence. Since it was during the winter break, Müller arranged for us to meet in his home in Queens.

At the meeting, Gurewitch repeated that he had had a straight A average in French and that included the honors course, which Vaillant had supervised, regardless of what the transcript showed. Gurewitch added that Bergeron told him that he, Gurewitch, was the best student he had had since Luciani-now Prof. Luciani- who had graduated twenty years earlier. A statement like that would have obligated Bergeron to recommend Gurewitch for the Ward medal. With Gurewitch's denial that he had an incomplete, the incomplete on his grade transcript was perplexing. The transcript of the Investigating Committee made no mention of this additional course. With no knowledge of the additional course, the AJC analysis showed that Gurewitch had a better record than Ramondino. This argument would have been greatly strengthened had the AJC team known that Gurewitch had an additional advanced course with grade A. I assumed that Gurewitch was truthful about this, so I now felt that it was necessary see how the CCNY administration would react to Gurewitch's claim.

When my discussion at Muller's home was over, his wife offered to drive me to the subway station. En route to the subway, I remarked "This looks like a very nice neighborhood." I was aghast at her response, "Oh, yes," she replied, it's restricted," a term used to indicate that a neighborhood was one in which Jews or African Americans were not allowed to rent or buy homes, a practice quite common in the United States at that time. I let her comment pass without response. It wasn't until 1948 that the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that restrictive covenants (bans on sale or resale of homes to Jews or non Caucasians written into sales contracts) were not enforceable.

When I returned to the CCNY administration office on 7 January 1947 to raise the question of the missing grade, it had already been changed to an A! Strange. The issue of the incomplete had not been raised in the hearing. All that happened was that on 3 January I asked to see the grade transcripts of Gurewitch and Ramondino. Within four days a correction was pulled out of the hat. After six years, Dean Gottschall suddenly remembers that

Mr. Gurewitch's Honors grade was reported to me somewhat informally in a postscript to a letter dated May 28, 1942, from Professor Vaillant; . . . the letter related to the proposed Honors program for the following September, The grade was not reported on the Registrar's regular grade sheet . . . because that had already been filed with the Registrar when Mr. Gurewitch's work was still incomplete. . . .The report of Mr. Gurewitch's grade did not come to light until January 1947, probably as a result of the inquiry of the Board of Higher Education committee. I inadvertently overlooked this postscript and failed to notify the Registrar. (Gottschall 1949)

It would be a strange coincidence that the BHE expressed interest in Gurewitch's grade simultaneously with mine-that is, within the four days after I requested to view Gurewitch's record. Gottschall and the BHE, however, failed to coordinate their explanation of the responsibility adequately. The BHE, in its "Review of the Facts Concerning the Charges Made Against Professor William E. Knickerbocker and the Romance Languages Department, The City College" (8 November 1948), does not state that Gottschall made the error, but that it was made "on the part of someone on the staff in the office of the Dean."

In the course of our investigation, we looked at another case mentioned to us by either Cross or Muller, where a Jewish students was in the running for the Ward medal and did not receive it. We found that in 1939 a Jewish student named Moed failed to receive the medal although his grades were better than the recipient. The case for Gurewitch, however, was stronger.

We also looked into the complainants charges of anti-Semitism in faculty appointments. The AJC report was ambiguous in their conclusions on this issue and called for further investigation of the question. Part of the problem was Prof. Knickerbocker's assertion that with the increased interest in Spanish, it became necessary to add more native speakers. Since the AJC had not responded to Knickerbocker's explanation, we looked the question of native speakers. Here is what we found. In 1937, the staff of the department consisted of 25 non-Jews, and 12 Jews; of the 18 not teaching in their native tongues, 10 were Jews and 8 were non-Jews. Of the new appointments 1939 to 1944, 23 were non-Jews and 2 were Jews; of the 16 whose native tongue was English, only 2 were Jews.

Attempt by Anti Defamation Committee to suppress the Hillel Foundation Report

In January1947, I drafted a report of our findings, which confirmed the accuracy of the charges that had been leveled against Knickerbocker. The draft report concluded with the recommendations that Knickerbocker and Bergeron be retired, that Gurewitch and Moed be declared winners of the Ward Medal, and that the president of the City College take steps to insure that no such situation can arise again in the department. After the Community Actions Committee at Hillel adopted my draft report, I presented it to the Hillel Executive Council, proposing that we publish it in the Hillel News, a newspaper issued by the CCNY Hillel Foundation. Rabbi Zuckerman told us that as a B'nai Brith organization, we were obligated to consult with the B'nai Brith's Anti-Defamation League before proceeding with publication and that the ADL would need some time to examine our report. I suggested that we give the ADL six weeks to respond with their recommendation. In early March, Rabbi Zuckerman told us that ADL recommended that we not publish the report because when a rat is cornered, it will resist more fiercely. The ADL said that they would discuss the issue quietly through channels that were open to them and in this way, they would accomplish Knickerbocker's removal, that if they could not achieve it quickly, they were sure they could arrange for Knickerbocker to resign in two or three years for reasons of health. Rabbi Zuckerman strongly urged us to accept the ADL's recommendation. I argued that what was important was not solely the removal of Knickerbocker, but his removal because of his anti-Semitism. Rabbi Zuckerman then threw in a bombshell. He raised the possibility of B'nai B'rith cutting off the funds that had been promised for a new Hillel building if we did not heed the advice of the ADL. We accepted his proposal that we meet with the ADL to hear their opinion. I do know if the threat about the ADL cutting off building funds was real or simply put forth as conjecture by Rabbi Zuckerman. In any case, the threat never materialized.

On 6 March 1947, Rabbi Zuckerman and a few members of the CCNY Hillel Executive Council met with Marvin Jager of the ADL to discuss its recommendation. Although I may have been there, I have no recollection of being present. I find a reference to this meeting in a response of the National Hillel Foundation to subsequent charges of misconduct against Rabbi Zuckerman by the ADL because of his eventual support of the CCNY Hillel organization participation in the student movement to remove Knickerbocker (National Hillel Foundation 1949, 3-4). At this meeting, Marvin Jager stated that the new information uncovered by the Hillel committee did not provide a basis for further action. The students rejected Jager's view and his recommendation that no further action be taken. When the CCNY Hillel Executive Council met to discuss the next step, it was clear that the overriding sentiment was to go forth with the publication of the report. Rabbi Zuckerman found himself in a difficult position. Torn between the pressure from the ADL and his fear of losing the respect of the Hillel students, apart from his own conviction that publication of the report was necessary step, he threw himself wholeheartedly into the publication of the report. I then presented the report to the Student Council committee, which immediately endorsed it.

On 13 March 1947, page 1 of vol. 3, no. 3 of the Hillel News opened with the headlines, "HILLEL COMMUNITY ACTIONS COMMITTEE CHARGES KNICKERBOCKER GUILTY OF ANTI-SEMITISM. The front-page article summarized the main points. A digest of the report was printed on page 3. Most of page 2 was taken up by "Statement by Rabbi Zuckermann on the Romance Language Affair," in which he supported the results of the Hillel investigation. In face of the ADL opposition to publication of the report, he heroically concluded his statement with following words:

When the trustees of the people fail the, other agencies must act. As it appeared that discretion might triumph over justice, the Hillel Foundation assumed the task of investigation. We have carried through our investigation in as fair and thorough a manner as we know. We are making our findings public in our community organ Hillel News. Thereby we wish to focus public disapproval on what we hold to be a dangerously diseased area in our City College, and so that in the voice of the people may be heard the voice of God. We are confident that the students of the City College and its Alumni, the citizenry and Councilmen of the City of New York will want to purge their College of the blemish in its Centennial Year.

"And Thou Shalt Cauterize The Evil From Out of The Midst of Thee." (Hillel News 1947)

Although I was not an editor of the Hillel News, my name was added to the list of editors as "Associate Editor." I requested this so that if there were any penalties resulting from publication of the issue, I would not be sitting idly by while others took the blame.

The CCNY Student Council met the next day, 14 March, to act on the recommendations. Knowing that a demand for the retirement of Knickerbocker and award of Ward medals to Gurewitch and Moed would not be acted upon by the CCNY administration or the BHE, I proposed that we condemn Knickerbocker for his anti-Semitism and ask the New York City Council to conduct an investigation of the matter. A City Council committee was established under the chairmanship of Councilman Walter R. Hart.

In an editorial entitled "Orchids to 'Hillel' at City College," the 27 March 1947 issue of the Jewish Review praised the action of Hillel in exposing the anti-Semitism in the Romance Language Department, and asked, " Will the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith reverse its stand and for once go in fighting to uphold the report of the Hillel Foundation-both being part and parcel of B'Nai Brith? Or will it adhere to its off the record position that it will not take up its cudgels because 'victory is not certain.' When is victory certain in this age-old fight against discrimination?" The Jewish Review editorial also criticized the AJC's Commission on Law and Social Action for lack of social action when its legal appeals are ignored: " Will the Commission on Law and Social Action of the American Jewish Congress permit the Board of Higher Education practically to throw Shad Polier's letter in the ash heap-or will the American Jewish Congress press for a showdown. In fairness, it should be stated that the AJC did provide speakers, advice, and legal aid for the subsequent student protest activities, although it did not initiate public protests on the whitewash of Knickerbocker.

On 30 April 1947, Rabbi Zuckerman met with the Dr. Abram Sacher and Judah Shapiro (Director and Associate Director, respectively, of the National Hillel Foundation), Ben Epstein (Director of the ADL) and Marvin Jager of the ADL. Again the ADL recommended no public action be taken. Epstein said that "the ADL knew a man who was close to Mayer O'Dwyer and that this man would use his influence with the Mayor to get Knickerbocker removed. Mr. Epstein didn't think Mayor O'Dwyer would act publicly, since 1947 was not an election year, but rather behind the scenes (National Hillel Foundation 1949, 6). The ADL not only opposed Hillel taking action on the case at this meeting, but two weeks later, on 14 May, it wrote to the secretary of the BHE that it was not involved in the appeal on the case, because of insufficient evidence" (7). Rabbi Zuckerman, in a marginal comment note on this action by the ADL, wrote, "Did the passing of Henry Monsky lead the ADL people to think they could carry through this sabotage and get away with it? (10) [B'nai B'rith president Henry Monsky died on 2 May 1947-EM].

CCNY administration establishes Jim Crow housing for veterans

In the fall of 1947, a dark-skinned student whose name I do not remember came to me at Hillel to complain that he was put in a room for Negroes at Army Hall, a dormitory that was established at the former Hebrew Orphan Asylum for World War II veterans attending City College, Columbia, New York University, and Fordham University. It was administered by City College. The student stated, "I am not a Negro. I am Jewish." He was a Yemenite Jew, many of whom are dark-skinned, I replied that we cannot protest his being assigned to a room with Negroes on the grounds that he was not Negro, but we must protest the against racial segregation in Army Hall. I then raised the question with the Community Actions Committee. We decided that Hillel should not take the initiative on this issue, but we should discuss it with the CCNY Frederick Douglass Society, so that they could give the lead on the segregation issue with our support, which is precisely what happened. The Frederick Douglass Society took the matter to the Army Hall Resident Council, which, in turn, sent their demand for the dismissal of the Army Hall director, William C. Davis (1907-1968), an economics instructor, to CCNY President Wright, the Board of Higher Education, and the Mayor's Committee on Unity. President Wright announced on 28 October 1947 that a special faculty committee would investigate the charges ("College Will Study Segregation Charge," New York Times, 29 October 1947). In Army Hall records, the student's name is Paul Franklin. In the records of the investigating committee hearing, his last name is spelled Franklyn

City College students mobilize for struggle to remove racists from faculty

When I graduated from CCNY in January 1948, campaigns to remove Knickerbocker and Davis from the City College faculty drew increasing student support. Although I was not involved in the subsequent campaigns, I think it is appropriate to summarize how things developed on the Knickerbocker and Davis cases after I graduated.

On 25 March 1948, Davis announced that he was resigning as administrator of Army Hall after the special faculty committee charged him with following practices of racial segregation. President Wright, however, stated that Davis would retain his position as instructor of economics, for which he had tenure ("City College Aide Quits After Board Charges Racial Segregation to Him," New York Times, 26 March 1948). This did not satisfy the CCNY students, who continued to demand his dismissal.

On 22 June 1948, the New York City Council, by a 16 to 0 vote, with two abstentions, accepted the report of the Hart Committee, which recommended that "because of reprehensible and unworthy conduct," Knickerbocker, "be requested to apply for retirement prior to the commencement of the next semester and, upon his failure to do so within a reasonable time, that he be relieved of his duties as Chairman of the Department of Romance Languages." The committee also found that the religion of students was a factor determining Knickerbocker's treatment of them. The committee recommended that Gurewitch be publicly presented with the Ward Medal and that Professors Polinger and Bach-y-Rita be considered for restoration to the list of recommendations for promotion" (Report of the City Council 1948). On 9 July, the BHE announced it would consider the City Council recommendation at its next meeting.

Two days before the announcement of the Hart Committee report, which had already been shown to the BHE (Müller and Cross 1949), a notice appeared in the program for the CCNY commencement on 22 June that a duplicate 1942 Ward medal would be awarded Gurewitch nunc pro tunc [now for then]. Dean of Administration John J. Theobald announced it was at Professor Knickerbocker's suggestion a duplicate medal be given to Gurewitch. Councilman Hart, however, disclosed that during the Council hearings, he asked Knickerbocker if he would consider recommending that Gurewitch be granted the award in view of the corrected record. Knickerbocker's reply, according to Hart was "absolutely not." Hart added that "to say that Professor Knickerbocker made the suggestion or that he induced the administration to give Mr. Gurewitch the award in 1948 is a sad commentary on the administration of City College" ("Student Honored after 6-Year Wait," New York Times, 21 June 1948)

In connection with the beginning of the fall semester at CCNY, a meeting involving representatives of the National Hillel Foundation, the City College Hillel, AJC, and the ADL was held on 15 October 1948 to discuss following up on the City Council recommendations, which the BHE was still considering. At this point, in view of the Hart Committee Report, the ADL apparently found it difficult to distance itself from the anti-Knickerbocker campaign. All those present, except, Rabbi Arthur J. Lelyveld (1913-1996), who had replaced Dr. Sachar as director of the National Hillel Foundation earlier that year after the latter became founding president of Brandeis University, supported the organization of a walkout of students taking a required course for Spanish majors taught by Knickerbocker. Rabbi Zuckerman and the students present were urged to organize the walkout with an air of spontaneity so that Hillel's role would not be obvious. Both the ADL and AJC stated that they could be counted on to defend any students against disciplinary action taken as a result of the walkout. It was also agreed that the Hart Committee Report should be distributed on the campus and that the names of Hillel, ADL, and AJC would appear on it. Later in the day, the ADL said its name could not appear on it because a person associated with ADL was to appear before the BHE to bring charges against Knickerbocker.( National Hillel Foundtions 1949, 8-9). The AJC, however, which, had initiated the still-pending appeal to the BHE against the City College Investigating Committee's whitewash of Knickerbocker, had not such problem.

One of the CCNY Hillel students, David Kaplan, who participated in the meeting, took on the task of recruiting a student in Knickerbocker's class to lead the walkout. Unable to find such a student, he attended the class on the morning of 20 September and, as the class began, rose to ask Knickerbocker whether he was the man named in the City Council report. After Knickerbocker replied that that he saw no relation between the report and a class on Spanish literature, Kaplan led 19 of the 21 students out of the class. The students went to office of Dean Gottschall without Kaplan and requested that they have a new instructor. Dean Gottschall told them to draw up a petition, whereupon they went to the CCNY Hillel office to do so in consultation with Rabbi Zuckerman. The New York Times report of the walkout noted that "examination of Mr. Kaplan's program of studies did not reveal his class, or show that he was registered for Professor Knickerbocker's class," but it made no mention of his association with Hillel ("20 Students Quit City College Class," New York Times, 21 September 1948; National Hillel Foundation. 1949, 8).

On 27 September 1948, reacting to the City Council resolution, the BHE, by a vote of 15 to 4, reaffirmed its 1946 exoneration of Knickerbocker ("Board Bars Action on Knickerbocker," New York Times, 28 September 1947)

On 29 September, twenty-six students began a day-long and all-night sit down outside Pres. Wright's office to demand the dismissal of Knickerbocker. The number swelled to 500 in the morning, after which the students joined two thousand others at noon for a five-hour meeting in the City College Great Hall. Although the sit down and mass meeting were initially called to protest the BHE's decision on 27 October not to take further action on Knickerbocker, members of the American Youth for Democracy, after much debate, succeeded in including the demand for the dismissal of both Davis and Knickerbocker in a key resolution that was passed at the meeting. Another resolution that was passed after much debate was the call for a college wide "sit-down" strike. Apart from student speakers, the meeting was addressed by City Councilman Hart, City Councilman Eugene P, Connolly of the American Labor party, and Bert Diamond, a counsel for the American Jewish Congress. City College classes for the afternoon were suspended. Also that afternoon, a meeting in the ante-room of Pres. Wright's office was attended by Wright; Ordway Tead, chairman of the BHE; various deans; Bert Diamond of the AJC; Rabbi Lelyveld of the National Hillel Foundation; Rabbi Zuckerman; and student representatives. The ADL was invited, but failed to send a representative. The meeting was called on the initiative of Rabbi Zuckerman several days earlier in an attempt to reach an agreement on the Knickerbocker case. The only agreements reached, however, appear to have been acceptance of the right of students to select instructors other than Knickerbocker and that the students who walked out on Knickerbocker's class on 20 September would not be subject to disciplinary action. No public announcement about the results of the meeting was made. Not only did the ADL not send a representative to the meeting, after previously have promised to participate in the defense of the students if it were necessary, but in a report on CCNY Hillel's involvement by Jacob Grumet on 11 December 1948, the ADL accused Rabbi Zuckerman of misconduct for allowing the CCNY Hillel to participate publicly in the anti-Knickerbocker protests.

A Student Council meeting that began on 1 October and lasted eleven and three-quarters hours until 4 a.m. on 2 October finally ended with a resolution to conduct a referendum for a "sit-down" strike that was called for in the resolutions of the Great Hall meeting on 30 September. Left-wing student organizations such as the American Youth for Democracy, Students for Wallace , and the off-campus student Communist Party club strongly supported such a strike and forcefully argued for the linkage of the Davis and Knickerbocker cases.. The tactic of "sit-down" strikes was then current in the organization of the auto industry by the United Auto Workers. The more conservative student organizations opposed a strike. Support for the strike was strong among the Hillel students, but Rabbi Zuckerman pressured the Executive Council not to support it. To weaken the vote for the sit-down strike, which was scheduled for 6 October, Pres. Wright announced on 5 October that no disciplinary action will be taken against the students who walked out of Knickerbocker's class and that they would be permitted to transfer to other teachers. In addition, Wright announced that he had requested "an exchange of views concerning the situation" between student representatives and the BHE. Wright's tactics worked. The resolution to stage the strike was defeated 3,122 to 1,841. ("2000 Seek Ouster of Knickerbocker," New York Times,1 October 1948; National Hillel Foundation. 1949, 9-10; "Group Joins Drive on Knickerbocker," New York Times, 3 October 1947; "Students in Revolt Get New Teacher," New York Times, 5 October 1948; "Students Reject 'Sit-Down' Strike," New York Times,7 October 1948).

A conference on academic freedom sponsored by the National Council of Arts, Sciences and Professions on 9 October 1948 in New York approved a resolution calling for the dismissal of Knickerbocker and Davis ("Colleges Rebuked for 'Repressions,' New York Times, 10 October 1948).

A joint petition against the BHE decision not to reopen the Knickerbocker case was filed on 22 October with the State Education Department by the American Jewish Congress, CCNY Student Council, and Professors Bach-y-Rita and Polinger.

On 22 October 1948, Brooklyn College Dean of Students Frederick W. Maroney announced that he would take disciplinary action against fifteen executives of the Students for Wallace group as a response to their charge that the dean intimidated them in his effort to get them to cancel a campus march to protest the whitewash of Knickerbocker and Davis. About eighty students had taken part in the march that the dean objected to because it was on the day that parents and other visitors had been on the campus to attend an honors day convocation ("Wallace March Scored," New York Times, 23 October 1948).

In the first official action against a City College student for protests in the Knickerbocker and Davis cases, a CCNY senior, Paul Brown, was placed on probation by a student-faculty discipline committee for his refusal to cease distributing an unauthorized publication against Knickerbocker ("Student is Disciplined," New York Times, 23 October 1948). Paul Brown was a member of the CCNY Communist Party club who I had known from my childhood at the Workers Cooperative Colony in the Bronx. On the same day, Brown led a group of 100 students to City Hall to request that Mayor Paul O'Dwyer use his influence to bring about the dismissal of Knickerbocker and Davis ("100 Picket City Hall," New York Times, 23 October 1948). O'Dwyer subsequently issued a statement that declared that the refusal of the BHE to act in the Knickerbocker case was most unfortunate and should be promptly reconsidered (New York Lawyer Guild 1949).

On 8 November 1948, in response to the 22 October 1948 joint petition by the AJC, the CCNY Student Council and Professors Cross and Bach-y-Rita , BHE issued a document defending its 27 September decision not to reopen the Knickerbocker Case and in which it characterized Cross as a chronic complainer (BHE 1948). On 17 January 1949, the petitioners then petitioned the State Commissioner of Education, Dr. Francis T. Spalding to order the BHE to file charges of anti-Semitism against Knickerbocker. ("Charges Revived on Knickerbocker," New York Times, 18 January 1949.

A flier distributed on 15 December 1948 by Students for Wallace CCNY called for students to turn out in Lincoln Corridor in Shepard Hall at 3 p.m. when a delegation of "representatives and members of 26 civic organizations will request that President Wright to use his legal authority to suspend DAVIS and KNICKERBOCKER from the faculty." The flier lists organizations participating in the delegations as representatives and members of the New York branch of the NAACP, the Civil Rights Congress, the Teachers Union, the Jewish People's Fraternal Order, American Jewish Congress, National Inter-collegiate Young Progressives of America, and such individuals as Rabbi Henry Shorr, Rabbi Jonah E. Kaplan, Councilman Eugene Connolly, and playwright Arthur Miller (Students for Wallace Flier, 1949).

On 12 January 1949, the Associate Alumni of the City College of New York (which changed its name in the1950s to the Alumni Association of the City College of New York) extended the scope of the Associate Alumni Committee to Investigate Discrimination (set up in 1946 to investigate religious and racial discrimination against graduates of New York City schools and colleges) to include both the Knickerbocker and Davis cases, appointing Domestic Relations Court Judge Hubert T. Delany, an African American, as head of a committee established for this purpose. On 18 January, in response to a letter dated 14 January from Professor Nelson P. Mead, president of the CCNY Associate Alumni (a copy of which I do not have), Judge Delany recalled that in a conversation with him and President Wright in June 1948, he agreed with Wright that the BHE, in view of its previous actions, would not remove Davis even if he was guilty of segregation and discrimination because Davis had tenure. Delany added, however, that "at no time during this conference did the President indicate that Mr. Davis did not have tenure and that he could have summarily removed him on the basis of the findings of the faculty committee. At no time did the President indicate that when he [Davis] was to be returned to the Economics Department, his salary would be increased to the maximum for staff of the instructional rank." From what follows, his appointment to the committee was apparently based on the opinion he had expressed in his June 1948 meeting with Mead and Wright that the BHE would not fire Davis. For, on 8 March 1948, Delany resigned from the CCNY Associate Alumni investigating committee, charging that his committee had been packed with members who blocked efforts to get at the facts of discrimination in the college. The fact and circumstances of Delany's resignation were first made public on 29 March 1948 when the president of the CCNY Hillel Foundation presented them to the Student Council, which then set up an investigating committee (Zuckerman 1949a).

City College Student Strike, April 1949

The student reaction to Delany's resignation was sharp. Members of the American Veterans Committee called for a campus-wide strike. At a meeting in the Great Hall on 7 April, the seven-person Student Council investigating committee reported that they had confirmed Judge Delany's charges against the Associate Alumni. The defense by the secretary of the Associate Alumni committee was overshadowed by Delany's refutations, in the course of which Delany endorsed the strike call. The CCNY uptown day session Student Council prepared for a referendum to be held the next day. As reported by the campus newspaper Observation Post, on 8 April, with over 4,000 students voting, 2,797 students voted for the strike, 1,885 voted against it. Of those voting for the strike 1,129 voted for a one-day strike, 1,623 voted for a sustained strike until action was taken, action being defined as suspension of Knickerbocker and Davis pending open trials by the BHE. That evening, the uptown Student Council then voted 43 to 11 to begin the strike on 11 April (Fogel and Cohen 1949; Observation Post 1949, Zuckerman 1949).

At 7 a.m. on 11 April, hundreds of students began forming picket lines at the campus buildings. At 9 a.m. the police arrested 16 students in an effort to clear the entrance to the main building (of 16 were given suspended sentences for disorderly conduct in a trial in November 1949). Another student, who denied that he had been picketing, was later brought before a magistrate bandaged, after being treated at Mother Cabrini Hospital, and charged with assaulting a police sergeant. At 1:20 p.m. two more students were detained (but released with warnings shortly thereafter) as mounted police tried to break up a rally that was using loudspeakers. The rally continued, however, without the loudspeakers. The strike committee estimated that 75 percent of the students stayed away from classes. The CCNY administration set the figure at 65 percent. In the evening, the uptown evening session Student Council voted 844 to 360 to join the strike, but the Student Council at the School of Business and Civic Administration voted to condemn the strike. The CCNY Hillel Foundation office served as the strike headquarters (Zuckerman 1949). The "objective" New York Times could not refrain from writing, "The picket lines, thoroughly organized in every detail, used techniques common in Communist or Communist-led strikes, but denials that this was a Communist strike came from both leaders and school officials." The paper quoted Knickerbocker, "I am absolutely convinced that I am being used to further the cause of communism in the college. I am absolutely convinced that if it were not for the Communists there would be no strike" ("City College Police Clash with Police in 'Bias' Strike, New York Time, 12 April 1949; "16 Found Guilty in College Strike," New York Times, 24 September 1949); Zuckerman 1949; Fogel and Cohen 1949).

The New York Times editorial on 13 April was even more biased:

Its professed and doubtless sincere aim is to protest and punish real or fancied racial or religious discrimination, but the method is that of indiscriminate acceptance of charges of guilt which have been either repudiated by painstaking official inquiry, in one case, or suitably penalized in the other. . . . Its longevity, the forms the agitation takes, the picket cries of scab, rat, Fascist, the identity of some of the agitators, in past years and now, all point to a Leftist if not Communist inspiration. We do not believe that any sizable number of Communists are taking part in the strike; we do agree with Professor Knickerbocker when he says that "if it were not for the Communists there would be no strike.

The editorial quoted Wright as stating that the strike was "equivalent to lynch justice." The editorial misrepresented the goal of the strike, which was not, as it charged, to "force the dismissal of two teachers," but for open trials by the Board of Higher Education.

Will Maslow and Betram Diamond of the Commission on Law and Social Action of the American Jewish Congress criticized the editorial in a letter to the Times on 18 April. They pointed to the inadequacy of the official City College investigation. Referring to the editorial's statement that Knickerbocker and Davis "have both suffered penance enough," Maslow and Diamond wrote, "Far from undergoing penance, the offender has been retained in the post of chairman while faculty members who complained were harassed and denied promotion. For Davis, too, there has never been a full-scale open hearing. . . . . No penalty was ever imposed on him. On the contrary, he was permitted to resign from his administrative duties and return to a teaching position where he was shortly thereafter granted a salary increment of $1400 annually." Wright had claimed that Davis was penalized because his economics department salary was lower salary than he had received as Army Hall administrator ("City College Police Clash with Police in 'Bias' Strike," New York Time, 12 April 1949).

The New York Sun headlined its strike report for the second day of the strike, "Reds Seen Moving In On City College Strike." (13 April 1949). The paper attributed the source of this information to a City College publicity representative, Lester Nichols, who stated that left-wing elements had appeared on the campus. The Sun reported that a group of eleven labor unions threatened to shut the college "tighter than a drum" with a monster picket line. The unions mentioned were locals of left-wing unions: United Office and Professional Workers of America, International Fur and Leather Workers Union, Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union, Furniture Workers Union, Shoe Workers Union, Jewelry Workers Union, Bakers Union, and the teacher's local of the United Public Workers. The New York Sun reported that the president of the Student Council, William Fortunato, said the the "strikers would not accept outside help from left-wing organizations. He was obviously reacting to the anti-Communist rhetoric from the press and CCNY administration, since his objection to outside support was limited to left-wing organizations. In practice, however, left-wing student groups from CCNY and other colleges participated actively and openly in the strike.

For the first time in years, students were able to organize meetings on campus and distribute literature on campus without administrative approval for the next few days. "Three and a half million students throughout the world sent full support to the strikers through the International Union of Students, students from all over the country sent messages of support: The Student Council of the New York University, School of Education, Sarah Lawrence Student Council, 1001 students from Chicago University, and many others sent messages. Students from metropolitan colleges, Brooklyn, Hunter, Queens, Columbia, New York University and a band from Juillard School of Music joined the picket line" (Fogel and Cohen 1949; Zuckerman 1949a).

The left was strongly represented among the activists in this very broad political spectrum and was the key force in forging a strong linkage of these two issues. The several groups , predictably, did not always get along swimmingly well together, but on the core issues of racism and bigotry, differences, though often heated, were mainly tactical. . . .

Strikers went to their scheduled classes to convince wavering classmates to stay out. Faculty handled this in various ways. Some took their time arriving at their classes, allowing for the rooms to empty out. Others had inordinate difficulties registering absences and several refused to hold classes. Most faculty were sympathetic to the strike. Some teachers discreetly contributed funds to enable the daily publications of strike papers and showed their solidarity in various ways. A few, however, used the "three-cut rule" to flunk students. (Engel 1999, 5, 7).

During the strike, 1,000 students accompanied five leaders of the Strike Committee to City Hall in an unsuccessful attempt to see Mayor O'Dwyer. A student delegation went to Albany to visit the State Commissioner of Education Spalding. He then announced in a letter to the CCNY Young Republicans Club that a date was being set for a hearing of the appeal by the American Jewish Congress, the CCNY Student Council, and Professors Bach-y-Rita and Polinger against the BHE decision not to take any action. The hearing date was set for 29 April 1949. The strike continued without police interference on 12 and 13 April, with somewhat reduced participation and then was suspended until 20 April because of the Passover and Easter recess. After the strike resumed on 20 April, the vice president of the day session Student Council, Edward Sparer, announced that the Student Councils of the day and evening sessions had decided to suspend the strike because it had achieved its maximum effect.

In a decision announced on 9 April 1950, State Commissioner of Education Spalding backed the Board of Higher Education's defense of Knickerbocker and declined to order the City College to put Professors Bach-y-Rita and Polinger back on the promotion list ("State Backs Board on Knickerbocker," New York Times, 10 April 1950).

In March 1949, Davis took an indefinite leave of absence, apparently to complete his PhD at Yale University that year. In 1950, he took a position as marketing manager with General Electric. (Zuckerman 1949b; "William C. Davis, Educator, Is Dead," New York Times, 16 April 1968). Knickerbocker announced on 17 April 1950 that he would not be a candidate for reelection as chair of the Romance Language Department. He retired in 1955 at the obligatory retirement age of 70 ("Dr. Knickerbocker to Quit One Post," New York Times, 18 April, 1950; "Knickerbocker 70, Retires at College," New York Times, 21 September 1955).

In 1951, the new chair of the Department of Romance Languages, Professor William E. Colford, constituted a Ward Medal Committee consisting of himself and four faculty members. At its first meeting, a proposal was made that the committee make certain Nunc-pro-tune awards to correct for errors in past awards. On 16 May 1951, the committee unanimously approved Ward Medal awards for three Jewish students for the years 1939, 1943, 1945, and Ward Medal certificates of equal merit for three other Jewish students for the years 1940, 1941, and 1943. Colford, in his capacity as chair of the committee and department chair, met with President Wright to present the recommendations. Wright made it clear to Colford that "the Knickerbocker Case is closed," that he would not implement the committee's recommendations, and, moreover, made it plain to Colford that he was not to submit the recommendations formally. On 4 June 1951, Colford detailed to the faculty President Wright's objections and stated, "So, I did not make the recommendations" (Cross 1951).

At this point, it is worthwhile discussing the relationship between Hillel and the ADL in connection with the Knickerbocker cases. The principal source for this discussion, apart from my memory of the ADL's initial opposition to the publication of report of the CCNY Hillel committee in the Hillel News, is a copy of the 17 January 1949 response of the National Hillel Foundation (with Rabbi Zuckerman's handwritten annotations) to the Knickerbocker report prepared for the ADL by Jacob Grumet and dated 22 December 1948. I have not been able to obtain a copy of the Grumet report itself. Jacob Grumet was an attorney associated with the ADL.

The ostensible purpose of the report was "that the Civil Rights Committee [of the ADL] ought consider all the facts with respect to the Knickerbocker case, for the purpose of deciding what, if any, action the League should take in the matter." (National Hillel Foundation 1949,1). Its obvious purpose, however, was to criticize Rabbi Zuckerman for supporting the public involvement of the CCNY Hilllel Foundation in the protests against Knickerbocker despite the recommendation of the ADL not to do so. It even accused Zuckerman of being the source of the criticism of the ADL in the 27 March 1949 editorial of the Jewish Review and of providing Jewish Review with copies of the the CCNY Hillel report on Knickerbocker and Rabbi Zuckerman's statement from the Hillel News. To these charges, the National Hillel Foundation responded that Rabbi Zuckerman had not given any statement to the Jewish Review at any time (National Hillel Foundation 1949, 6). The ADL's initial position was that although it was clear that Knickerbocker should be removed, there was insufficient information available to warrant the request for reopening of the Knickerbocker case, despite the fact that the AJC had asked the BHE to do so. It was clear that the ADL did not want Hillel to engage in a public campaign around the issue, and offered only to work behind the scenes to effect Knickerbocker's retirement, for which there is no evidence that it even did that. The ADL faulted Rabbi Zuckerman for not controlling the Hillel students. The National Hillel Foundation responded to this by stating that "The Director may counsel and guide the students as he does. But it cannot be expected that he can control them completely. . . . Further the pressure of an aroused student body when it takes hold of an issue can be very great.. . . . It was through Rabbi Zuckerman's influence that the Hillel Executive Council did not approve an unlimited sitdown demonstration as advocated by the other groups on the campus" (National Hillel Foundation 1949, 2). The ADL's behavior in the Knickerbocker case was criticized in an editorial in the Jewish Review (27 March 1947). The Grumet attack on Rabbi Zuckerman had a profound effect on him, as evidenced by his annotations to his copy of the Grumet Report: "Will the ADL reverse its stand and for once go fighting?" In these annotations he accused the ADL of "sabotage of the effort to remove Knickerbocker" as I indicated earlier.

By the time of the 1949 strike, Zuckerman stood up to the ADL more strongly, supporting Hillel's public engagement in the Knickerbocker-Davis cases. He sharply disassociated himself from the anti-Communism of the ADL. In his article about the strike in the Reconstructionist, he wrote:

The Communist scare, without which no unusual event may take place in contemporary America, was exploited by the metropolitan press, with the exception of the New York Post [then more liberal than now-E.M], in an attempt to break the strike. Spearheading this effort was an editorial in the New York Times, which ignored the striker leaders' statement of purposes, misrepresented their aims and doused its readers with anti-red hysteria. (1949a)

Zuckerman remained supportive of Hillel student involvement in campus issues despite subsequent efforts by the National Hillel Foundation to restrict them. In 1950, in a letter to Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, National Director of the Hillel Foundations, he indicated his support of the objection of the CCNY Hillel Executive Council to the exercise of veto power by the National Hillel Foundation over the "use of the Hillel name in controversial situations with the College Administration" (1950).

Before ending this account of the Knickerbocker-Davis cases, I should comment on the nature of Communist involvement in them. Communists in the United States have always been in the forefront of civil rights struggles. They do so because they recognize that racism, apart from its exploitative aspects, is used to divert attention away from meaningful struggles against oppressive conditions. It is true that as a Communist and member of Hillel, I was primarily responsible for Hillel's initial involvement in the Knickerbocker case. But the case was initiated by the four professors who first complained about Knickerbocker's anti-Semitism. Student Communists and members of Communist-influenced campus groups played active roles in the protests, sometimes, but not always, taking on a leading role. What was behind the New York Times comment that the picket lines in the 1949 strike used "techniques common in Communist or Communist-led strikes"? These techniques are characterized by mass involvement of the pickets, with shouts of slogans and song, designed overcome the feelings of helplessness in a confrontation with a powerful foe, by enhancing the spirit of empowerment that is necessary for the development of the conscious understanding that the people have the power to effect changes in their lives. Several Student Council leaders, who viewed their involvement in student government as a forerunner to future establishment-oriented careers, were apprehensive of being associated with such techniques. On the eve of the strike, the New York Times quoted Leroy Galperin, a member of the Student Council Strike Committee as stating that the Communists were responsible for the politics of the earlier sit-down strike. "If there is any singing now, it will be Christmas carols," he said ("City College Strike Will Avoid 'Politics,'" New York Times, 10 April, 1949). Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, "Chanting pickets carried multi-colored signs. . . .and taunted non-strikers with cries of "scab" and "rat. To the accompaniment of banjo and mandolin, the pickets sang their slogans in clipped phrasing." There is nothing sinister about such tactics. They occurred quite frequently in trade-union struggles and continue to be used today. Considering the fact that at the time I graduated in January 1948, the CCNY student Communist club of the Communist Party had about 200 members, it should not be surprising that Communists and their political allies played an active role in the strike, although they did not lead it. Appearing for the sixteen arrested students at their arraignment were the attorneys Emanuel H. Bloch of the Civil Rights Congress (already on the Attorney General's list of Communist organizations), and Bert Diamond of the AJC, who said that he was brought in by Herbert J. Fabricant of the Young Progressives, another left-wing organization in which Communists took part but did not lead ("City College Students Clash with Police in 'Bias' Strike, New York Times¸ 12 April 1949).

Personal reflection on involvement in Knickerbocker Davis struggle

The motivations for my own role as a student Communist in the Knickerbocker-Davis cases was two-fold. One the one hand, as a Jewish engineering student from a working-class family I would, upon graduation, be facing job discrimination in the engineering profession because of my ethnic and class background. By engaging in a struggle against racism, I would be fighting for a securer future for myself and others who would be facing racial discrimination. By seeking to involve other students in militant struggle, I would be contributing to the understanding that joint action involving large numbers of people is an effective way for winning victories in such struggles, even if full success is not achieved in a particular struggle. As a Communist, I knew that processes of fundamental social change in a capitalist society required support of a population that was convinced that it had the power to bring about change and that mass involvement in struggles for reforms within the existing social system was necessary to develop the consciousness of the power to change the conditions of life. My own involvement and the involvement of Communists in general in the Knickerbocker-Davis case on these bases cannot be criticized as a foreign intrusion. Such mass actions were the necessary bases for abatement of anti-Semitism and the successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Although the Knickerbocker-Davis campaigns were still underway when the New York State Fair Education Practices Act outlawing discrimination in college admissions was passed in 1948, I have no doubt that they contributed to gathering of public and legislative support the passage of the Act.

REFERENCE LIST

Board of Higher Education. 1948. "Review of the Facts Concerning the Charges Made against Professor William E. Knickerbocker and the Romance Languages Department, The City College. 11 November. Romance Languages Department Investigation "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish Congress. 1946. In the Matter of the Romance Languages Department of the College of the cityof New York: Analysis of the Record [by William Maslow and Shirley Adelson]. Submitted to Board of Higher Education, City of New York, 10 September 1946. College." 8 November. Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman files. Association of Hillel and Jewish Campus Professionals Collection. Manuscript Collection 104. Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion.

Cross, Ephraim. 1951. "Cheating at the City College: Part II of Facts in the Case Against Professor Knickerbocker, Chairman of the Romance Languages Department. November. Knickerbocker Case, Reports, 1951. Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion.

Delany, Hubert T. 1949. Letter to Nelson P. Mead, 18 January. President's Committee to Investigate Complaints of Discrimination in Army Hall Collection. City College of the City University of New York, Archives and Special Collections of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library of the City College of New York..

Engel, Marvin. 1999. "CCNY Student Strikes, 1948-1949. Jewish Currents (December): 4-7, 58.

Fogel, Robert, and Jack Cohen. 1949. "Students Strike at Racism." Jewish Life, June, 22-24.

Gottschall, Morton. 1949. Manuscript of letter to the editor of the New York Post 15 April. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

Hillel News. 1947. "Community Action Committee Charges Knickerbock Guilty of Anti-Semitism," vol. 3, no. 3, 17 March. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

Müller, Otto, and Ephraim Cross. 1949. "Facts in the Case Against Professor William E. Knickerbocker, Chairman of the Department of Romance Languages, The City College. April. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

National Hillel Foundation. 1949. "Analysis of Knickerbocker Report Submitted by Jacob Grumet, Dec. 11, 1948." Prepared 17 January 1949. Photocopy annotated by Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman, 18 January 1949. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

New York Lawyer Guild. 1949. "Paul O'Dwyer Urges B. of H. E. to Act on Knickerbocker," 7, no. 1 (January): 6

Observation Post. 1949a. "Council Calls Strike for Today after Students Vote Approval," 11 April.

---. 1949b. "Referendum Results Support Strike: Delany Hits Adminstration at Rally," 11 April

Report of the City Council. 1948. "Report of the City Council on Romance Languages Department , College of the City of New York. [Report of the Special Committee on Discrimination M-274]. 22 June. Reprinted by B'nai B'rith Hillel foundation at the City College of the New York and the American Jewish Congress. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York.

Students for Wallace Flier. 1949. "Knickerbocker Case," Archives Division of the Morris Raphael Cohn Library at the City College of New York. Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman files. Association of Hillel and Jewish Campus Professionals Collection. Manuscript Collection 104. Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion.

Zuckerman, Arthur. 1949a. "The City College Student Strike and Academic Freedom." The Reconstructionist, 15, no. 7:22-26.

---. 1949b. Letter to Lester Waldman, 22 March. Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman files. Association of Hillel and Jewish Campus Professionals Collection. Manuscript Collection 104. Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion.

---. 1950. Letter to Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, 24 March. Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman files. Association of Hillel and Jewish Campus Professionals Collection. Manuscript Collection 104. Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion.

Colombian Communist Party Leader: "The new country we want"

W.T. Whitney Jr — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:21:00 +0000

W. T. Whitney Jr.

1263 words

Interviewed on August 8, Carlos Lozano, PCC Central committee member and director of the Colombian Communist Party's (PCC) weekly "Voz" newspaper, looked at his country's future. He surveyed the PCC's role in democratic struggle carried out amidst class-based violence. Lozano suggests the PCC remains faithful to Marxist-Leninist principles and to peaceful, democratic methods of struggle.

Lozano touched upon the PCC's imminent expulsion from the Alternative Democratic Pole (Polo), the left-learning electoral coalition the PCC helped establish in 2005. On August 9, by a 16 to six vote, the 38 member Polo Executive Committee claimed the PCC's role in supporting the new Patriotic March movement violates Polo bylaws on "double militancy." Refusing to leave the Polo, the PCC says the Patriot March, comprising 2000 national and region groups, is a social movement, not a political one, and that Polo and governmental requirements that political parties join only one electoral coalition do not apply.

Subsequently Lozano and other PCC defenders charged the Polo Executive Committee with trying to clean the Polo's image in preparation for the Polo head Clara Lopez' anticipated run for Colombia's presidency. In a recent Polo Ideological Conference, Polo leaders aligned themselves with accusations from the Colombian Defense Minister that the Patriotic March is an initiative of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrilla group. They left the impression the PCC too has FARC ties.

Lozano ran as Polo candidate for Colombia's House of Representatives in 2010. PCC members Gloria Inés Ramírez and Iván Cepeda serve as Polo members of the Senate and House respectively. The Polo's action directly challenges the party's lead strategy of left unity.

Freddy Vallejo's widely circulated interview for Argenpress.info, excerpted below, is titled "The new country we want." (http://www.argenpress.info/2012/08/entrevista-con-carlos-lozano-guillen.html)

Vellejo began by asking: "They say internal discussions of the PCC were intense. There are rumors of internal divisions and factions which endanger unity. How did the [recent] 21^st National Congress conclude?

Reply (R) - For a long time in the PCC there have been internal debates, fundamentally democratic with the broadest possible participation of leaders and militants. There's not the slightest need to prioritize unanimity. Unanimity is antidemocratic; it restricts free expression and freedom of expression. We communists build our politics collectively, the formulation of which is a synthesis of internal debate. Also, the party is no discussion club. Our decisions are adopted by a majority, and they apply throughout the party. The PCC has only one program, only one basic statute, only one political line, and only one national political leadership. All its leaders and militants are obliged to honor them after a democratic discussion process and approval of documents....

Question (Q): What were the Congress' main conclusions?

R. We adopted the new PCC program. It's the strategic line, applying the Colombian reality as a function of our analysis. The program represents a Colombian political, social, and economic X-ray. It looks at the social composition and characteristics of the dominant power bloc and nature of the regime, dependent as it is on U.S. imperialism. It functions in the interests of big capital, in particular finance capital, the industrial bourgeoisie, and landowner power in rural areas. It's on that base that the changes and reforms we propose are formulated. The fundamental objective is achievement of socialism, democratic and humanistic above all else. It's the forerunner of communism, which will bar capitalist exploitation forever.

Statutory reforms were approved for adapting the organization to real institutional, administrative, political, social, and economic changes in the country, also in order to strengthen political militancy and the party's tie to the masses. The idea is of a party in the middle of popular struggle and with absolute vocation for power.

The political line was also approved. It consists of tactical guidelines for immediate action and is sustained on the following bases: confronting the neoliberal model of capital accumulation built on the so-called capitalist free market economy; popular resistance to the prevailing frenzy of forcing the weight of national crisis onto workers and the people; and mass action and popular mobilization for a minimal program that does not exclude preparing and carrying out a short term national civic strike. It also includes struggle for peace, for a democratic and political solution of conflict in Colombia, which is to say, mobilization for peace with democracy and social justice and left unity, with the understanding that only with a broad, popular, social, and left-leaning front will it be possible to forge an alternative to prevailing bourgeois and oligarchic power. It's a proposal for a new country based on pluralism, democratic participation, and greater social equity, a new "social contract" based on a better and just political, social, and economic order.

Q. Alternative Democratic Pole or Patriotic March? Where, in short, is the Colombian Communist Party going to end up?

R. That's not our problem. The unity we set forth is much broader and goes beyond the Polo and March, because we don't have enemies on the left. The key to advancing toward democratic and people's power is in unity. We are in the Polo because we believe it's a valid space of convergence of politically advanced forces...The Alternative Democratic Pole remains in force but it's going to depend on its capacity to devise a clear politics defined by clear, left-leaning politics of democratic change and tight relations with the popular masses. That's the key to necessary alliances. I believe that with alliances and agreements arrived at from above... we'll end up with a "National Unity" story, or something else. The Polo has to abandon the idea it is an election device and instrument of electoral endorsements. Everything said, elections are important, corrupt though they may be. They are a long way from being an expression of democracy. But they are important and allow us inside the space of parliamentary representation and popularly elected positions. But they are not enough unless a relation exists with the struggle and yearnings of the Colombian people. It's not enough to go on a march or a protest. You have to be on the side of the masses, accompanying and suffering with them.

The Patriotic March is a social and political project that shouldn't keep certain Polo leaders up at night. People's organizations make up the social base, even though parties like Piedad Cordoba's Liberal Party left wing and the PCC do have a presence. What's most important is the presence of around 2000 national and regional organizations of all sizes from the base. That's what guarantees its tight relation with daily struggles in the countryside and in cities. It calls for broader unity for the left ... [Lozano calls upon the Polo] to open discussion of the new state we ought to build, one based on eliminating violence in the relation between the governed and those who govern. Here the bourgeois, land-owning state invented the violence, because the ruling class is used to governing through repressive, authoritarian, and violent means. A democratic state doesn't exist in Colombia. A totalitarian one does, which supports violent methods to wipe out the opposition....

Q. What do you think about the FARC?

R. It's an organization that came to the fore as a consequence of prevailing state violence and social exclusion. It's been a protagonist in the forefront of this country's history for more than half a century and is a reality that can't be ignored...I don't share their methods, but I understand their existence from the historical and sociological point of view... If the Colombian oligarchy had not resorted to violence to maintain its power and preserve the plutocratic regime of privileges, then the FARC would not exist...

Translation by W. T. Whitney Jr.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF DR. KWAME NKRUMAH TO THE STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM

Jorge Risquet Valdes — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:36:00 +0000

THE CONTRIBUTION OF DR. KWAME NKRUMAH TO THE STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM

(IN THE EYES OF A CONTEMPORARY CUBAN INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY)

(An editorial of The Insight Newspaper In Lieu Of An Introduction)

Commander Jorge Risquet Valdes, a leader of the Communist Party of Cuba, arrived in Accra last Tuesday to participate in an international symposium to mark the 103rd anniversary of the birth of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah.

Risquet is no stranger to the struggles of Osagyefo to free the peoples of Africa from the yoke of classical colonialism and neo-colonialism.

As a young militant he took up arms and fought in Angola alongside such African nationalists as Captain Kojo Tsikata of Ghana and Augustino Neto of Angola to create favourable conditions for the liberation of Angola, South Africa and Namibia.

Risquet dedicated his entire life supporting the peoples of Africa to assert their independence and to take full control of their natural resources for their own benefit.

Even at his very advanced age, Risquet continues to soldier on for the freedoms of Africa and its peoples.

The Insight Newspaper joins thousands of progressives in Ghana to welcome this African hero to Accra, Ghana.

We salute him for the great sacrifices he has made in the cause of Ghana and Africa.

Sir, welcome home.

Comrade Risquet’s Speech at the International Symposium to Mark the Birth of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah as the Founder’s Day in Ghana now reads as follows:

Mr. President, my dear Ghanaian friends:

It is with great pleasure that we have accepted the gracious invitation extended to us by the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) and have made this long journey from our Caribbean island to the ancestral land of Africa, to pay our humble and glowing tribute to Founding Father Kwame Nkrumah, on the occasion of the 103rd anniversary of his birth, rightly declared Founder’s Day.

Before offering my modest contribution to this significant and timely International Symposium, permit me to reiterate my heartfelt condolences for the recent and untimely death of President John Evans Atta Mills.

In making this statement I would like to express my appreciation of the many virtues of Professor Atta Mills, among which particular mention must be made of his integrity, his intelligence and his dedication to the cause of enforcing the stability of his Motherland and the prosperity of its people.

Dear friends:

Ghana was the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence from the mother country, Britain, the mightiest colonizing empire on the five continents.

This historic event has a unique name, Kwame Nkrumah. It has a collective actor, the Ghanaian people.

Was Nkrumah born with a silver spoon in his mouth? No, he was born to a modest family, the son of a humble retailer and goldsmith.

But he had an exceptional talent and a strong willpower, attributes that accounted for his ability to organize, unite, and lead the fight to achieve the noble objectives he intended to pursue in later years.

Both qualities allowed him to excel in the mission school where he undertook his primary education. He became what may be referred to as assistant instructor, a universally accepted distinction reserved for the most advantaged and responsible students.

He attended secondary school in public institutions in Accra. As a young graduate teacher, he taught at various schools up to 1935.

He decided to travel to the U.S. to pursue higher education.

The trip was sponsored by his family, but once in the U.S., in order to keep body and soul together, he found himself working as a labourer in a soap factory and in a shipyard, as a ship waiter, as a retail salesperson, and engaging in other honest ways of earning a living. While studying Economics and Sociology at the University of Lincoln, he taught political science at the same university. He also obtained degrees in Education and Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.

We are talking about a solid thirty-or-so-year-old intellectual who was simultaneously the President of the African Students Union in America and Canada as well as a young leader still in his formative years in politics, when the idea of Pan-Africanism was conceived in the United States, the citadel of the most brutal form of racial discrimination and of the Ku Klux Klan.

William Du Bois’ popular pioneering work and Marcus Garvey’s philosophy of “Africa for Africans” together with his movement for the return to the ancestral continent, all contributed to intensifying Nkrumah’s yearning for uplifting to a dignified life, his brothers in blood and suffering.

Ten years had since passed. In 1945, he decided to move to London to study law and write his thesis. He got ready for the extraordinary combats.

There, he was elected Vice-President of the West African Students Union.

The 5th Pan-African Congress was held in the metropolis, in Manchester, where plans were conceived to fight for the independence of Africa, following the crushing of Nazism-fascism in Europe by the forces of freedom and democracy.

Nkrumah was one of the deputy secretaries of this exciting event. It is here that he made a final decision on the object of his struggle and his life.

It was Nkrumah who drafted the historic declaration of the 5^th Pan-African Congress of Manchester, addressed to “The Colonial Peoples of the World”.

The declaration is so brilliant and so moving, I cannot resist the temptation to read it out to you, although I am not unaware that you probably have it at the tip of your tongues, but please do share with me the nostalgic excitement that it brings:

Declaration of the 5th Pan African Congress “To the Colonial Peoples of the World”, Manchester, 1945.

We believe in freedom and the right of all peoples to govern themselves. We affirm the right of all colonial peoples to control their own destiny. All colonies must be free from foreign imperialist control, be it political or economic. The peoples of the colonies must have the right to choose their rulers, to elect a government without restrictions imposed by a foreign power. We say to all peoples of the colonies that they must fight with all means at their disposal for this purpose. The aim of the imperialists is to exploit you. By ensuring the right of the colonial peoples to self government, we are defeating the imperialist objectives. Thus, the struggle for political power by the colonized people is the first step and a prerequisite for achieving complete social, economic and political emancipation.

The 5^th Pan African Congress calls on all workers and peasants of the colonies to organize themselves. Colonial workers must be in the frontline in the battle against imperialism.

The 5^th Pan African Congress calls on all the intellectuals and the professionals of the colonies to take on their responsibilities. The long night is coming to an end. By fighting for union rights, the right to form cooperatives, press freedom, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate or to go on strike, freedom to print and read the literature necessary for the education of the masses, you are simply using the appropriate means to win and maintain your freedom. At present there is only one road to effective action: organizing the masses.

COLONIAL & SUPRESSED PEOPLES OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Nkrumah assumed the position of General Secretary of the Working Committee established after the Manchester Conference, and editor of the New African, the mouthpiece for the struggle to liberate the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and to unite them into a large multinational and multiethnic force, occupying a sovereign place among the several blocks that made up the world of mid-twentieth century.

I am probably going too far in talking extensively about events already known to you, but I was only trying to emphasize the importance of this formative period of the leader of a nation and of a continent.

His return to Ghana in November 1947, after some twelve years of absence, could not have happened at a more appropriate time: the battle must be fought on the ground, first for the independence of Ghana and, thereafter, for liberation from colonialism as well as the unity of all nations of the Continent.

That would constitute the focal point of his activities and actions on African soil, the goal of his life, the passion of his daily struggle, total commitment to the sacred cause.

It would be pretentious to recount the impact of that decade of struggle by Nkrumah, the fighting hero: strong, intelligent, with a burning desire to sensitize, motivate, mobilize and assemble the masses, toward the achievement of total independence.

However, I want to emphasize how in the eyes of Nkrumah, the attainment of independence for his native country (which he named Ghana, an original national indigenous community before it was christened the Gold Coast by the colonialists to depict its wealth, which they were to appropriate to themselves) this national independence, was only the beginning, the first step of his great dream and his great cause: the independence and unity of the Continent.

Let us remember his own words, words that are thrilling to read, words that we consider valid today even as we speak.

Nkrumah says:

I have never regarded the struggles for the independence of the Gold Coast, as an isolated objective, but always as a part of a general world historical pattern. Africans of all the territories of this vast continent shall wake up and nothing shall stand in the way of their fight for freedom.

It is our duty, since we constitute the vanguard, to give all possible assistance to those currently waging battles that we have put on the right track; our task is not done and our safety is not secured until the last vestiges of colonialism are eliminated from the African continent.

Dear friends:

I have been asked to reflect on “The contribution of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah to the struggle against imperialism.”

In keeping with that, I wish to stop delving extensively into the activities of the singular, intelligent and passionate struggle waged by Nkrumah on his return to Ghana, how he went about bringing patriots together, founding organizations, gaining ground, snatching from the colonial masters concession after concession.

He was aware of the complexity of the long battle.

I quote the words of Nkrumah:

We have shown that the imperialist powers will never abandon their political and economic dominance over their colonies until they are forced to do so.

From this absolutely justified conviction, Nkrumah drafted his famous three fundamental hypotheses, which demonstrate:

How the domination of finance capital of the metropolis incites intellectuals and the working class in the colonies to protest against imperialism.

How the transformation of capitalism into a global system has led to the subjection to colonial oppression and exploitation of the vast majority of the world population by a group of so-called civilized nations.

And how disagreements between the imperialist powers can be exacerbated, which can then be exploited to establish links between the working classes of the capitalist countries and the exploited masses of the colonies, with a view to achieving colonial emancipation.

The findings of these three hypotheses are defined by Nkrumah in the final chapter of his book Towards Colonial Freedom, a chapter titled ‘The Way Forward’, similar to the title used by Lenin in his famous thesis on the Russian Revolution.

I quote Nkrumah:

A) The intensification of the crisis within the colonial powers in their colonies.

B) The intensification of the crisis in the colonies and the growth of liberation movements against local colonial governments on the colonial front.

C) Under conditions of imperialism, it may not be possible to plot a war, but collaboration between proletarian movements in capitalist countries and liberation movements in the colonies against the imperialist front of the world is inevitable.

Nkrumah became not only a profound theoretician on the colonial problem, but a man of action who shows the way, who mobilizes the masses, and who advances on the path of liberation.

He asks himself: “how do I achieve it?” He answers himself: “First, and foremost, through the organization of the colonial masses.”

He dedicated his mission to the practical achievement of this mobilization drive.

He defined the goal of national liberation movements with precision. He speaks in the plural, for he does not make reference to Ghana only but to all African peoples: “it is the attainment of a complete and unconditional independence, and the building of communities in which true development of each person is a condition for the development of others.”

The last sentence in the anthologies on the history of the African peoples is worth putting in upper case: “COLONIAL PEOPLES, UNITE: workers the world over are with you.”

It was on March 6, 1957 that the then Gold Coast became an independent state and Nkrumah as leader of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) became president of Ghana.

In April 1958, Nkrumah convened a conference of independent African states and in December he played host to representatives from all corners of Africa in Accra, who expounded their views on the ways and the means the struggle against colonial discrimination would assume.

That great conclave witnessed the participation of Patrice Lumumba, who declared:

This historical conference, which puts us in contact with experienced political figures from all the African countries, reveals one thing to us: despite the boundaries that separate us, despite our ethnic differences, we have the same awareness, the same soul plunged day and night in anguish, the same anxious desire to make this African continent a free and happy continent that has rid itself of unrest and of fear and of any sort of colonialist domination. Down with colonialism and tribalism.

In the same year, when Guinea, led by Sekou Toure, cut ties with France, the Ghanaian leader supported his political decision and, following economic reprisals by the ex-colonial power, Nkrumah provided financial assistance to meet their most pressing needs.

In 1960, he took the same measure in solidarity with Modibo Keita’s Mali, which had to grapple with serious economic difficulties on attaining independence.

He founded the Union of African States, comprising Ghana, Guinea and Mali, which was to serve as a basis for the formation of broader regional groupings on the continent in subsequent years.

The Ghanaian President was indefatigable in his mission to unite African nations. In 1961, the so-called White House Conference was held: Ghana, Guinea, Mali, United Arab Republic, Libya and the provisional government of the Algerian Republic. A decision was made to support the National Liberation Front of Algeria and the Lumumba forces in the Congo, in addition to the adoption of the African Charter condemning colonialism.

In March 1961, he attended the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference and threatened to withdraw if apartheid South Africa’s membership was allowed to continue.

The Prime Minister of Pretoria was forced to withdraw his application for readmission to the Commonwealth.

Nkrumah was one of the founders of the Organization of African Unity; he took the first steps towards creating OSPAAAL and he was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

In other words, the struggle for the unity of the newly liberated nations and the assistance given to countries that were still fighting for independence was a permanent feature in the life of your and our dear Nkrumah.

We want to make reference to the relations between our two countries, Ghana and Cuba.

As is known, with the arrival of the Granma yacht off the coast of Cuba on December 2, 1956, the Cuban Revolution began, which after 25 months of bloody and heroic struggle, freed our country forever from neocolonialism, enabling her to achieve true national independence, a cause for which she had fought for nearly a century.

This means that on March 6, 1957, on that happy day of independence for the Ghanaian people, we Cubans were busy at war against pro-Yankee tyranny.

Our revolution triumphed precisely on the First of January, 1959, exactly sixty years from the day on which the infamous Navy Yankee invaded Cuba and subjected her to military occupation for over three years, up to 1902, when we emerged as neocolonial republic.

In 1959, the first year of our revolution in power, Cuba performed three major activities with respect to Africa:

1st) She established diplomatic relations with Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser.

2nd) She established relations with Nkrumah’s Ghana, then the only independent country south of the Sahara.

3rd) It sent a shipment of arms to the Algerian Liberation Army which was engaged in a war against colonial France.

Ghana was therefore the first country south of the Sahara to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1959 at a time when the United States President Eisenhower had decided to break the Cuban revolution and start the economic embargo and preparations to what would become the Bay of Pigs Invasion, which was crushed in April 1961, the first major defeat suffered by America’s imperialism. Nkrumah’s move was a major challenge to the United States and a bold political decision.

The stronger the friendship, solidarity and fraternity between Ghana and Cuba, the closer the diplomatic ties between both countries which was sealed in September 1960 with a tight embrace between the Commander in Chief, Fidel Castro and President Kwame Nkrumah.

The meeting between the leader of the first independent sub-Saharan African country and the leader of the first truly free Latin American country took place in the modest Hotel Theresa in the black suburb of Harlem, in New York, where our Prime Minister was lodging during his participation in the United Nations General Assembly, also attended by the Ghanaian leader.

Nkrumah gave a speech in the morning of 23rd September. It was a powerful speech:

For years, Africa has been the victim of colonialism and imperialism, exploitation and degradation…

But we do not seek revenge. We are asking for freedom in Africa: this is a simple request, but is a sign for who do not want to see it.

Nkrumah proposed:

…the creation of a seat for Africa in the United Nations Security Council whenever the United Nations Charter is revised and modified.

Nkrumah condemned the negative role played by UN Forces in Congo Leopoldville, and suggested that contingents of African forces be given a common mandate and the withdrawal of all non-African forces, including the identification and elimination of Belgian troops.

Nkrumah also spoke about the military and nuclear arms bases in Africa.

In his speech, the Cuban Prime Minister, Fidel Castro, fully supported this proposal and reiterated its fairness with concrete examples.

Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot help stating these to you:

There is also a proposal from the leader of the Ghanaian delegation, which we would like to support. It is a call for all military bases and, for that matter nuclear arm bases, to leave African soil. It is a call for an Africa free from the dangers of an atomic war. This has already happened in the Antarctic.

Why do we make progress in disarmament, but cannot make progress in liberating certain parts of the world that are faced with the threat of a nuclear war? If Africa, experiences a renaissance, that Africa that we are all learning to know, not the Africa we know on maps, not the Africa we are made to believe in Hollywood films and novels, not that Africa with a half-naked tribesman, armed with a bow, ready to run at the first sight of the white hero, and the white hero, whose heroism only grew as he plundered the natural wealth of Africa.

That Africa that stands here with leaders like Nkrumah and Sekou Toure, or that African-Arab world under Nasser, the real Africa, the oppressed and exploited continent, the continent from which came millions of slaves, that Africa that has so much pain in its history, that Africa to whom we owe a duty to protect from the danger of destruction, let’s do something for the remaining population, for all that Africa has suffered, let’s protect it from the threat of atomic war, by declaring Africa an area free of this threat, and not set up atomic bases, and at least allow the continent, while we cannot do otherwise, to be a place where human life can be protected (LONG APPLAUSE). Let us warmly support this proposal.

The second high level meeting between Cuba and Ghana took place in Belgrade in September 1961.

The President of Cuba, Osvaldo Dorticós, represented our country at the First Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, one of whose promoters was President Nkrumah, together with leaders like Tito, Nasser, Sukarno and Nehru.

Cuba is the only Latin American country to have joined the Movement since its creation.

The opening of the respective diplomatic missions required more time.

For Cuba, it was necessary to “hurriedly” create a diplomatic mission, because our country was part of a neo-colonial North America until the overthrow of tyranny on the First of January 1959. There were career diplomats but were diplomatic stooges to the new politics in Washington.

It was not until December 1963, that our diplomatic mission would be established in Accra with the status of an Embassy. It was Comrade Armando Entralgo who, although 26 years of age, possessed the political firmness required for such a delicate role in one of the African countries Cuba considered important, in addition to Egypt, Algeria, Guinea, Mali and Tanzania.

Armando Entralgo (now deceased) received lots of support from Nkrumah and his government, including the establishment of a correspondence with our Prensa Latina Agency and, as we shall see much later, the transport of Cuban fighters with their weapons in suitcases, heading for Congo Brazzaville.

Kwame Nkrumah & Che Guevara (In uniform)

Ernesto Che Guevara visited Ghana in the third week of January 1965.

With news of his impending visit, Nkrumah called Ambassador Entralgo, expressing his excitement for the visit and requesting that El Che spend a few more days in Ghana to interact with many more people.

El Che met with Nkrumah on the second day of his visit: a third embrace from Fidel’s Cuba but this time with a man who would become a universal symbol for the fight for full independence and for Socialism in Third World countries. This was a rare display of internationalism, heroism, selflessness and sacrifice for the wellbeing of the people.

Che’s delegation arrived late on the night of 14th January but held discussions the next day with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Botsio.

In the early hours of Saturday 16th, Nkrumah received Commandant Guevara. They held discussions on the situation in Cuba, Latin America and in Africa most especially in the former Belgian colony of Congo.

During his week-long stay, el Che met with the press, Liberation Movements in Accra, party leaders, unionists, youth movements and women’s movements and also visited the Akosombo Dam and other growing sectors.

On the 20th, the eve of this departure, Che held a final meeting with the President which lasted more than two hours.

Che Guevara’s visit to Ghana was part of a tour of various countries including Algeria, Egypt, Guinea, Tanzania, Congo Brazzaville and Benin.

Why such an extensive tour of Africa and why those countries?

The tour by el Che, together with Fidel and Raul was among the main trips the revolutionary leaders embarked on to strengthen relations with the most progressive countries and liberation movements across the continent and to offer the support of Revolutionary Cuba as was being done in Latin America.

In his 1960 speech to the UN on Africa, Fidel advocated support for Nkrumah’s proposal to make the continent one free of atomic weapons, “because we could not do otherwise”.

In 1965, Cuba “could do other things”, and was in the position to offer significant support to its ancestral continent.

This contribution was based on four pillars:

1) Technical collaboration through the provision of medical and other professionals as well as scholarships to African youth to study in Cuba.

2) Military support to Independent countries whose territorial integrity was under threat.

3) Military support for countries under colonial oppression.

4) Full support in the fight against Apartheid in South Africa as well as in Namibia and Zimbabwe.

During his tour, El Che received various requests for collaboration which were sent to Cuba for consideration.

Most important among these included:

Collaboration through supplies and military support for Amilcar Cabral’s PAIGC in Guinea Bissau.

Military support for Agostinho Neto’s MPLA in the Cabinda province, along the Congo Brazzaville border.

Military collaboration with Congo Brazzaville under Massemba Debat when it faced invasion by the government of Mobuto and his thousands of White mercenaries.

Collaboration with Kabila’s guerrilla movement in the east of Congo Leopoldville.

The Cuban leadership agreed to offer this request support to its African brothers.

The first group of instructors joined PAIGC forces as they entered Bissau through the Guinea border with the full support of President Sekou Toure.

On April 23, 1965, three months after Che met Nkrumah in Accra, this heroic warrior with three Cuban fighters, crossed Lake Tanganyika in two small boats as they left Kigoma, Tanzania for Congolese soil, where they fought alongside Lumumba’s guerrilla fighters.

About 130 Cuban fighters used this same route in the following weeks as they joined what became known as Che’s Column One. These fighters arrived in Tanzania and crossed the Lake with the full support of President Nyerere.

I was put in charge of Column Two which we named the Patrice Lumumba Battalion.

The Commander-in-Chief thus spelt out our task, in his response to Ignacio Ramonet, Writer and author of the recent book “One hundred hours with Fidel”:

In July of that year, barely three months after Che’s arrival in Congo, we sent a contingent of about 250 men under the leadership of Comrade Jorge Risquet. These fighters arrived in Brazzaville…and were sent to defend the nationalist government of Massemba Debat and, from there, provide support to Che who found himself pushed back in the east of the other Congo.

While in Brazzaville, Risquet and his men began training other guerrilla fighters. They particularly trained MPLA (People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola) fighters and within a short time had prepared enough men to create three columns who, from Brazzaville, joined Angolan guerilla fighters.

How did the 250 fighters arrive in Brazzaville?

Very simple: The first 50 men, travelled by air in small groups: Havana-Moscow in a soviet aircraft which flew that route. Then Moscow-Accra, also by Aeroflot.

Most of our men carried their rifles and ammunitions in their luggage because it was believed that it would provide needed security before the shipment of two hundred men, who would form the bulk of the Battalion, and the heavy arms, live ammunition and supplies for the troops.

Entralgo, our Ambassador, coordinated with the Ghanaian authorities who ensured that Cubans who arrived in Ghana via this route were not subjected to checks at the airport. Such orders could only have been given at the highest levels of the Government.

I would like to take this opportunity, after almost half a century of success, to express appreciation for Ghana’s show of solidarity which ensured that the vanguard of our “Patrice Lumumba Battalion” arrived quickly and safely at its destination, Brazzaville.

A squadron of the Patrice Lumumba Battalion moved to the Congo’s border area with Cabinda to advise MPLA guerrillas as President Agostinho Neto had requested of Che in their January meeting in Brazzaville.

While there, the Cubans were met with a pleasant surprise; a Captain in the Ghanaian Army was sharing his experience with the Angolan fighters. Nkrumah had assigned him this internationalist mission given his previous experience in Leopoldville, with the outstanding performance of Ghanaian forces with the UN.

Ghanaian soldiers, as is well known, tried to protect Patrice Lumumba in the week of his tragic overthrow as Prime Minister by President Kasabuvu.

Kasabuvu, Tshombe and Mobutu plotted to physically eliminate Lumumba.

The decision to assassinate came from President Eisenhower of the United States.

Eisenhower had publicly declared that “Lumumba is another Fidel Castro”. The CIA received the criminal order to try and eliminate him.

The presence of Ghanaian, Guinean and other African troops in Leopoldville, as part of the UN contingent, prevented the execution of this criminal plot.

As is widely known, Lumumba left Leopoldville for Stanleyville where Gizenga, his compatriot, had set up a resistance to the American-Belgian conspiracy, with support from the Congolese trio, mentioned above, and the UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld.

Lumumba was captured on his way to Stanleyville, put in prison and later handed over to Tshombe in Katanga where this despicable assassination took place.

This Ghanaian Lieutenant, one of the supporters of Lumumba in 1960, was now the instructor of the MPLA’s guerrilla in Cabinda, with the Rank of Captain.

His name? Kojo Tsikata.

The relation between us and Tsikata was wonderful.

24th February saw the cunning overthrow of President Nkrumah. You know better than me that it sounded like the hand of imperialism was involved.

Tsikata left Angola. Those of us who know him were sure that he had sought ways of entering Ghana and joining in to fight the spurious government in place.

The pro-imperialist coup d’état which overthrew Nkrumah produced deep indignation among our people.

Entralgo, our Ambassador, gave all the protection he could to our friends whose lives were in danger, his wife Mary Flores, current Cuban Ambassador to the UNESCO and journalist in the Prensa Latina, Lázara Rodriguez Aleman (deceased) who met the Ambassador in a show of solidarity with our persecuted Ghanaian friends.

Ambassador Entralgo was expelled by the Junta that overthrew the government.

When in June 1979, the civil-military movement led by Flt. Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings took over power, Cuba immediately appointed an Ambassador and sought approval.

The VI Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in early September.

To our utmost surprise and joy, the Ghanaian delegation attended the Summit led by Flt. Lt. Rawlings, Chairman of the Provisional Government, accompanied by our old Comrade, Kojo Tsikata.

It was during this same month of September 1979 that the Cuban Embassy in Accra was reopened. Comrade Niel Ruiz was appointed Ambassador for more than four years.

Ghana and Cuba restarted collaborations particularly in 1982 when Rawlings assumed leadership of the country.

Over the last thirty years of Ghana-Cuba cooperation about 900 Cubans have served in Ghana, particularly in the health sector. Currently there are 200 of our compatriots working in Ghana.

During this same period, about 1200 Ghanaian students have been offered Cuban scholarships to study at the secondary and tertiary levels in various fields of study. Currently 250 students are pursuing courses in medicine in Cuba and 50 Ghanaian doctors are taking various specialization courses.

Under the current economic conditions in Ghana and Cuba, this collaboration is mutually beneficial to both countries

Political ties between our countries, over these 30 years, have seen regular visits by leaders of both countries.

Former President Rawlings has been decorated with the Order of Jose Marti and Playa Giron. Captain Tsikata, on the other hand, was awarded the Order of Militant Fraternity, solidarity division and the Order of Carlos Manuel de Cespedes.

During his recent visit to Cuba, President John Dramani Mahama, then Vice President, was awarded the Medal of Friendship, in recognition of his solidarity towards our country in its fight against the blockade and freedom of the Five Antiterrorist Heroes who have been wrongfully held in the United States for the past 14 years.

Dear Friends:

You may wonder why Cuba maintains such close ties with the people of Africa.

This is why.

Remember that about four centuries ago, between 1521 and 1873, 300 million Africans and Africa slaves arrived on our shores and thrown into barracks on our fields to work for 16 to 18 hours, with very little food and suffered cruel punishments, to produce wealth for their masters.

Such were the terrible conditions and, though they were mostly young men and women, annual mortality rates reached eight (8) percent which meant that average life expectancy for a slave in Cuba was 12 and a half years.

People from different ethnic groups were brought to Cuba: Congos, Lucumies, Yorubas, Karabalies, Ashantis, Fantis, Ewes, Mandinga, Araras, Bantus. In fact, I could name more than 60 ethnic groups.

The abolition of aborigines, perpetrated by first century colonizers, turned Cuba into the most cost-effective place to send black slaves, especially when our island became a major sugar producing country.

Cuba’s current population is, to use the words of Fernando Ortiz, an ajiaco (a hearty chicken and potato stew)- a mix of aboriginal, Spanish, Black African and even Chinese blood, because some 150 thousand coolies (Chinese Cubans) were brought in the middle of the XIX century from the Port of Canton.

Cuba is an African-Latin American country, as Fidel defined it. Indeed, Bolivia too has our unique identity which – from the Rio Bravo to the Patagonia- differentiates us from the other Anglo-Saxon America.

Far and heroic was the fight by Latin American people as they sought freedom.

Cuba was the last colony to be free, and we fought three wars in the last three decades of the XIX century.

Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, the initiator of the first Ten-year war, is the founding Father of our Homeland.

Mariana Grajales de Maceo, of mixed African and European descent, who served in the battle with her husband and thirteen sons and daughters, is seen as the “Mother of Cuba”.

Martí, Maceo and Gómez led the last battle from 1895 to 1898. During this battle, we lost 26% of our population but we succeeded in breaking the yoke of Spain.

When we help the people of Africa we are only paying our due to humanity which is what Fidel calls “Internationalism and Solidarity” among peoples.

This was the understanding with which Cuban fighters came to ancestral Africa to fight side by side with the people against colonialism and the oppressive Apartheid regime.

For 26 years, 381 thousand Cuban soldiers and officers fought alongside African populations; between April 24, 1965, when Ernest Che Guevara and his men crossed Lake Tanganyika, and May 25, 1991 when the remaining 500 Cuban fighters returned home triumphant.

Among these internationalists were three of the Five Anti-terrorist Heroes currently held in the Imperialist’s prison.

2, 400 Cuban internationalist fighters lost their lives on African soil.

Today we no more send soldiers. Now, we send doctors, teachers, builders, specialists in various fields.

Between 1963 when the first group of 55 Cubans, Doctors and technicians arrived in Algeria, and the first quarter of 2010, 120,000 civilians have provided services, giving their bit towards the well being of Africans.

This means that half a million Cubans in almost half a century have collaborated with the people of Africa.

There are currently a few thousand Cubans working in 26 countries in Africa. This cooperation will never cease. This is what we were taught by the leaders of our revolution: Fidel, el Che, Raul. It is the doctrine of the Communist Party of Cuba

I will not dwell much on this. But I will like to mention the symbolic display of respect and admiration of our people for the pioneers in the fight for Africa’s independence.

At a square in the City of Havana stand busts of Patrice Lumumba, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Sekou Toure, Amilcar Cabral, Agostinho Neto, Samora Machel, Laurent Kabila and other pioneers of Africa’s Independence struggle. Kwame Nkrumah’s bust chairs this Park of Nationalist African Heroes.

Honour and glory to Kwame Nkrumah; an iconic figure in the Fight for Independence and the wellbeing of his people!

Defend the gains of the working class Take responsibility for the national democratic revolution

Blade Nzimande, Emile Schepers — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:27:00 +0000

Some notes from Emile Schepers help explain some references in the speech below.

The speech below is from Blade Nzimande, Secretary General of the South African Communist Party (SACP), to the Congress of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) which is taking place this week. It is a most important document and I urge reading it.

http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=3750

I offer a little explaining of uniquely South African terminology and references:

*DA is Democratic Alliance, the mostly white led opposition party that replaced the old National Party that ruled South Africa in apartheid times. It is headed by Helen Zille, the mayor of Capetown.

*BEE stands for Black Economic Enterprise, the neo-liberal policy of developing a Black bourgeoisie in S AFrica through including important Black leaders on for profit corporate boards and similar policies.

*1996 Class Project is Nzimande's personal term for the neo-liberal, capitalist-road policies undertaken by the ANC government from that year forward, and especially under Pres. Thabo Mbeki.

*Tender-preneuring, tenderpreneur, means corrupt privatization and subcontracting practices whereby officials have enriched themselves in S. Africa.

*Business unionism means the same for Nzimande as it does for us; union leaders using their positions to become business investors, or running unions as if they were businesses.

*Five Madoda just means "Five Men" (Zulu: Ndoda, man; aMadoda, men). This was a gangsterish labor racketeering group that tried to use violent methods to dominate poor communities in the mining regions.

*Shack-lordism is like abusive urban tenement landlordism for us.

*Muti is folk medicine, sometimes rooted in ancient folk beliefs and practices but also commercialid by unscrupulous magical practicioners, as in the Lonmin case.

*Mashonisas are abusive, usorious money lenders in poor communities in South Africa.

*Shebeens (actually an Irish term, originally) are ramshackle drinking establishments, often owned by gangsters.

*Those posessed of mysterious wealth: Here Nzimande is probably referring to Julius Malema, called "Mr bling" who is known for his pseudo-radical rhetoric and opulent life style.

*NUM is National Union of Miners, the large COSATU affiliate in the mining sector.

*AMCU is the dissident group which is challenging NUM, including by violent means at times.

*Call for nationalization: The SACP, though presumeably in favor of nationalization of all major economic sectors eventually, is against a rush to nationalize the mines at present, as demanded by Julius Malema and others. They suspect that this is motivated by what we would call "lemon socialism": Some corrupt Black and white entrepeneurs invested in mining operations under BEEand the "1996 class project" but found themselves losing heavily when the 2008 worldwide financial crisis hit; they now want the S.African government to bail them out by nationalizing the mines and then paying them compensation. The SACP says nationalization should be integrated into a long-term strategy that emphasizes other industries than mining. They would like to get away from S Africa's historical dependence on mining, with its damage to health and to the environment and its dependency on international commodity prices and the like.

*Social wage means, as for us, schools, health care, housing, social services etc.

*e-tolling. This is the same as is done here, namely a system in which drivers can zip through toll booths while their data is recorded electronically so they can be billed. The Democratic Alliance has been accusing the ANC government of Gauteng Province of hiding the identities of the subcontractors engaged to set this up; the list has now been revealed (today, I believe)

*Gauteng is the central, most populous province of S Africa where Johannesburg and the main gold mines are.

*Textbooks in Limpopo: There is a scandal in Limpopo province, up against the Zimbabwe border, about the schools getting ripped off on an order of textbooks which never arrived.

*Labour brokers are corrupt intermediaries who bring in migrant workers for the mines and other industries, contracting with the management.

*Polokwane was the Party Congress of the ANC in 2007 in which Thabo Mbeki was ousted and the stage was set for bringing in Jacob Zuma as president. Nzimande and the SACP see this as a key moment in which there was a turn away from the "1996 class project' he deplores.

*SANCO is the South African National Civic Organization, supported by the Tripartite Alliance but not a fourth structure in it.It is a sort of federation of non-workplace people's organizations.

_______________________________________________________

Speech delivered by SACP General Secretary, Cde Blade Nzimande, to COSATU`s 11th National Congress

17 September 2012

On behalf of the SACP, I bring you revolutionary greetings from our Party, which has just emerged from a very unified 13th Congress; a unity we have pledged to use to contribute to the unity of our Alliance and its components.

This Congress meets in the shadow of an intensified offensive against the working class in SA. It is an offensive directed primarily against the best organized detachment of our working class - this federation, this COSATU, especially the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and all these affiliates. The intensified offensive is born partly out of desperation on the part of our class enemies. Capitalism continues to be enmeshed in a deep-seated crisis. Everywhere global capitalism seeks to defend its profits and its power by displacing the impact of its crisis onto the workers, the poor, and the Third World. It violently foments civil war and destabilization of countries with an anti-imperialist track-record. It embarks on mass retrenchments, casualization, budget cuts and suffocating austerity measures at home and abroad. To carry through this butchery, global capitalism everywhere seeks to defeat the organized working class - a powerful barrier to its anti-popular strategies.

Here in SA we are no strangers to this offensive. Here, too, the anti-union offensive has intensified and grown more desperate in recent months. It is an offensive also supported by sections of imperialism. We have even seen the DA attempting to out-Malema Malema by leading a march on the COSATU head-quarters with a rag-tag army of suburbanites and desperate and misguided township youth.

This middle-class flirtation with anarchy is partly the result of the all-round capitalist crisis, in which it is also deeply affected. Much as the working class is bearing most of the brunt of this crisis, the middle classes are now also increasingly feeling the pinch. Unlike some of the middle classes in other parts of the world who have joined workers in protest against neo-liberal capitalism, our middle class, especially its white sections, has turned its venom against the ANC government, including racist attitudes rearing their ugly head anew, especially through the internet.

Equally, small and often elitist sections of the black middle class which also feels the economic hardship are working with some of their white counterparts to blame government, even for their own failures to make use of narrow BEE to accumulate wealth. In fact the common ideological platform for both sections of the white and black middle classes is that of the so-called lack of leadership in society. This is no honest debate but a rightist putsch and an ideological fad, aimed at discrediting the ANC and its government. It must be treated and dismissed as such.

But desperation by the elites is also rooted in the fact that since at least 2007 and the defeat of the 1996 class project, we have an ANC ruling party that (however unevenly) is committed to our tripartite alliance, and an ANC-led government that has abandoned (however unevenly) neo-liberalism, privatization, anti-communism, and anti-worker positions. Of course this progress within the ANC itself, and within government is not something to be taken for granted. It is contested space - and WE MUST, comrades, CONTEST it.

Because of these positive developments, increasingly the anti-union offensive in our country has been left to opposition parties in Parliament, to renegades expelled from our own ranks, to demagogues and opportunists of all stripes, supported by big money and broadcast through the megaphone of the mainstream media.

But if this intensified anti-union offensive stems partly from desperation in the face of the capitalist crisis, it is also an offensive that, from time to time, becomes emboldened by our own divisions and factionalism, by our own distractions, by our own neglect of our core tasks of organizing in the work-place and in our communities, by our own failures to deal decisively with corruption, tender-preneuring and business-unionism. Comrades, it is imperative that we close ranks. It is essential that we face up to this offensive as a united and disciplined COSATU, as a united Alliance, as a Liberation Movement strengthening, but also strengthened by a democratic state.

Learning appropriate lessons from Marikana

All of the above is the immediate context against which we need to understand the Marikana tragedy. In the space of a decade, the platinum sector has gone from boom to near-bust as a result of the global capitalist crisis and particularly the stagnation in Europe (the major importer of our platinum.

For years the mining houses - and particularly the platinum mining houses - have sought to break the back of NUM. Who can forget the late 1990s and the rule of terror that prevailed as a result of the so-called Five Madoda and their pseudo-trade union "Workers Mouthpiece"? We ask: who can forget? And yet so many in our country, unfortunately including some former COSATU leaders, DO forget. In that reign of terror in the Rustenburg region, vigilante thugs associated with the pseudo-union murdered 34 NUM shop-stewards.

What we also DO know for sure is that through the years of the platinum boom, impressive investments were made on the platinum belt. And yet, through this boom, virtually nothing was done for the living conditions of the work-force.

We failed these workers and their families. We failed to leverage effective social responsibility requirements out of the mining houses. We were too focused on using the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Act to enforce BEE shareholding.

Another negative reality, born of abject desperation, began to take root in many of these squalid shanty towns around the platinum mines. The Five Madoda and their "Workers Mouthpiece" infiltrated the informal settlements - and used coercion and patronage to gain control over shebeens, prostitution, minibus operations, shack-lordism, and the muti and mashonisa businesses. These lumpen-patriarchal networks exerted a reign of terror over many settlements, in the same way as similar networks are doing now.

What is to be done?

The SACP fully supports government`s crackdown on the illegal carrying of weapons, on intimidation and on incitement to violence. The ring-leaders must be dealt with and separated from the mass of misled strikers (many of whom are not actually employees of Lonmin or even workers). Those possessed of mysterious wealth, who have never worked a day in their lives, those who were recently anti-unionisation in the army, those who are now happily inciting others to kill and be killed must be dealt with. We also require a thorough investigation into where their funding is coming from, whether locally or internationally. Any formal structures of the ANC that are collaborating with the so-called Friends of the Youth League must themselves face suspension from our movement. We have given opportunism far too much space and tolerance. Together as an Alliance and with our local structures, together with government agencies, we need to help to restore basic norms of safety and security into the lives of our mining communities.

The SACP also fully supports the establishment of the Independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry. We must leave the detailed investigation into the events leading up to August 16, the day itself, and the violence in the ensuing days to the Commission. Without interfering, we must ensure that it is thorough and unbiased in its work. Any wrong-doing by the police must be uncovered. At the same time, it is absolutely important that the Inquiry hears evidence from the communities and contextualizes its understanding of the immediate events. The SACP is working with our structures in these mining settlements to take evidence and sworn affidavits. We know that NUM is doing likewise, and we urge the ANC and other COSATU affiliates, where relevant, to ensure that the Commission is presented with a broad and objective picture of the situation.

Finally, we must reject the apartheid and racist notion that what is happening in Marikana is inter-union rivalry, as if the NUM and pseudo union, AMCU were the same thing.

Back to basics: workplace organization to roll back neo-liberal restructuring

This important gathering is also taking place against the background of intensified attacks on the national democratic revolution, including attempts to try and present our movement as being at sea and not knowing what is to be done to deepen the national democratic revolution. We however need to state from the onset that if we focus most of our energies at this congress lamenting about the challenges we face instead of focusing on what is to be done, we would have wasted this very important opportunity. Analysis, yes, lamenting no!

The current global capitalist crisis has seen the intensification of attempts to increase the rate of profit of capitalism at the direct expense of the working class. With the increasing casualization and labour ‘brokering` of workers in South Africa, today less and less workers for instance have access to provident fund and medical aid. The impact and implications of this reality are enormous. For instance this means that the burden of looking after the health of labour brokered workers becomes the sole responsibility of workers themselves without any employer contribution. Similarly, lack of access to provident fund means an additional burden on the state when these workers retire. This means that both workers and the state are increasingly and directly subsidizing the profits of the bourgeoisie.

The impact of this massive restructuring of the workplace has also placed in danger the existence of significant sections of the trade union movement itself. In fact the growth of the trade union movement over the last decade years has been more in the public than the private sector, as COSATU`s own statistics show.

The trade union federations in our country, especially our ally, COSATU, must develop a comprehensive campaign to strengthen the trade union movement in the workplace.

In tackling the challenges facing the workplace we also need to ask some serious questions about the state of the trade union movement in South African today, including its strategies to confront the huge restructuring of the workplace undertaken by the capitalist class over the last one and a half decade. Could it also be that our reaction to attempts to relegate the role of the trade union movement by the 1996 class project to workplace issues unintentionally led to bending the stick too much in the opposite direction; that is, focusing on broader political struggles at the expense of workplace organization? Could it also be that good trade union organization has declined, in the same way as mass organization has taken a knock after 1994?

There is also an emerging threat for our progressive trade union movement, where there is collusion between business unionism, elements bought by bosses and tenderpreneurs whose goal is to divide and weaken the trade union movement as part of capturing these unions and turning them into sweetheart unions. The most aggressive of this tendency is to be found in the current offensive directed against the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM).

Way back at our Special Congress in 2009 we warned against an emerging new tendency within our movement, which is anti-working class, anti-communist and even having proto-fascist features. We further warned against being confused and fooled by a call for nationalization whose aim was to bail out a section of mining BEE in a crisis. We further said none within our ranks must by any means flirt with this tendency. Today we are being proven right, as it is this same tendency that is in the forefront of trying to destroy the NUM, with the intention to divide and weaken COSATU as a whole. This is a tendency whose goal is to accumulate by all means, and whose mission has been to capture our movement for purposes of self-enrichment and accumulation. It is a tendency, we are convinced now as the SACP that is backed by powerful imperialist interests who are threatened by the prospects of a leftward shift in our movement. These are thieves who will stop at nothing to pillage the resources of the state, and are prepared to even sell our country to the highest imperialist bidder. It is a tendency that must be defeated, and only a united and better organized working class can do so!

Once more the SACP calls upon this Congress to come out unambiguously against this tendency. No amount of political sophistry or big-sounding English should justify anyone from within our ranks justifying working with these demagogues. There must be no ‘ifs` or ‘buts` in our attitude towards the new tendency. The struggle of the working class is not for sale!!! Instead we are calling for the federation to close ranks, isolate and defeat this tendency.

The SACP`s position is that the struggle for decent work must incorporate a variety of dimensions and not simply be reduced to wages, important as this is. The struggle for decent work must involve the campaign for a living wage, a decent social wage and transformed workplaces free of racism, patriarchy and managerial unilateralism.

The anti-majoritarian liberal offensive and necessity to build a working-class led mass movement

As the SACP we have consistently been raising the need to defeat the anti-majoritarian liberal offensive. Its agenda is that of undermining black majority rule using all manner of methods, including attempts to capture institutions supporting our democracy and its intensified attacks on the working class. Of late it is becoming vocal against what it sees as the danger of big unions and big government, and essentially calling for the weakening of the labour movement in general, and COSATU in particular. It is seeking to place the blame of unemployment on the employed, and especially organized workers. We are told, the basis for inequality in our society is no longer race, nor the class inequalities between the bourgeoisie and the working class, but the basis now is between the employed and unemployed!!

The SACP has consistently raised this matter, and again warning that none within our ranks should be confused by this liberal agenda and be tempted to form alliances blindly. Liberals, as has always been their history, cherry pick the battles they want to wage, and sometimes opportunistically want to be seen as friends of the working class. They will stand up against e-tolling in Gauteng, not because they really care about the working class, but in opposition to the ANC government, and yet be completely silent about the fact that the DA has tolled Chapman`s Peak in Cape Town and seeks to build more physical structures there! They will take the ANC government to court over textbooks in Limpopo, but not go to court when the DA is unilaterally closing schools in the Western Cape.

Whilst liberals will form a new NGO on a variety of matters where they oppose government, they have formed no NGO to fight against the brutality against farmworkers; nor are there new NGOs formed to fight the scourge of labour brokers by liberals. They opportunistically seek alliances with the working class in order to advance elite interests, embarrass the ANC government, but tell the working class to go jump when it comes to challenging established capitalist interests.

Whilst we accept that COSATU may form tactical alliances with various formations at different points in time, caution must always be taken against who are our real friends. We are also concerned about the tone of the political report on some of these matters. Strongly implied in the report is a more critical stance towards the Alliance, and uncritical praise and elevation of tactical alliances with a whole variety of other forces. This is, we believe an incorrect posture by COSATU.

The more recent ideological offensive against our movement and revolution is that of a charge that there is an absence of leadership in society and an attempt to project our movement as being at sea, not knowing what to do. Here we see a very clear convergence between the liberal offensive and what we have characterized as the new tendency. Our leadership and movement is not being judged on progress made in terms of commitments made for instance around our five priorities, but through a targeted attack on the movement as a whole, especially COSATU and the ANC, with a particular focus on the President of the ANC and the republic, Cde Jacob Zuma. The print media is actually at the centre and forefront of this offensive.

It is our considered view as the SACP that the principal task of the working class at the present moment is that of building a working class led people`s mass movement to drive transformation on all fronts. Whilst NGOs are important at no stage should they become a substitute for the people`s voice. For that matter not all NGOs are progressive, and many are captured by particular class interests, not least those of their often (imperialist) donors.

But, of course, not all NGOs are retrogressive either. We, the Alliance as a whole, need to actively engage in this terrain of "civil society" and contribute to the building of a progressive NGO movement as part of revitalizing the Mass Democratic Movement to be led by the working class.

The question of a working class-led people`s movement assumes even more importance in the light of the Marikana and related experiences. Organization of mineworkers has to be accompanied by the progressive organization of adjacent mining communities in order to defeat warlordism and shacklordism that are often exploited to weaken and destroy working class organization in the workplace.

Building on our advances to address the triple challenges of our revolution

At our 13th Congress we said if the aim of our Special National Congress in December 2009 was to assist our broad movement to understand the global capitalist crisis, the reasons for the persistence of structural unemployment and racialised poverty and inequality, and the challenges facing our movement since Polokwane, the 13th Congress focused on what is to be done to consolidate, defend and advance our revolution.

One of the primary challenges of our revolution now and in the coming period is that of translating the many important policy breakthroughs made over the past four-to-five years into palpable changes that must transform our current semi-colonial economic growth path for the progressive benefit of the overwhelming majority of the workers and the poor.

It is very important to remember that being part of the Alliance as working class formations, it is our responsibility to protect, defend and deepen the unity of our Alliance. Part of this responsibility and revolutionary duty is that we cannot choose to sometimes step aside and behave as if we are outside our Alliance and revolution, and have the luxury to lament or criticize as outsiders, often encouraged by the media. To choose to act as if we are outside the Alliance when things get tough, and to seek to prioritise media recognition is nothing but rank opportunism; and such behavior does not belong to the ranks of the working class. Problems or disagreements amongst ourselves as Allies, which are inevitable anyway, cannot be subject of press conferences or tweeter messages, but need to be tackled within the structures of our Alliance and through principled bilateral engagements.

At no stage should we celebrate the difficulties facing any of our Alliance partners. We simply cannot elevate tactical alliances with other social formations (no matter how important we think they may be) above our Alliance.

Of course it is absolutely essential that our working class formations must jealously guard their independence. But such independence must serve to assert the working class as the principal motive force of our revolution, as the foundation of the unity of our Alliance, and not as an oppositionist or opportunist element within our Alliance.

Nevertheless whatever challenges we face must never make us lose sight of the advances we have made since our democratic breakthrough in 1994, and those especially made since Polokwane. A correct approach for revolutionaries is not to lament about these problems or use them in a populist fashion for short-term political gain. The challenge of true revolutionaries is to recognize advances we have made and seek to build on these in order to address existing challenges.

In particular, since the ANC Polokwane conference, we have seen some important policy breakthroughs and other achievements that we dare not lose sight of. Amongst these are the following:

The development of an overarching industrial policy, within the context of proposals for a new growth path. This new policy emphasizes the need to beneficiate our mineral wealth, rebuild the manufacturing sector as part of the industrialization of our economy and take job creation to higher levels. The key challenge is to align our macro economic policies to these objectives.
A clear move away from emphasis on privatization of the early 2000s to a commitment to a more active role by the state in economic development.
A clear commitment by the ANC and government to move away from the ‘willing seller, willing buyer` model of land reform, to a more radical redistribution of land, including expropriation as provided for in our constitution.
The major state-led investment in infrastructure as announced by the President in the 2012 State of the Nation address responds to a call that has long been made by the working class for more investment in infrastructure. The key task of the working class is to ensure that monies invested in infrastructure are not stolen by tenderpreneurs who want a quick buck out of shoddy work. It is also important that we mobilise to demand that all companies that win major infrastructure projects from government must not use labour brokers and must also be committed to the training and skilling of workers.
Since Polokwane, government is now embarking on a pilot for the implementation of the National Health Insurance (NHI) a long standing call by the SACP in particular when we launched our campaign on health for all around 2004-5. But one of the biggest achievements by this Zuma-led administration is that life expectancy of our population has gone up, largely due to the provision of ARVs to our people and the slowing down of mother to child transmission of HIV. This is one of the biggest achievements we have made and is a far cry from the disastrous path of AIDS denialism that was with us prior to 2007!!
The ANC and our Alliance has now prioritized education as an apex priority of the five priorities. Government has already embarked on important measures to improve access to education for the poor. For instance, now more than 60% of our schools are no-fee schools, and more than 8 millions students benefit from the school nutrition scheme. In addition, FET college education has now become free for students who come from poor families if they are study occupation related programmes - a first in the history of our country!

Another crucially important development in the lead up to this Congress has been the ANC`s National Policy Conference. The most significant commitment made by that conference was that the principal challenge of our revolution is that of earnestly effecting a second radical phase of our transition, principally but not exclusively by focusing on a radical restructuring of our economy. Some of the contradictions notwithstanding, this is a significant opportunity for the working class to make further impact on the national democratic revolution and, for us, as our most direct route to socialism.

A critical challenge of the second phase of our transition is that of building a developmental state, with a public service that is capable of driving transformation. In this respect we must use the fact that in the public service we have a multi-year bargaining agreement to reflect on the role of progressive public sector unions in building such a developmental state.

All the above constitutes the immediate terrain upon which the working class must act as the principal motive force of the national democratic revolution and the struggle for socialism. This is taking responsibility for the NDR!

The relationship between, and the respective responsibities of, the SACP and COSATU

We are here today to pledge our solidarity and commitment to our relationship with COSATU as part of the socialist axis of our Alliance. Ours is a relationship built on a common commitment to deepen the struggle to defeat the capitalist system and build a more rational and humane system of socialism in our country and the world. The current global capitalist crisis is not only an economic crisis, but it is a profound crisis of the idea of neo-liberalism; a crisis forthe idea that the market dominated by 500 or so transnational corporations is the solution to the problems facing humanity. This crisis presents a unique opportunity for all socialist forces globally, and not least in our own country, to intensify the ideological and mass struggles against capitalism and its failures to address the needs of the overwhelming majority of our people.

As part of its contribution and taking greater responsibility for the NDR and the struggle for socialism the SACP emerged out of its 13th Congress with a firm commitment to working towards these five Party building objectives over the next five years, which are important to share with you:

Building the organisational capacity and a renewal of the SACP

Political Education and Cadre Development

Policy Capacity

Battle of Ideas - The SACP will devote enormous attention to train and equip its cadres to engage in all terrains of struggle to advance the interests of the national democratic revolution and socialism, including exposing the most immediate ideological threats to our revolution - the neo-liberal capitalist offensive and the new tendency. This will include engaging in all terrains of struggle through the media and other outlets.

Deepening mass work - The SACP intends to deepen mass work on all critical fronts of struggle, including work amongst the workers, the youth, the intelligentsia, women, rural masses and the cultural, performing and sports fronts.

We call upon COSATU to join us in all these efforts.

As the SACP we once more assert our principled position that we respect your independence - just as we expect COSATU to respect the Party`s independence. But this is not to say that we are indifferent observers at each other`s respective Congresses. Now more than ever it is important that we close ranks. If we are to defeat the intensified offensive against the working class, against the trade union movement, against COSATU and its affiliates, and therefore against the whole Alliance and the NDR then, , on behalf of the SACP and its Central Committee, I am honour bound to convey one single and simple message.

Comrades, the SACP expects that out of this Congress a COSATU, and a COSATU collective leadership will emerge that is united around a militant programme of action, directed at deepening the national democratic revolution as our most direct route to socialism. If on Thursday this Congress rises on that note then, collectively, you will have sent a powerful and resounding response to all of those vultures circulating around the tragedy of Marikana - that motley crew of demagogues, rank opportunists, misguided do-gooders, DA union bashers, pseudo-unions, lackeys of imperialist interests hoping to turn anarchy into a South African Arab Winter. As the SACP we trust that the delegates to this Congress appreciate their responsibilities, and that they appreciate the high stakes involved. The imperialist forces and their transnational corporations - the BHP Billitons, the Lonmins, the Anglos, the Impalas, the Arcelor Mittals - and their local compradorial minions - are not standing idly by in the midst of their crisis. Everywhere they are fighting back.

Just as the SACP and COSATU are not, and cannot be, indifferent observers of each other fates, so both our working class formations must take a deep and responsible interest in the ANC`s Mangaung Conference. Our Alliance, indeed our country, requires a united ANC, united around a radical programme of transformation, united around a collective leadership committed to our Alliance, committed to intensifying the fight against corruption and tenderpreneurship, committed to building upon the important policy breakthroughs already made, committed to dealing decisively with all forms of demagoguery and populism.

Out of this Cosatu Congress we expect a commitment to build independent and militant red trade unions committed to our revolutionary alliance and aligned to the anti-imperialist, class-oriented, international trade union movement.

Out of this Cosatu Congress we also expect a firm commitment to the swelling of the ranks of the ANC, and to joining the SACP. This also means preparedness for workers and their leaders to serve in the leadership structures of the ANC, SACP and SANCO. If you are a worker leader, and you are not active in ANC or SACP structures where do you get your politics from? How do you ensure an organic link between the politics of the ANC and SACP and the organized working class? Is there not a contradiction in calling for the swelling of the ranks of the ANC and Party, but implying that there is a problem in accepting leadership positions in our formations? Who do we want to lead the ANC and the SACP after all?

We say to you, you are not spectators to our revolution; you are an important component of the leading motive forces of our revolution and therefore TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION!!

With these words we wish you a successful Congress!!

THE SOUTH AFRICAN ROAD TO SOCIALISM -- Draft Program

South African Communist Party — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:28:00 +0000

Please follow this link to the recently published Draft Program of the South African Communist Party. The document develops new, well researched, and thoughtful analysis. It includes principles worth of consideration for strategy and tactics in the US:

1. Socialism as a transitional, mixed economy on the path to a classless communist society, in which the working class and democratic forces lead society rather than monopoly forces.

2. The unity of socialist ideals and practice with the fulfillment of the democratic revolution.

3. Management of alliances in the democratic struggle.

We recommend its careful study.

John Case

The Weimar Republic - Can We Learn from It?

Klara Hemkel — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:30:00 +0000

Election Policies for Today -- What Can We Learn from Germany and the Weimar Republic?

The Weimar Republic - Can We Learn from It?

Researching the Weimar Republic gave me the chance to study a period of German history I should have known more about. I spent my high school years in Germany and we were given an opportunity to read and learn about this time period over several years. The history of the 20th century lay at the heart of the German high school history curriculum.

Like everything, there is no one simple explanation of why the German people failed to avert the uprising of the Nazis. After reading about this time period using many German websites (see bibliography), I attempted to rephrase, summarize, synthesize, and translate what I found in the following.

The Weimar Republic was the first hands-on experiment of a democratic government in the history of Germany. This experiment started however under very difficult circumstances: the public did not support it, and the executive branch of the government did not back it up either. Mass unemployment, damages to the infrastructure from WWI, and the demand for reparation payments put lots of pressure on the fledgling democracy. Not only in Germany, but all over Europe, radical and anti-democratic movements gained momentum.

Reasons for the Failing of the Republic
In order to understand the situation to some degree, it is necessary to look at the currents of the time. Many authors have named the following items as the main reasons for the failing of the Weimar Republic:

-a) divisions among the labor movement (politically as well as organizationally)
-b) anti-democratic sentiment among the people
-c) the burdens of the lost war and the Treaty of Versailles
-d) structural weaknesses of the political order of the Weimar Republic
-e) economic depression

a.) Divisions within the labor movement
Socialist parties were founded as early as 1875 in Germany under the leadership of Karl Liebknecht and August Bebel. After Bismark's "Sozialistengesetz," a law banning socialists, was dismissed in 1890, the Socialist Worker Party of Germany (SAPD) changed their name to Socialist Party of Germany (SPD). This party was the ultimate leader of the labor movement for over 30 years, when in 1916 the first divides were formed, which in turn led to the formation of the KPD (Communist Party of Germany) in 1918. The KPD's membership increased enormously and was a direct competitor to the socialist SPD.

Even though it claimed to be Marxist, the SPD had become a reformist party by 1914. The SPD members voted in favor of the war (WWI), while the left wing under the leadership of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg strongly opposed it.

The SPD was the founding party of the Weimar Republic with Chancellor Ebert as the founding father, but the far-left did not support the republic. They wanted a true socialist revolution.

In 1929 the 2 parties become archenemies. The socialists (SPD) accuse the communists (KPD) of being Stalinists and the Soviet Union's accomplices and, therefore, being more dangerous than the Nazi party (NSDAP).

The communists on the other hand accused the socialists of being "the left wing of Fascism or social fascists," because they are leading the workers off the path of revolution. An incidence called the "Bloody May" is often used as evidence for this accusation: On May Day, 1929, the communists held a demonstration without a permit in Berlin. (May Day marches had been prohibited by law since 1924.) The police chief, who was an SPD party member, ordered to use force to end the march and 32 people were killed, demonstrators and by-standers.
The communists were accused of provoking an uprising against the government and the sub-organization called "Rote Frontkaempferbund," was prohibited nationwide. Tensions between the two parties reached new heights.

The socialist and communist parties, however, were both wrong thinking that the right-wing German National Workers' Party (NSDAP) was not a serious danger. They saw each other as the greater risk and underestimated the Nazis attraction.
Even though the SPD-led government wished to eliminate the NASDAP, they had no constitutional power to do so and they lacked the majority in the Reichstag (Congress) for a referendum.

By 1932 the NSDAP was the strongest fraction in parliament with 37.4%. The socialists planned to press for new elections in case the NASDAP would take over in the hopes that the Nazis would lose to the SPD. However, they did not anticipate that free elections would not be possible.

So as soon as Hitler came to power, the communist party KPD was banned. In February of 1933 the elected KPD-congressmen were not allowed to enter the parliament building. Instead many were arrested or killed.

Towards the end of the Weimar Republic the situation in Germany was quite acute: There was
-increasing economic distress;
-6 million unemployed;
-widespread poverty, hunger, and squalor.

The SPD had 2 million members and a great influence among the working class, whereas the KPD had 200,000 members and was growing steadily in number. Unfortunately, with all the past animosity towards each other, the socialists and communists were unable to form a united coalition against Hitler.

b.) The Anti-Democratic Sentiment among the German People
After the failing of a democratic state in 1848, most Germans were of the opinion that supporting a unified nation was more important than building up a democratic tradition. Unlike in England where capitalist nobility pushed for democratic change, in Germany the working class (under the guidance of the social democrats) was the main supporter of the democratic Weimar Republic.

The Weimar Republic was not the result of a mass people's movement against monarchy, but it came out of the disappointment over the loss of WWI and the resulting collapse of the monarchy. Democracy was seen as something the victors of the war stipulated and therefore forced upon them. In the German people's opinion, this was a drawback, so they did not want to support it wholeheartedly.

The democratic supporters of the Weimar Republic were unable to demonstrate the advantages of a democracy during these times of economic instability. Furthermore, government leadership positions in of the military, administration, economic, and judicial systems remained the same after the collapse of the monarchy. This meant that these institutions most likely kept their anti-democratic/pro-monarchy undercurrents.

The "Buergertum" or bourgeoisie, of course, did not support the process of increasing democracy, but longed for the good old days of the authoritative state, which was more advantageous for their class (i.e. Dreiklassenwahlrecht: three-class-voting-system in which the richest class had the most votes).

Besides the bourgeoisie, farmers, big industry, and petite bourgeoisie were all afraid of losing their private property under socialism and, therefore, they were adamantly opposed to socialism or communism.

c.) The Burdens of a Lost War and the Treaty of Versailles
The reparations Germany had to pay for being the sole perpetrator of the war were extremely difficult to fulfill: 114 billion Mark needed to be paid over 59 years. The Germans were very unhappy with these demands. Especially with the economy lagging and high unemployment (44% in November 1932) it was impossible to make the payments. After paying the reparations no money was left for the necessary rebuilding of Germany's war-torn infrastructure.

The Treaty of Versailles was the work of Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George (England) and Georges Clemenceau (France). Germany was not a part of it. The peace negotiations demanded the Germans take on sole responsibility of the war, give back colonies and land taken (a total of 13% of physical territory and 10% of the population), pay reparations, and limit sovereignty.

The new government and the German people at first refused to support these demands. But there was no way out and the treaty was signed on the 28th of June 1919.

Most of the territory Germany lost was given to the State of Poland, which was re-formed after 123 years. Some say that the allies planned to use it as a cushion against communist Russia.

With the loss of these territories and other colonies, Germany lost 50% of its iron reserves, 25% of its coal reserves, 17% of its potato and 13% of its grain/wheat producing land. Also land east of the Rhine River (Alsace and part of Saarland with its coal mines) was taken over by France.

The Nazis used this discontent among the people and targeted their propaganda towards emphasizing how future generations of Germans would have to suffer until the reparations were paid off.
It wasn't until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed that the Germans were released from paying the reparations, but this came too late. The progress these revisions would bring was overshadowed by high unemployment rates, the economic depression, and the increasing influence of the Nazi party.

d.) The Structural Weaknesses of the Political Order of the Weimar Republic
The founding fathers of the Weimar Republic, the SPD and centrist groups, wanted to have a strong president to keep the anti-republic radicals from the Left (KPD) and the Right (NASDAP) at bay. What they, however, did not foresee was the possibility that a president could be sworn in who was an enemy of the Republic. The president had the power to dismiss parliament/congress (the Reichstag) and "rule" under a "State of Emergency." This tactic was used from 1930s and on. These structural flaws in the constitution weakened Germany's democracy, caused its collapse, and helped Hitler gain power.

Because of this, today's German "Bundespresident" only has representative duties and it has become very difficult to dissolve parliament. Furthermore, proportional representation was established as the voting system of the Weimar Republic. This led to fractioning of political parties and has made it difficult for parties to obtain a majority. Parties must form coalition governments.

e.) The Great Depression
There were 6 million unemployed in 1929. The government's newly instituted unemployment insurance was totally overwhelmed and large sections of the population were living in poverty, with many people dying of starvation.

The middle and ruling classes were also affected by the economic crisis of 1929, many losing their wealth due to inflation.

These factors all helped the Nazis gain popularity and at the Congressional elections of 1932 the NSDAP claimed the majority of seats.

During the Great Depression in the US, people still supported and defended the democratic system and the "American Dream" (the claim that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough). This was not the case in Germany.

Banks were given foreign money/credit (mostly from the US) to then loan to business owners to rebuild Germany's economy. During the Great Depression, however, the long-term loans given to businesses had to be re-paid over the short-term. Banks were closed for days to avoid the total collapse of the banking system. The government bailed out the big banks and gave guaranties for the small business loans, and therefore controlled the national banking system.

In order to stabilize the economy measures were taken to fight inflation. This caused wages to sink, which led to a decrease in consumer buying power. There was no money for investments and the economy as a whole was totally disrupted.

The Political Divide- A Short Look at the Events

After WWI, retired president Hindenburg gave a speech in which he claimed that the Germans had lost the war because the army did not get the support it needed from the government in the last months of the war. (This was coined the "Dolchstosslegende" or Backstabbing Myth.) This failing support was believed to be the reason behind the refusal of certain military groups to continue to fight hopeless battles.

Unfortunately, the supporters of the democratic republic did not counter this myth and clear up this "misunderstanding." The consequences of letting the public believe that the war was lost because of this and not because it was Emperor Wilhelm the II fault, led the public to be bombarded with this legend by the conservative politicians, the military, conservative press and right-wing groups.

The conservative public was open to this story and people were tired of hearing that the Germans were the sole perpetrators of the war and needed to pay reparations for many years to come. So this was fertile ground for the right wing radical groups, of which there were several. Many of these groups started militia groups, especially in Bavaria. One of these groups was Hitler's NSDAP.

In November of 1918, sailors and soldiers initiated a "revolution". They refused to follow orders for one last battle of WWI. In the port city of Kiel workers and sailors/marines formed councils and took over the city. This movement spread across Germany. The councils took on the forms of Russian soviets and were different from factory councils, since they were based on neighborhoods and cities. These councils were able to take over several major cities and gained power for several months.

The communist worker councils were very successful in some parts of Germany. In 1920 a 50,000 man strong "Red Ruhr Army" tried to complete the revolution started earlier in 1919. This so-called March Revolution was the largest armed action taken by workers in Germany and it showed the bourgeoisie that it should rightfully be afraid of Bolshevism. President Ebert had the army arrest the members of the March Revolution and shoot anyone armed. This led to over 1000 deaths.

This revolution, however, was not a "true" revolution. Instead of working on developing solutions to existential problems such as how to organize food and jobs for everyone, the workers' councils focused on elections. These workers' councils, about 10,000 of which were established, elected their leaders who were for the most part members of the SPD. It might have seemed as if the bourgeoisie had given up its leadership through the government, but the old structures were still kept in place. The state was just neutralized, so to speak. The very formation of the councils was the means used to destroy the real revolutionary movement. The military was also never taken over by the workers. So the state was never destroyed.

The following quotes by Rosa Luxemburg shows the dilemma between the socialists who think reform is the way to create socialism and the communists, who see that revolution by the proletariat is the only way to change the system. You can't just take over the political apparatus of imperialism and insert a socialist president and expect socialism. At the Founding Congress of the Communist Party of Germany (Spartacus League, later KPD) Rosa Luxemburg wrote in "Our Program and the Political Situation" from December 31, 1918:
"They imagined it would be only necessary to overthrow the old government, to set up a socialist government at the head of affairs, and then to inaugurate socialism by decree. Once again, that was an illusion. Socialism will not and cannot be created by decrees; nor can it be established by any government, however socialistic. Socialism must be created by the masses, by every proletarian. Where the chains of capitalism are forged, there they must be broken. Only that is socialism, and only thus can socialism be created."
"It will be a progression; we shall progressively occupy all the positions of the capitalist state and defend them tooth and nail. In my view and in that of my most intimate associates in the Party, the economic struggle, likewise, will be carried on by the workers' councils. The direction of the economic struggle and the continued expansion of the area of this struggle must be in the hands of the workers' councils. The councils must have all power in the state."
"The masses must learn how to use power by using power. There is no other way to teach them. Fortunately, we have gone beyond the days when it was proposed to "educate" the proletariat socialistically. Marxists of Kautsky's school still believe in the existence of those vanished days. To educate the proletarian masses socialistically meant to deliver lectures to them, to circulate leaflets and pamphlets among them. No, the school of the socialist proletariat doesn't need all this. The workers will learn in the school of action. "
On the left, the disappointment of the failed revolution helped bring the more radical elements together: the USPD (Independent Socialist Party of Germany) and the KPD (Communist Party of Germany). They called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and insisted on the formation of workers' councils as the organizing body of a socialist society. The pro-republic SPD on the other hand distanced themselves from the radical Left for they fundamentally opposed that form of government.

After this the government was forced to have elections. The SPD and other liberal, bourgeois parties, along with the catholic center ("Zentrum") party lost their majority (under 50% now).

Unfortunately, the supporters of the democratic republic also did not counter the myth of and clear up this "misunderstanding." The consequences of letting the public believe that the war was lost because of this and not because it was Emperor Wilhelm the II fault, led the public to be bombarded with this legend by the conservative politicians, the military, conservative press and right-wing groups.

Soon the conservative groups thought it was high time to fight the communists, liberals, pro-democracy groups, and unions, because they were at fault for just about everything. They also thought that the war was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and that the treaty of Versailles was the consequence of the pro-republic and the pro-revolutionary groups ("backstabbing myth"). Many people wanted a stronger government with a strong leader, like Italy's Benito Mussolini.
When elections took place in January of 1919 the SPD had obtained 35% of the vote. The radical Left (Independent Socialist Party or USPD and KPD) was never able to gain control of the major councils. Within the communist movement (USPD and KPD) a struggle between one side wanting to stay with the masses supporting the SPD (Luxemburg) and others wanting to distance themselves from trade unions and political parties took place. Luxemburg thought that the workers within the system could influence further developments and initiate socialist change over time. She and others did not believe that the masses were ready for a revolution. Liebknecht and the majority of the KPD, on the other hand, did think the situation was mature.

Early on in 1920 only 2.1% of voters supported the KPD, but after internal strife within the left wing of the USPD 300,000 people changed their affiliation and joined the communists. So by the end of 1920 the KPD had 10% of the votes. Thereafter, the KPD decided to join the Communist International under the leadership of the Communist Party of Russia. This sealed the divide between the revolutionary KPD and the reform-oriented SPD.

At a strike called in March of 1920 by the KPD and USPD to oppose a newly signed law on worker councils, which had no revolutionary power in their opinion, the police shot 42 people and injured 105 after they said the crowd was about to storm the Congress building. After this failed attempt of an overthrow, the KPD called off the strike and the protests. Due to this failure the party lost many members.

In 1923 the German Republic faced hyperinflation and soon food, cigarettes and coal were used in daily trade instead of money. While most citizens suffered loss of their life savings and decreased buying power of their wages, people with connections to hard foreign currencies had the great advantage of paying off their debt easily, buying out bankrupt businesses, buying real estate, etc.

Under these extreme economic conditions strike waves swept across the country. This time the call to overthrow the government did not come from the union organizers and KPD, but it was brought on spontaneously. Many people were joining the Communist Party. Several state governments were to be taken over by the KPD, but the central Social Democratic Party would not stand for this. Again the army was sent in to avert this. But before this could happen, 450 delegates met: communists, union members, workers, and some social democrats, and a vote was taken whether to continue with the insurrection. The call for a nationwide general strike and the revolution was rejected. It was not clear to the leadership and the delegates that there was enough support of the masses to be successful.

Within the Social Democratic Party and other pro-republic parties, delegates were very upset that the army was sent in to stop a possible communist putsch, whereas in Bavaria a right-wing take-over received no repercussions from the government. They gave the government a vote of no confidence, which resulted in new elections.

The signing of the Dawes Plan helps bring more economic stability to Germany. Not only are reparations reduced, but the area of the Ruhr is also returned to German rule again. American credits give the German industry the necessary shot in the arm to step up production. Production, consumerism, and wages increased between 1924 and 1929.

These times (1924-1929) were politically relatively calm years. The KPD went back to legally trying to work within party politics, and no preparations for an over-throw of the government were initiated.

On the right, there also was little action: Hitler was incarcerated until the end of 1924, where he wrote his book "Mein Kampf."

By 1929 the increasing unemployment made it more and more difficult to pay out benefits without increasing unemployment insurance rates. The government decided to reduce taxes, increase the unemployment insurance rates from 3.5% to 4%, and other austerity measures to save money. But conservatives supported by corporations, small business owners/employers rejected this compromise and did everything to stop any increase in unemployment benefits. They demanded (just like today) tax reductions for employers, destruction of collective bargaining, reduced government spending, restructuring of unemployment benefits through austerity measures, and not tax increases on the employer side. Anti-democratic, anti-republic, pro-big business, capitalist influences were at work.

In the years before, the SPD would have done almost anything to make a compromise work, but this time they decided they couldn't go that far. The large coalition that formed the government no longer had their support. A vote of no confidence was given.

Hindenburg, the President, made Bruening the Chancellor, with no obligation to work with any coalition. Bruening and Hindenburg were anti-democratic and anti-socialist. Their plan was the reinstatement of the monarchy, although they did realize that the force of the workers was one not to be overlooked.

The SPD did not reach a majority position in Congress and the governments were always a coalition of several parties with the SPD being in the opposition.

As the deliberations of the budget took place in 1930, the SPD and the KPD unsuccessfully tried to stop the new austerity measures which hurt workers and the unemployed the most.

President Bruening used Emergency Law Paragraph 48 to override any opposition and dissolved the parliament.

In these elections the NSDAP amassed enough votes to become the second largest party after the SPD, which lost many votes. The KPD was able to increase voters' support, indicating a move to the left among workers. All in all, the left did not lose any supporters.

In the meantime, more and more nationalist, conservatives and liberals, protestant middle and upper-middle class voters were drawn to the NSDAP. While the working class supported the left, the middle classes not only felt pressure from corporations and employers to stop supporting the Weimar Republic government, but they also had no intentions of supporting the SPD, KPD, nor the unions.

Hitler's National Socialist Worker Party of Germany, NSDAP, cleverly combined the middle classes' anti-Marxist and anti-capitalist tendencies. The NSDAP offered what they called "Middle Class Socialism," a limited critique of capitalism based on private property rights. Hitler was adamant that he was working only against the capital of the financial sector, such as banks and stock markets. This anti-capitalist critique was then redirected against the Jews as a race. So anti-capitalism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-democracy all were united under the umbrella of anti-Semitism by the NSDAP.

Since the KPD had 77 seats and the NSDAP had 107 seats in Parliament, many foreign investors (especially the French and American banks) stopped investing and pulled their short-term credits, because they were worried about the stability of the Weimar Republic. Without these credits, the economic situation of Germany became extremely serious and the unemployment rate increased again.

In order to expand his supporter base to the right, the Kanzler (Chancellor) made more and more concessions to the right. The SPD played along, because they wanted to keep the Republic in tack for as long as possible. As could already be seen in Italy, when the fascism took over, democracy went under. The Left was critical towards the SPD on this issue, since it made the SPD less attractive for the voters and it left them politically incapable. The SPD was no real alternative any longer.

In 1931, the KPD voted along with other more moderate, centrist and liberal parties to withdraw support to the government, but the SPD had barely enough votes to counter.

In 1932 the 7-year rule of President Hindenburg was coming to an end. He was 85 years old, but he announced his candidacy again. Among other parties the NSDAP announced Hitler as their candidate and the KPD's candidate was Ernst Thaelmann. The SPD decided to support Hindenburg and their motto was "Vote for Hindenburg to beat Hitler. "

In this first round of elections Hindenburg got the most votes (49.6%), but he missed the majority mark of 50%. Hitler received 30.1% and the KPD's Thaelmann 13.2% of the vote. Another round was announced since no single party's candidate received a clear majority. In the second round Hindenburg was announced the winner with 53% of the vote. Hitler was able to increase his share to 36.8%. The KPD lost 3% and came in at 10.2%.

Hindenburg was now looking for a chance to get rid of Bruening, the Reichskanzler, who was also losing support among the people. His politics of austerity and his efforts towards reducing reparation payments were progressing too slowly. Bruening was replaced by Franz von Papen, who was interested in recreating the old structures of the monarchy, giving all power to the Reichskanzler position leaving the parliament without a vote for impeachment of the Kanzler (=President).

After unrests and demonstrations, Hindenburg used 2 articles of emergency (or martial) law to dissolve parliament and put Papen in charge. The heads of several German states wanted the Supreme Court to look into this takeover, but in the fall of 1932 the court ruled that most actions were within the constitution.

The social democracy of the Weimar Republic was given up without a fight (SPD and KPD were still at odds with each other) and the way was cleared for Hitler to take over.

Most historians do not believe that the democratic forces, made up of mainly the SPD and the unions, had the necessary will to actually fight. Instead they built their politics on humanitarianism, pacifism, and working within the law.

The Communists on the other hand, were encouraging workers to hold a general strike, but the unions objected. They feared that with 6 million people out of work, a strike would be ineffective, since it would be easy to find people willing to work and stand in for the striking workers. One strike in Berlin did take place in Berlin in November 1932. KPD and NSDAP worked together to organize this.

On the 6th of November elections took place and the KPD was able to increase their mandates to 100. The NSDAP lost 2 million votes and some seats in parliament.

In one last desperate attempt, Hindenburg offered Hitler to be the majority leader in the parliamentary-based government, but Hitler declined. He wanted all the power without a parliament, which several months later he received.

The KPD once again called for a general strike and asked the SPD to form a united front against Hitler. Again the SPD and the unions declined. They saw no basis for a successful cooperation, because they did not want support working towards the KPD's ultimate goal of fighting for a "Soviet-Germany."
The Relationship between the Social Democrats and the Communists during the Weimar Republic

Some have pointed out that the KPD was under the influence of the Comintern (Communist International) led by Lenin and then Stalin (after 1924) and could not act independently as the specific German situation would have demanded. The Comintern pushed for the so-called "Social-fascism" thesis, which made the point that the social democrats were the greater enemies of the working class, not the Nazis. Even though social democrats and the Nazis did not differ much in their take on private property and ownership of the means of production, their power structures were radically different.

Some see this as an indication that the KPD was not an independent organization, but a puppet of Stalin's. So it was impossible for the German KPD to go their course according to the German reality, because the strategies were handed down from Russia.

The KPD's joint actions with the Nazis in 1932 and 1933 also strained the relationship with the SPD and the call for a unified front.

In 1932, there were still attempts to form a united workers' front against the Nazis. The KPD was offering the SPD to join in a united assault on the Nazis. But the SPD and her supporters were not interested in the ultimate goal of this kind of battle: a socialist, soviet state. The KPD was also trying to form union organizations of their own which split the workers amongst themselves.

The communists were very proactive in organizing the unemployed, while the SPD and unions did not show any interest in this group of workers. This was one of the unions' greatest weak points and led to the demise of the political influence the unions had to call the population to actions and to fight. The communists also tried to develop and get support for public housing and job creation programs within the parliamentary structure.

The SPD on the other hand was immobilized by their fear of helping the communists by supporting the unemployed, for instance. The SPD tolerated the slow demise of democracy in order to save it. Their politics of going with the lesser evil to save democracy was as it turns out an illusion. Also the bureaucracies of the SPD and its mass trade union formation (ADGB) stymied any action by the working class. General strikes, factory councils, etc. (especially during the summer of 1923) demonstrated that the German workers were in support of revolutionary change, but the SPD feared competition to their goal of a democratic republic and so made sure these actions were not sanctioned by the party.

The KPD on the other hand, falsely analyzed the willingness of the workers (especially during the summer of 1923) and members of the SPD to join in their fight. Even though the elections in 1932 showed an increase in the party's popularity and votes, they were not successful in convincing the majority of social democratic workers to join their mobilization.

Another mistake, according to some, is the Comintern's pressure to avert the social democrats' plan to wage war against Russia. To a certain degree this might have made sense from a Russian perspective, but it was unfounded from the German social democratic government's. But these theories of Russia strong-arming the KPD are not shared by all.

During the First and Second Congresses of the Communist International, Russia maintained the upper-hand. It was not always clear how the Russians intended to advise the revolutionaries in Europe. One big debate was the question of being a part of the parliamentary system or not. Lenin advocated organizing the masses and saw the parliamentary system as an institution that was capable of interesting all classes. So from his point of view, it was necessary to go where the masses are: in the trade unions, parliament, etc, as long as there was communist leadership.

But in the end, the Left failed to create new structures needed to carry out a struggle against capitalism. One example is the trade unions: these had become stable institutions within the system, which just defends limited interests of the workers and does not claim revolutionary potential.

Another failure was that the communist party did not take Hitler as a serious threat and after his accent to power they predicted his quick demise. After 1933 the communist party was banned and forced to work in the underground.
Conclusion

After reading some of the literature on the Weimar period I put together these tables on problems we face today, which were similar in the Weimar time, and problems we don't seem to have.

Problems Weimar had but we don't have in the US today:
-Americans support the democratic system in general, even though many don't see how it is eroding before our eyes (Patriot Act). People hold the Constitution high and are proud of their inalienable rights.
-Americans think the US is the greatest. Self-critic is at a low, no self-esteem problems here.

-Constitutional weak points, such as Weimar's Article 48, which was supposed to help govern during times of emergency and crisis, martial law like, but with the President having all power over congress/parliament.

Similar Problems Weimar faced in the US today:
-Corporations have lots of influence on politics, policies, and elections by making contributions and donations (the "Citizens United" ruling has even gone a step further in paving the way for corporations to basically buy elections.).
-The political shift to the "right" politically is taking place on all levels. The "center" has already moved so far to the right that President Obama is labeled a "Socialist."
-Political parties are not willing to work out compromises, so finance reform and social policies are suffering. (For example: economic disparity between rich and poor is the greatest in the US, high unemployment, spiraling costs of health care.)
-Anti-governmental sentiments help support or even establish a very conservative, authoritarian (anti-democratic) principle of rule. Many are opposed to so-called big government, but don't realize that this means more power concentrated in the hands of fewer people, a move towards authoritarian rule.
-Big business, corporations, big banks all support less democracy: oppose more transparency and oversight, do not want to take responsibility for crisis they created, oppose taxes or tax increases, support abolishing collective bargaining rights and dismantling unions.
-Support for coalitions with anti-democratic forces (corporations, banks, ultra-right, conservative religion, etc.) thinking that these forces could be "tamed" a bit, so that there could be some benefit for more than just the 1%. Taming the extreme right-wing conservatives is possible and can be done within the party framework.

I think that what we can learn from the Weimar period is that the "ultra-right" should always be taken as a serious force, even today. One of the greatest dangers is for us to focus on the things that are not unifying among the 99%. When we put too much effort in trying to figure out how great the differences are between us (race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.) or what it is that sets us apart, then we are playing into the hands of the 1%: we are dividing up our own base, our own support structure.

We need to build a mass movement and on the way we cannot let sight of how much momentum we are gaining. It seems to me that in the Weimar Republic in 1923 there was so much support for a take-over by the working class, but the leadership on the KPD failed to believe it was possible. Maybe this viewpoint is wrong; we will never know the answer to the "What if" question. But what we can gain form reviewing the Weimar period is that change is possible, more likely than we might think.

In the moment of revolutionary upheaval, it's not always clear at first what the priorities should be. Weimar showed how easy it is to lose sight of the prize. The Germans were so close to governing through workers' councils and agreeing on the start of the revolution, but ultimately lost out by focusing their efforts on re-elections within a system that didn't support socialism. Another deleterious blunder was the refusal of both parties, SPD and KPD, to overcome their animosities in order to unify and fight the ultra-right. The short-sightedness of the SPD to equate republic with democracy and of the KPD in thinking that attaining socialism could happen without a unified republic helped pave the way for a dictator who was able to tie in his anti-capitalist rhetoric with his anti-Semitic agenda.

Considering the challenges I have listed above as problems we have in common with the Weimar Republic today, one cannot but notice the prevalent trend in this country towards the undermining of democracy. Fighting against the increasing influence of big-money in elections, union-busting efforts, voter suppression, etc. are some of the tasks we face today. If we ask who is behind these anti-democratic measures, we will quickly see the parallels to Weimar again: the ultra-right.

The message I take away from this study of the Weimar Republic is that defeating the ultra-right has to be our priority in America today.

--Klara Henkel (February 16, 2012)

Bibliography
1.) http://www.hellfirez.de/web/referate/inhalte/Weimarer_Republik.htm
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany
3.) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-P046291,_Berlin,_Reichstagswahl,_Wahlzettel.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-P046291,_Berlin,_Reichstagswahl,_Wahlzettel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl_November_1932&h=180&w=220&sz=17&tbnid=rSDHRhhcOo5JtM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=107&prev=/search%3Fq%3DReichstagswahl%2B1932%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Reichstagswahl+1932&usg=__XXWxgxKcZOZtR1yZAY4CYmPNpzc=&sa=X&ei=l-8dT7OMIeOJsQK9-OC0Dg&ved=0CCcQ9QEwBQ
4.) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-P046291,_Berlin,_Reichstagswahl,_Wahlzettel.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-P046291,_Berlin,_Reichstagswahl,_Wahlzettel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl_November_1932&h=180&w=220&sz=17&tbnid=rSDHRhhcOo5JtM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=107&prev=/search%3Fq%3DReichstagswahl%2B1932%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Reichstagswahl+1932&usg=__XXWxgxKcZOZtR1yZAY4CYmPNpzc=&sa=X&ei=l-8dT7OMIeOJsQK9-OC0Dg&ved=0CCcQ9QEwBQ
5.) http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/EZLPWP,7,0,Zerst%F6rung_der_Demokratie_19301933.html
6.) http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/31.htm
7.) http://www.bundestag.de/kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/infoblatt/parteien_weimarer_republik.pdf
8.) http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/weimar/revolution/index.html
9.) http://www.planet-wissen.de/politik_geschichte/deutsche_politik/weimarer_republik/index.jsp
10.) http://www.planet-wissen.de/politik_geschichte/deutsche_politik/ursachen_des_zweiten_weltkriegs/index.jsp

11.)http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/statistik/wa19323/index.html
12.) http://www.bpb.de/themen/VHFOXX,0,0,Der_Untergang_der_Weimarer_Republik.html
13.) http://library.fes.de/gmh/main/pdf-files/gmh/1983/1983-04-Streitgespraech.pdf
14.) http://links.org.au/node/2064
15.) http://www.marxists.org/subject/germany-1918-23/dauve-authier/appendix2.htm

Making change by looking at the world as it is: Marxist methodology 101

Sam Webb — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:32:00 +0000

In this 33-minute video, CPUSA Chair Sam Webb presents foundations of Marxist methodology: How to make change and win millions to socialism in the American political, social and economic framework.

Recorded during a 2011 seminar in Los Angeles on Marxism, this video is an excellent tool for CPUSA and YCL members, friends and collectives to discuss and deepen understanding of Marxist methodology.

Multimedia Introduction to the Communist Manifesto

via Carl Davidson and Zach Robinson — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:37:00 +0000

Dear all,

Happy New Year!

via Carl Davidson and Zach Robinson

The presentation at the link below brings video and graphic arts together with moving songs and speeches by Woody Guthrie, Michael Moore, Paul Robeson, Florence Reece, Martin Luther King and others to set the most famous tract on social change, the Communist Manifesto, in a cultural and historical context. Plus, it's free as in freedom. Please watch and share!

A Multimedia Introduction to

the Communist Manifesto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdmxBtAW26o

And, for more educational materials, check out the new

Online University of the Left

Changing Our Thinking, Changing Opinion, Changing the World

http://ouleft.org/

Occupy 1871 -- Karl Marx -- The Civil War In France

Karl Marx — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:38:00 +0000

Occupy, 1871...Karl Marx: The civil war in France

Karl Marx, 1871: The civil war in France
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm

The revival of Russian communism

Heiko Khoo — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:01:00 +0000

via John Rummel

China.org.cn, December 8, 2011

It is fifty years since Yuri Gagarin took mankind to the heavens, and twenty since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These events played a decisive role in the fate of humanity.

So the revival of the fortunes of the Russian communists in the recent parliamentary election should be seen as an event of global significance. A horrified Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, bemoans the continued strength of 'hardline communists', whose support is based on popular discontent with the consequences of the dissolution of the USSR.

The economic decline began in 1991 and it took ten years before the Russian economy returned to the same level of production. During this time the masses were impoverished, and the wealth produced by the blood and sweat of the Russian workers was swindled out of their hands by such means as voucher-based mass privatisation, which was followed by a wider transfer of state owned assets to private hands. This resulted in a tiny handful of oligarchs gaining personal ownership of the nation's natural resources and monopolies. The business class engaged in massive capital flight, laundering their money through Western markets.

The end of collectivism and the rise of capitalism acted like an epidemic stalking the nation, former communist countries underwent the world's worst peacetime mortality crisis in the past 50 years, resulting in millions of additional male deaths in the 1990s. To this day, life expectancy in Russia is below that of 1961, when Gagarin flew to space in the era of hope, collectivism and dignity.

In 1961, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union worked out plans to overtake the USA by 1980, laying the basis for a 6-hour working day, free housing, transport, energy and a society of abundance. The dreams of the early 1960s were not realised, due to the over-nationalisation of the economy, combined with corresponding bureaucratic structures of economic coordination, which generated lethargy and passivity instead of dynamism and innovation. Prices were unresponsive to market impulses, and the poor quality and quantity of consumer goods reinforced a tendency towards general social listlessness. When capitalism took power in the 1990s, the social benefits of the universal planning system in health, education, housing, and scientific development were systematically eradicated; the resistance against this destruction was minimal.

The government under President Yeltsin did all it could to assist the plunder of national resources, claiming that shock therapy was required to rapidly install a new ruling class, for fear that gradual change would provoke a Communist comeback. In the presidential elections of 1996, the oligarchic entourage mobilised their finance and resources to ensure that Yeltsin scraped to victory against the Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov. Widespread fraud was used assist this electoral victory, but Western leaders expressed no concerns about this and declared the vote to be 'free and fair'.

An economic collapse in 1998, connected with the Asian financial crisis, saw the Russian currency devalued and savings collapse. Yeltsin stepped down in 1999, handing the Presidency to Vladimir Putin, who presided over an era of booming state revenues. He reordered relations between political power and the oligarchs, demanding that the billionaires refrain from direct political opposition. Bolstered by a rise in energy prices, Russian GDP returned to 1991 levels in 2001 and then nearly doubled in size, before the world economic crisis hit in 2008. Economic growth brought real improvements in living standards, a reduction in unemployment and a halving of the number of those living in poverty.

The growth has nevertheless been grossly uneven, and the fruits of this growth unequally distributed. 22 oligarchs own $216 billion, while 80 percent of the workforce earns less than $250 per month. The provision of facilities in healthcare, education, transport and scientific research are a pale shadow of those in late Soviet times.

In the late 1980s, it appeared that the Soviet system simply did not work and that the high level of investment in social provision was economically unsustainable. Twenty years later, China has proven that a Communist Party in power can continuously develop the economy, modernise infrastructure and improve real living standards. The Russian masses and the leadership of the Russian Communist Party are well aware of this.

Even though the election on December 4th was rigged, the doubling of votes for the Communist Party to 20 percent indicates that an outright electoral victory is now a foreseeable prospect. The key to such a victory will lie in the Party's capacity to galvanise societal discontent and anchor itself in the everyday struggles of the masses.

To this end, the Communist Party should think big. Its task is not to continually laud the Soviet past or any of its leaders, but to draw up concrete plans for the reorganization of society by democratic and socialist means. In factories threatened with privatisation and cities needing regeneration, alternative developmental plans should be elaborated. Such plans can be worked out in detail by Communists, trade unionists and other democratically elected representatives of the masses, in cities, towns and regions throughout Russia. In this process, Chinese state enterprises and local and national government bodies should be contacted to help provide the skills and resources to elaborate a comprehensive Sino-Russian plan of collaboration, development and progress. Then the Communists can present these plans to the electorate as the foundation of a socialist economic strategy.

The program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the speeches and writings of its leader Gennady Zyuganov, call for the nationalisation of the banks and all strategic industries, and for the restoration of universal and world quality, free education, health care and scientific research. The declining authority of Russian capitalism's political representatives provides Russian Communists with the opportunity to ride on the wave of discontent, cracking the image of invincibility that Vladimir Putin and his entourage try to cultivate. If the Communists are seen to be more democratic, closer to the masses, and capable of emulating Chinese rates of economic growth, their support will rise and a modern and successful Soviet Russia can be born.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/heikokhoo.htm

Selected Marx-Engels Study Guides

Marxists.org — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:21:00 +0000

Study Guides for works of Marx and Engels

These guides are designed to be used for group study. While asking questions which aim to stimulate discussion, we do not pretend to give you the answers. However, the links lead to all the relevant Marxist material needed to clarify the issues in each work.

Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx 1844

Theses on Feuerbach, Marx 1845

The German Ideology, Marx & Engels 1845

Principles of Communism, Engels 1847

Wage Labour and Capital, Marx 1847

Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels 1848

18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx 1852

Grundrisse, Introduction, Marx 1857

Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx 1859

Value, Price and Profit, Marx 1865

Capital Volume I, Marx 1867

Capital Volume II (published after Marx's death)

Capital Volume III (published after Marx's death)

Socialism: Utopian & Scientific, Engels 1880

Origin of Family, Private Property & the State, Engels 1884

Deng Xiaoping Theory and the Historical Destiny of Socialism

Yang Chungui — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:58:00 +0000

Tremendous changes have taken place in the history of mankind during the twentieth century. In the first half of the century socialism shocked the world with its great successes over large areas of the earth. However, in the final years of the century its setbacks also astounded the world, especially its failure in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. These great changes raised the question of the future and destiny of socialism.

In view of the ecstatic response of Western hostile forces to the "grand failure of communism," and the pessimism of those who once believed in socialism, Deng Xiaoping said categorically, "After a long time, socialism will necessarily supersede capitalism. This is an irreversible general trend of historical development.....Some countries have suffered major setbacks, and socialism appears to have been weakened. But the people have been tempered by the setbacks and have drawn lessons from them, and that will make socialism develop in a healthier direction."[i] This conclusion has been borne out by the successful practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in China and will be further borne out in the coming century by socialist practice throughout the world, including that in China.

I. Socialism Is a Historical Process With

Twist and Turns in Its Development

Dialectical materialism tells us that things develop with a combination of progress and reverses. The general trend in towards progress and development, but the road is full of twists and turns. This is the case in the natural world and also in social life. Every new social system undergoes numerous difficulties during its birth and development. Capitalism was finally substituted for feudalism after 48 years of struggle against the restoration of feudalism in Britain, and 86 years of repeated trails of strength in France. It took two to three hundred years for capitalism as a whole to grow from its infancy to a mature stage amidst continuous economic and political crises. This was the case in the development of capitalism, in which a new form of exploitation replaced the old, let alone the socialist movement that will destroy all systems of exploitation. It is entirely impractical to expect socialism to enjoy a favorable wind all the way and encounter no resistance.

Socialism has experience many setbacks and low ebbs, but the general trend towards socialism replacing capitalism has never changed. During the more than 150 years since the appearance of the theory of scientific socialism, it has developed from the conception of revolutionary teachers into the guiding principle of the workers' movement all over the world, from theory into practice, and from the practice in one country into that in many countries, presenting a constantly growing dynamic movement. It is inevitable that there will be local reverses and temporary low tides or even reverses during this process. Marxists who keep a clear head with regard to the development law of human society do not feel puzzled by these outward phenomena, but unswervingly believe in the final victory of socialism and communism, and face the harsh realities with high morale, calmly taking up the gauntlet.

In 1987 during the Paris Commune uprising, Karl Marx scientifically predicted that, "whatever therefore its fate in Paris, it will make le tour du monde."[ii] More than forty years later, the victory of the October Revolution in Russia confirmed Marx's brilliant foresight. When the first socialist country in the world faced grave crises due to armed intervention from fourteen imperialist states, in addition to domestic rebellion, Lenin firmly pointed out that, "Only a proletarian socialist revolution can lead humanity out of the impasse which imperialism and imperialist wars have created. Whatever difficulties the revolution may have to encounter, whatever possible temporary setbacks or waves of counter-revolution it may have to contend with, the final victory of the proletariat is inevitable."[iii] The revolutionary road followed by the Chinese people was even more difficult and convoluted. In the 28 years before the founding of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese democratic revolution suffered repeated setbacks and failures. On 12 April 1927, Jiang Jieshi staged a bloody coup d'etat against the revolution and threw the Chinese people into bloodshed. But the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people were neither cowed, conquered nor exterminated. They picked themselves up, wiped off the blood, buried their fallen comrades and went into battle again. Furthermore, they learned to use armed revolution against armed counterrevolution and went to the countryside to build rural base areas. In the beginning, in the face of a very powerful enemy, some people asked: "How long will the red flag fly?" With foresight comrade Mao Zedong pointed out that, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." But the prairie fire also experienced many ups and downs and, particularly the last days of the land revolution, Wang Ming's "Left error led to the loss of 90 per cent of the Party and revolutionary forcers in the base areas and an almost complete loss in the Guomindang-controlled areas. However, after the Red Army arrived in northern Shaanxi, the CPC summed up its experiences and lessons learned and went on to defeat all its enemies and win the final victory of the democratic revolution.

The road to socialist construction was equally uneven. In addition to minor upheavals, there were two events of major significance; the three-years Great Leap Forward beginning in 1958, and the ten-year "cultural revolution" beginning in 1966. These errors caused enormous losses and led to grave crises in China. However, after the Third Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the CPC we became more mature and initiated a new phase of constructing socialism with Chinese characteristics. History is a mirror and tells us that no matter how difficult the situation, and whatever setbacks the revolution may experience, it will win in the end because it follows the law and direction of historical development.

Violent changes took place in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 90s. The communist parties lost their ruling position, socialism was abandoned, and the world socialist movement suffered its greatest setback this century. Hostile forces in the West were excited and asserted categorically that Marxism and socialism were bankrupt. The future and destiny were pregnant with grim possibilities and some people became pessimistic. Confronted by local failure and temporary setbacks, Comrade Deng Xiaoping solemnly stated with the foresight of a great statesman, "Don't panic, don't think that Marxism has disappeared, that it's not useful any more and that it has been defeated. Nothing of the sort!"[iv] When socialism was at a low ebb across the world it radiated vigor and dynamism in China. China's economy has been developing rapidly and in a healthy manner, the living conditions of the people have been improving and the overall capacity of the country has been strengthened. All these indisputable achievements have been highly appreciated by all those who harbor no prejudice against China. The great cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics under the guidance of Deng Xiaoping theory is not only a pioneering undertaking in. China but also of world significance. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that if we can achieve the strategic goal of reaching the level of moderately developed countries by the middle of the next century, "we shall not only have blazed a new path for the peoples of the Third World, who represent three quarters of world's population, but also - and is even more important - we shall have demonstrated to mankind that socialism is the only path and that it is superior to capitalism."[v]

Complex objective and subjective reasons account for the twist and turns in the development of socialism. First, the long-term existence of class struggle both at home and abroad. "The tree desires stillness but the wind will not cease." Class struggle exists independent of man's will. Where there is a struggle there will inevitably be fluctuations, and high and low tides, victory and defeat, and progress and setbacks are just normal phenomena and are not unexpected. Second, the socialist system is a completely new social system in the history of mankind and its development has to undergo a long historical process from inexperience to experience, from imperfect to perfect, from immature to mature. It is hard to completely avoid mistakes, twists and reverses during this process. We can try to arrive at a correct understanding by following the patter, "practice, knowledge, and then back to practice, knowledge," constantly summing up our experiences and moving step by step from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Third, if the party and government leadership of a socialist country cannot earnestly correct their political errors or effectively combat corruption within their ranks, the situation will become complex and grave, and major reverses or even great historical retrogression will follow. The first two are objective in nature, while the third is subjective. If no major problems occur with regard to the leadership, the wheel of history will not be turned back even though it is impossible to avoid minor setbacks. However, from a long-term perspective, no matter what twists and turns may take place, these only constitute a link in the whole chain of historical development, they do not, and cannot, after the general trend of historical development. This is just like the, Yellow River: it has many turns and meanderings, but it nevertheless continues to flow into the eastern seas. In this regard we must pay attention to the following points: 1. Do not take the temporary setbacks as the end of point of historical development. On the contrary, we should observe things from the perspective of historical development and take the setbacks for what they reality are, a temporary phenomenon and a link in the chain in human history. We must be firm in our faith and conviction in the face of any difficulties and grasp the general trend of historical development. 2. We should earnestly summarize our experience and the lessons learned and try by every means to avoid losses that could be avoided. The pivotal point in this connection is to strengthen the building of the Party and maintain the correctness of leadership. 3. We are convinced that even in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries in which there have been great historical reverses, the broad masses and the true communists will re-select the socialist road after conscientious reflection - this process may be and painful, but undoubtedly things will develop in this direction - this is a historical law independent of man's will.

II. Summarizing the Historical Experience

of Socialism in a Scientific Way

Engels pointed out that, "There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than to learn by one's mistakes, durch Schaden klug werden."[vi] Deng Xiaoping said, "In building socialism we have had both positive and negative experience, and they are equally useful to us."[vii] "The experience of successes is valuable, and so is the experience of mistakes and defeats. Formulating principles and policies in this way enables us to unify the thinking of the whole Party so as to achieve a new unity: unity formed on this basis is most reliable."[viii]

In summarizing our experience we must, first of all, have a correct approach, for different approaches lead to different, even opposite, conclusions.

We should abide by at least three principles when summarizing the historical experiences of socialism under the guidance of Marxist philosophy:

Firstly, emphasis should be given to the analysis of internal causes rather than the role of external causes. In this regard there are both positive and negative examples both in history and in the present. At the Zunyi Meeting in 1935 there was heated dispute over why the fifth counter-campaign against the enemy's "encirclement and suppression" had failed. Otto Braun (1901-1974), a German and the military adviser from the Communist International, made a speech at the meeting, Braun said the sole reason for the failure was that the enemy was too powerful. Such a conclusion was completely useless since in the initial period of a revolution the enemy is invariably more powerful. If we were doomed to failure because the enemy was more powerful then there would never be any hope of victory. Mao Zedong refuted Braun's argument at the meeting. Mao later conducted a philosophical analysis of this question. On pages 105-108 of Mao Zedong Zhexue ji (Collected Philosophical Notes of Mao Zedong) there is a lengthy discussion on this issue. These ideas were later incorporated into his exposition on the relationship between internal and external causes in the chapter "The Two World Outlooks" in on contradiction. Mao Zedong wrote in Collected Philosophical Notes, "The view that 'you can't blame the failure on the command because it was the decree of Heaven' is erroneous. The overwhelming power of the enemy was one of the reasons for the failure of the fifth counter-campaign against the 'encirclement and suppression,' but it was not the main reason. The main reason lay in the mistakes in the command, the cadre policy, the foreign policy and military adventurism. In a word, opportunism is responsible for the failure."[ix] He also pointed out in On Contradiction that, "In battle, one army is victorious and the other is defeated: both the victory and the defeat are determined by internal causes." "External causes become operative through internal causes ." "In China in 1927, the defeat of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie came about through the opportunism then to be found within the Chinese proletariat itself (inside the Chinese Communist Party). When we liquidated this opportunism, the Chinese revolution resumed its advance. Later, the Chinese revolution again suffered severe setbacks at the hands of the enemy, because adventurism had risen within our Party. When we liquidated this adventurism, our cause advanced once again."[x] It is thus clear that when we summarize experience emphasis should be placed on the analysis of the internal causes; the key issue is whether or not the Party has a correct political line. If a political party is to lead the revolution to victory it has to rely on its correct political line and consolidated organisation. Although the strategy of peaceful revolution of hostile forces a role to play, the fundamental cause of the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was to be found inside the Party, in the Party's political line, and in the Party's policies. The historical reason was the long-term ossified thinking and structure that made it impossible to bring the superiority of socialism into full play and caused dissatisfaction among the people. In some countries the enemy directly utilised such dissatisfaction and overthrew the socialist system, while in other countries the leadership were aware of the problems and attempted to find a solution and initiated reform. But they chose a Right opportunist line and the enemy made use of the opportunism and went from weak to strong, finally seizing power from either within or outside and bringing about the collapse of socialism. However, socialism stands lofty firm and has been developing vigorously in China. This demonstrates in a positive way that if the Communist Party pursues a Marxist line, any plotting by internal or external hostile forces towards peaceful evolution will fail. Following the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Deng Xiaoping said with foresight that the key link was to manage our own affairs well. He also pointed out in his talks during his tour to the southern provinces that, "if any problem arises in China, it will arise inside the Communist Party." "In the final analysis we must manage the Party affairs in such a way as to prevent trouble." First and foremost the Communist Party must have a correct political line. If we firmly hold to the basic line of "one central task, two basic points"[xi] and eliminate interference from Right and "Left" there will be no major disturbances; if problems do occur, they will be easy to resolve.

Secondly, in summarising our experience we should emphasize the content and causes of the errors rather than blaming certain individuals. This involves whether or not we uphold historical materialism. Of course, if there are errors in the Party line, the leaders, the principal leader in particular, must bear the main responsibility. They should be unequivocally criticized for their mistakes And organisational measures should be taken if necessary. However, we should not put all the blame on individuals, nor should we give them all the credit. In discussing summarizing experience of the democratic revolution in "Our Study And Current Situation ," Mao Zedong said, "In dealing with questions of Party history we should lay the stress not on the responsibility of certain individual comrades but on the analysis of the circumstances in which the errors were committed, on the content of these errors and on their social, historical and ideological roots."[xii] Only in this way can we draw lessons in earnest and find a solution to the mistakes while examining these mistakes. Neither of the resolutions on certain historical questions in the history of the CPC placed too great an emphasis on the responsibility of individuals, but both stressed an analysis of the historical conditions under which the errors were committed, on the content and causes of these errors, and on how to correct them; this embodied the guiding principle of "achieving the twofold objective of clarity in ideology and unity among comrades" advocated by Mao Zedong.

The Soviet leaders did not adopt such an attitude towards Stalin. Over a period of 39 years, beginning with Nikita Khrushchev and going all the way to Mikhail Gorbachaev, they continued to curse Stalin, as if everything would have been all right had Stalin been completely discredited. At the same time, they paid little attention to, let alone conducting a penetrating and concrete analysis of, the historical environment and the ideological and institutional reasons for the mistakes made by Stalin. Needless to say, they did not draw any useful experience and lessons for the whole party and were thus unable to find a solution to these problems. On the contrary, in the great movement against Stalin the way was opened for opportunism to run wild.

Thirdly in summing up our experience we should treat all questions analytically, neither affirming nor negating everything.

During the Stalinist period, the Soviet Communist Party made serious mistakes in its political, economic, foreign and religious policies and policies on ethnic affairs. These mistakes caused great damage to the socialist system of the Soviet Union, and had a very influence on other socialist countries. However, we should adopt a realistic and practical attitude and should not think that in the Soviet Union under Stalin everything went wrong and Stalin was wrong in everything. Otherwise how can we explain why the Soviet economy once had rapid growth, how it withstood the trials of World War II and defeated Fascist Germany, and how an originally backward Russia became a superpower vying with Americas in only a few decades? Negating everything could only lead to the negation of the Soviet Communist Party, the negation of socialism and the negation of Marxism. We should also conduct concrete analyses of the Soviet model, that is, the over-concentrated economic and political system established in the 1930s. On the one hand, this system did have drawbacks that had to be corrected; on the other hand, we must admit that it had its roots in history. In war time and faced by the threat of war the highly concentrated system played a vital role.

Our party did not adopt the metaphysical approach that negates everything in summarizing historical experiences, including the experiences and lessons of the 'cultural revolution," The "Resolution" points out, on the one hand, that the "cultural revolution" was "an internal disorder that was wrongly started by the leader, was made use of by the counterrevolutionary clique and brought about serious disasters to the Party, the state and the people of all nationalities." On the other, it declares, "during this period none of the Party, the people's power, the people's army and the whole society changed its color, "while indicating the serious mistakes made by Mao Zedong in his later years the "Resolution" says, "So far as his whole life is concerned, his contributions to the Chinese revolutions are far greater than his errors. His contributions are primary and his errors are secondary." Thus, while pointing out that the original socialist structure had serious drawbacks and that it was imperative to carry out reform, we stressed that we must keep to the basic socialist system. The reform is self-improvement of socialism, and under no, circumstance should we turn correction of "Left" mistakes into negation of Marxism and socialism. Just as Deng Xiaoping said, we must see two sides of a problem; if we see only one side we will make mistakes. Only when we appraise our work from the perspective that not everything is either completely positive or completely negative can we scientifically sum up historical experiences.
III. We Must Adhere to Dialectical Materialism

And Historical Materialism in Constructing Socialism

Deng Xiaoping pointed out that, "The experience of the last 20 years has taught us one very important principle: to build socialism we must adhere to Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism or, as Comrade Mao Zedong put it, in everything we do we must seek truth from facts - in other words, we must proceed from reality."[xiii] This is a brilliant summation of the historical experience of socialism. Seeking truth from facts is the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism, the quintessence of Mao Zedong Thought and the quintessence of Deng Xiaoping theory.

Marxism is scientific because it is always based on objective realities. Engles said, "To make a science a socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis."[xiv] Marx and Engles were wiser than the Utopian socialist, not only in that they portrayed a set of more elaborate and detailed ideal pictures of socialism than the latter, but also in that they created historical materialism, discovered in the history of labour the key to the mystery of man's social development, and revealed the general law of the development of human society. Guided by this general law, they then investigated the law governing contradictions in capitalist society and established the theory of surplus value, by means of which they revealed the secrets of capitalist exploitation of workers and aroused the main force for burying capitalism - the proletariat. Engels wrote in "The German Ideology" 150 years ago, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."[xv] That is to say, they did not begin to design an ideal society using wishful thinking and abstract principles of reason and justice, but always proceeded from reality and tried to discover a new world by criticizing the old, and looked for solutions by criticizing current conditions.

Guided by dialectical materialism and historical materialism, Marx and Engels changed socialism from a Utopian to a scientific theory. However, during the process of its realisation, the theory of scientific socialism would have produced only empty fantasies if it had been divorced from the guidance of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. In the past, regardless of the actual level of productive forces, we sought pure, unadulterated socialism in readjusting the relations of production and were over-anxious for quick results in developing productive forces. We also persisted in "taking class struggle as the key link" even when class struggle was no longer the principal contradiction under the new historical conditions. All these were reflections of socialist fantasies, which led to gross mistakes in the political line and policy decisions. The Third Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the CPC was a great historical turning point in China's socialist cause. This change began with the rectification of the ideological line. Without the great debate over the criteria of truth and the reestablishment of the ideological line of emancipating the mind and seeking truth facts, it would have been impossible to correct the previous "Left" mistakes, shift the focus of work to economic construction, and introduce a complete new set of policies of reform and opening-up. This clearly demonstrates that a correct ideological line is of decisive importance for a ruling party directing socialist construction. This is the case in China, as it is in other socialist countries.

It is true that the reasons for the violent changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are very complex and vary with different countries, but in the final analysis the ideological of these countries went wrong. For a relatively long period of time dogmatism and personality cults were rampant. They made the "Left" mistake of magnifying the extent of class struggle and produced a rigid socialist model, with the result that the superiority of socialism could not be brought into full play. When the reform was initiated they then went to the other extreme and made "Rightist" mistakes. For example, ideologically Marxism was treated as dogma, but subsequently Marxism was denied its leading role. Politically, they exaggerated class struggle, but then denied the existence of class struggle and trumpeted the so-called "socialism with a human face." They had deprived the people of their right to democracy, but then opposed the leadership of the Communist Party under the cloak of "political pluralism" and practiced a "multi-party system." Economically, they pursued a policy of pure public ownership, but then privatised everything. All these factors demonstrate that the root cause of the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was the wrong ideological line, just as Mao Zedong pointed out, "All big political mistakes are rooted in their deviation from dialectical materialism."[xvi]

From the historical experience we have realised that:

First, in constructing socialism we must proceed from reality and persist in integrating Marxism with the specific conditions.

The theory of socialism created by Marx and Engels reveals the historical inevitability of the substitution of socialism for capitalism, and the basic laws to be followed in accomplishing this substitution. However, it does not provide every country with a ready answer to its problems. In leading the people towards the construction of socialism, the proletarian party in each country must proceed from its national conditions and search for a socialist road with its own characteristics. There is no fixed model of socialism. The fundamental lesson learnt from the practice of socialism in the past, particularly the Soviet experience and model, is not to make a dogma out of Marxism. Mao Zedong was aware of this and tried to break away from this model and blaze a path of his own, but failed for various reasons. It was only after the Third Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the CPC that the Chinese Communists headed by Deng Xiaoping raised the clarion call of "building socialism with Chinese characteristics," and opened up a new road, under the guidance of the ideological line of emancipating the mind the seeing truth from facts. Deng Xiaoping said, "We have repeatedly declared that we shall adhere to Marxism and keep to the socialist road. But by Marxism we mean Marxism that is integrated with Chinese conditions, and by socialism we mean a socialism that is tailored to Chinese conditions and has a specifically Chinese character."[xvii] He added, "After a successful revolution each country must build socialism according to its own conditions. There are not and cannot be fixed models."[xviii] This is a scientific summation of historical experiences in socialist construction at home and abroad and has universal significance. Breaking away from ideological rigidity and following one's road hinges on a scientific understanding of the national conditions. One of the most important questions involved making a sober estimate of the stage socialism has reached in a particular country. A common mistake in the international communist movement is to overestimate the maturity of socialism in one's own country, which results in the error of overstepping historical conditions. After a long period of practice and exploration, China began to have a clear understanding of its national conditions in the primary stage of socialism, found its correct position in the long process of socialist development and formulated the basic line of "one central task, two basic points" and a full set of principles and policies.

Second, the theory of scientific socialism must develop with the development of practice and science.

Tremendous changes have taken place over the more than one hundred yeas since the appearance of the theory of scientific socialism, and especially in recent decades the violence and depth of these changes have been beyond man's imagination. Deng Xiaoping said, "The World changes every day, and modern science and technology in particular develop rapidly. A year today is the equivalent of several decades, a century or even a longer period in ancient times. Anyone who fails to carry Marxism forward with new thinking and a new view point is not a true Marxist."[xix] We cannot expect Marx to provide a ready solution to the problems arising a hundred years or more after his death. A true Marxist, while adhering to the cardinal principles of Marxism, must advance new theories to solve new problems in accordance with the changing times and new situations and tasks. Deng Xiaoping theory, as Marxism in contemporary China, did not denounce the basic tenets of Marxism, but offered many new propositions which were strange to Marxism yet conformed to current realities, for example: Revolution means the emancipation of productive forces, as does reform, reform is the Second revolution in China; Science and technology are productive forces and the primary productive forces, economic development must rely on science, technology and education; A planned economy does not equate with socialism, a market economy does not equate with capitalism, and a market economy can be practiced under socialism; The modern world is an open world, China cannot develop without the rest of the world, and opening to the outside world is one of China's basic national policies. Deng also observed the world from a Marxist perspective and made correct analyses of the epochal characteristics of out times and the general international situation, the successes and failures of other socialist countries, the gains and losses of the developing countries during their development drive, and the configuration and contradictions of the growth of the developed countries. On the basis of these analyses Deng Xiaoping made a series of a scientific judgments. In short, Deng Xiaoping theory is creative Marxism and his great vitality. On the solid basis of new practice, it inherited the fine tradition of Marxism, broke with outmoded conventions and opened up a new realm of Marxism.
IV. The Most Important Thing Is to Make Clear

What Socialism Is and How It is to be Constructed

The key to adhering to Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism or, in other words, adhering to the ideological line of seeking truth from facts, is to make clear what socialism is and how it is to be constructed. This is a question of prime importance confronting socialism in contemporary times. After summing up the historical experience of the victories and setbacks of socialism in China, and learning from the practices in other socialist countries. Deng Xiaoping gave a scientific answer to this question, thereby raising the understanding of socialism to a new level.

Firstly, neither poverty nor slow development is socialism, the fundamental task of socialism is to develop productive forces.

Marx and Engels pointed out in Manifesto of the Communist Party that after seizing political power and wrestling capital from the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must "increase the total productive forces a rapidly as possible."[xx] As a matter of fact, socialism in all countries is built on the foundation of less developed productive forces, and poverty is its unfavorable starting point. The fundamental task in practicing socialism should therefore be to eradicate poverty. However, for a very long time we ignored the most important task and took class struggle as the key link in all our work. Lin Biao and the "Gang of Four"[xxi] even fallaciously put forward the slogan: "Poor socialism is better than prosperous capitalism." This not only obscured the fundamental task of socialism, but also discredited its image. In view of these mistaken ideas Deng Xiaoping pointed out that, "The fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve."[xxii] In order to fulfil this fundamental task in all the work of the Party and the state we must always take economic construction as the pivot. Deng Xiaoping emphasized that, "Since our modernisation program covers many fields, it calls for an overall balance and we cannot stress one to the neglect of the others. But when all is said and done, economic development is the pivot. Any deviation from this pivotal task endangers our material base. All other tasks must revolve around the pivot and must absolutely not interfere with or upset it."[xxiii] The key to the development of productive forces and the realisation of modernisation is science and education. Comrade Deng Xiaoping repeatedly stressed that, "The key to achieving modernisation is the development of science and technology. And unless we pay special attention to education, it will be impossible to develop science and technology. Empty talk will get our modernisation nowhere; we must have knowledge and trained personnel."[xxiv] Deng Xiaoping watched the rapid development of modern science and technology and the resultant tremendous social changes closely, and, based on his profound understanding of modern productive forces, proposed in clear terms that, "Science and technology constitute a primary productive force."[xxv]

Secondly, neither egalitarianism nor polarization are socialism - the ultimate goal of socialism is common prosperity. However, common prosperity does not mean prosperity for all at the same time; some people and some areas should be allowed to get rich first.

In view of the long-standing egalitarian conceptions and policies, Deng Xiaoping emphasized that we should first break free of egalitarianism and allow some areas, some enterprises and some workers and farmers to get rich first. He pointed out that, "We keep to the socialist road in order to attain the ultimate goal of common prosperity, but it is impossible for all regions to develop at the same pace. We were used to egalitarianism, with everyone ‘eating from the same big pot.' In fact, that practice meant common backwardness and poverty, which caused us much suffering. The reform is designed, first and foremost, to break with egalitarianism, with the practice of having everyone ‘eating from the same big pot.' It seems to me that we are taking the right path."[xxvi] This major policy recognises the difference between areas, enterprise and people, requires of the people honest labour and legal operations, takes common prosperity as the ultimate goal, and embodies the principle of giving priority of efficiency with due consideration to equity. Encouraging some areas and people to get rich first is aimed at pushing more and more people onto the road to becoming rich and towards the goal of common prosperity. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that, "The greatest superiority of socialism is that it enables all the people to prosper, and common prosperity is the essence of socialism. If polarization occurred, things would be different. The contradictions between various ethnic groups, regions and classes would become sharper and accordingly, the contradictions between the central and local authorities would also be intensified. That would lead to disturbances."[xxvii] The great difference between people's incomes during the process of allowing some people to get rich first should be tackled conscientiously and needs careful and skilful handling. Legal high incomes should be allowed and protected, but at the same time necessary regulatory measures must be imposed. Sudden hug profits acquired illegally must be disposed of according to law. In short, in handling the relationship between getting rich first, getting rich later and common prosperity, we must take into account the overall situation and in no circumstances adopt the "Leftist" policy of robbing the rich to give to the poor. The important thing is to bring every positive factor into play and do everything possible to develop our economy and increase the aggregate national value of production, while at the same time introducing regulatory distribution and tax policies to ensure social equity and the realisation of the ultimate goal of common prosperity.

Thirdly, a planned economy does not necessarily mean practicing socialism and a market economy does not necessarily mean practicing capitalism, a market economy can be practiced under socialism.

For a long time in the past, both the Marxist and the Western bourgeois economist considered a planned economy to be the essence of socialism and a market economy as the basic feature of capitalism. This conception shackled the people. Deng Xiaoping resolutely refuted this view. He repeatedly emphasized that, "There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy."[xxviii] We must understand theoretically that the difference between capitalism and socialism is not a market economy as opposed to a planned economy. Socialism has regulation by market forces, and capitalism has control through planning."[xxix] "Planning and regulation by the market are both means of controlling economic activity, and the market can also serve socialism."[xxx] Deng Xiaoping's advocacy of practicing a market economy under socialism was evidence that he always looked at things from the perspective of the development of productive forces. The essence of economic restructuring is market reorientation. One of the drawbacks of the traditional planned economy was its exclusion of and restrictions on market mechanisms, as Deng Xiaoping pointed out, "One way in which socialism is superior to capitalism is that under socialism the people of the whole country can work as one and concrete their strength on key projects. A shortcoming of socialism is that the market is not put to best use and the economy is too rigid."[xxxi] By reform we mean invigorating the economy, putting the market to beset use, and having an orientation towards the market. Deng Xiaoping scientifically pointed out the compatibility of socialism and a market economy, and thereby laid the solid theoretical foundation for establishing the socialist market economy in China.

Fourthly, the essence of socialism is liberation and development of productive forces, elimination of exploitation and polarization, and the ultimate achievement of prosperity for all.

Based on his understanding of the development of productive forces as the fundamental task of socialism, common prosperity as the ultimate goal and a market economy as a means of socialist economic construction. Deng Xiaoping gradually came to have a firm grasp of the essence of socialism. As early as May 1980 he raised the question of "the essence of socialism." He pointed out that, "Socialism is a very good term. However, if we do not do a good job of it, if we do not have a comprehensive understanding of it and adopt correct policies, its essence will not be given full play."[xxxii] He later further expounded the essence of socialism from the two aspects of invigorating the economy and common prosperity. He said, "An invigorated domestic economy will help promote socialism without affecting its essence."[xxxiii] "The greatest superiority of socialism is that it enables all the people, and common prosperity is the essence of socialism."[xxxiv] In his discussion aimed at clarifying the confusions felt by some over the questions of socialism or capitalism during his inspection of the southern province at the beginning of 1992, Deng Xiaoping epitomised the essence of socialism. "The essence of socialism is liberation and development of the productive forces, elimination of exploitation and polarization and the ultimate achievement of prosperity for all."[xxxv] This inference enriched and developed the Marxist theory of socialism, and brought to light the inherent relationships between the various specific features of socialism, pointed out the direction of development and the primary task of socialism, and expounded its main functions and values, thus raising our understanding of socialism to a new level. This inference unified productive forces and the relations of production, the development and emancipation of productive forces, and the goals and methods required, thereby overcoming the earlier limitations of a biased emphasis on relations of production and on the ultimate goal of communism to the neglect of the emancipation of productive forces and the practical means of achieving these goals. This inference also cast aside the traditional socialist economic theory that a planned economy was the basic feature of the socialist economic system, which had been demonstrated to be wrong in practice, and helped the further deepening of our understanding of socialism.

Fifthly, without democracy there would be no socialism or socialist modernisation, and democracy is an important political feature of socialism.

In view of the wanton, violation of democracy and the legal system during the "cultural revolution," Deng Xiaoping pointed out that, "Without democracy there can be no socialism and no socialist modernisation."[xxxvi] Focusing on the malfeasant ways the "cultural revolution" was operated, he added, "It is true that errors we made in the past were partly attributable to the way of thinking and style of work of some leaders. But they were even more attributable to the problems in our organisational and working system. If these systems are sound, they can place restraints on the actions of bad people; if they are unsound, they may hamper the efforts of good people or indeed, in certain cases, may push them in the wrong direction." I do not mean that the individuals concerned should not bear their share of responsibility, but rather that the problems in the leadership and organisational systems are more fundamental, widespread and long-lasting, and that they have a greater effect on the overall interests of our country. This is a question that has a close bearing on whether our Party and state will change political color and should therefore command the attention of the entire Party."[xxxvii] Deng therefore maintained that "Democracy has to be institutionalised and written into law, so as to make sure that institutions and laws do not change whenever the leadership changes, or whenever the leaders change their views or shift the focus of their attention."[xxxviii] "Alongside the expansion of our productive forces, we should also reform and improve our socialist economic and political structures, build a highly-developed socialist democracy and perfect the socialist legal system."[xxxix] By improving the legal system we mean that in every aspect of national political, economic and social life, and at every link of democracy and dictatorship, there should be laws to follows, that these laws will be observed and strictly enforced, and law-breakers prosecuted.

Sixthly, there must be a high level of ideological and ethical progress, which is a feature of socialist ideology and culture.

Deng Xiaoping pointed out as early as 1979 that, "While working for a socialist civilization which is materially advanced, we should build one which is culturally and ideologically advanced by raising the scientific and cultural level of the whole nation and promoting a rich and diversified cultural life inspired of high ideal."[xl] Developing socialist ideological and ethical progress is not an issue that involved only a local area, but is a matter of overall importance for building socialism. In terms of the basic theory of socialism, the socialist society will be one in which there is all-round economic, political and cultural development. Ideological and ethical progress is an important cultural feature of a socialist society and one aspect of the superiority of socialism over capitalism. In terms of the goals of modernization established by the Party's basic line, economic development, political democracy and ideological and ethical progress form an organic whole. Ideological and ethical progress is not only an integral part of the general objective, but also an ideological guarantee for providing the whole modernization drive with motive force, intellectual support and a correct direction. Deng Xiaoping therefore emphasized that we must firmly grasp two links at the same time, that is, achieving material progress and simultaneously fostering ideological and ethical progress.

Seventhly, we must construct socialism through reform and opening-up and the policy of reform and opening-up has a most important bearing on the destiny of the nation.

Engels said in his letter to Otto von Boenigk, "To my mind, the so-called socialist society, is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change."[xli] Stalin believed that in socialist society the relations of production and productive forces, the superstructure and the economic base were "perfectly in harmony," and that moral and political unity was the motive force for the development of socialist society. Ideas that denied the existence in socialist society of contradictions between productive forces and the relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, inevitably led to the denial of the need for reform of socialism, and thus ossified the economic and political systems. In contrast, Deng Xiaoping attached primary importance to reform and opening-up and saw them as the most important aspects in practice and the most noticeable features in the new era. He emphasized that China must carry out a policy of reform: "There is no other solution for us."[xlii] "Economy reform is the only way to develop productive forces."[xliii] "Reform is China's second revolution."[xliv] He also proposed criteria for judging specific policies and measures. He said, "The chief criterion for making that judgement should be whether it promotes the growth of the productive forces in a socialist society, increases the overall strength of the socialist state and raises living standards."[xlv] Opening-up is also reform. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that the world now is open, and China's development cannot be achieved without the rest of the world. He elaborated on the great importance of reform and opening-up for the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and said, "If we want socialism to achieve superiority over capitalism, we should not hesitate to draw on the achievements of all cultures and to learn from all other countries, including the developed capitalist countries, all advanced methods and operation and techniques of management that reflect the laws governing modern socialized production."[xlvi] Deng saw opening to the outside world as a vital link in attaining the grand goal of socialist modernization in China. He pointed out during a discussion on quadrupling the GNP by the end of the century and longer-term objectives that, "we shall not be able to reach this new target without the policy of opening to the outside world.......If we don't open to the outside world, it will be difficult to quadruple the GNP and even more difficult to make further progress after that. Foreigners worry that our open policy might change. I have said that it will not change. I have told them that our first target covers the period between now and the end of the century and that we have a second target to attain within another 30 to 50 years, may be longer, but say 50 years - in which the open policy will remain indispensable."[xlvii] Under his leadership and guidance the CPC formulated the basic principles and policies of opening to the outside world, and arrangements for China's opening to the outside world in an all-round way have subsequently been made.

Eighthly, in building socialism it is essential to uphold and improve the leadership of the CPC.

One of the important lessons learned from the dramatic changes that took place in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is that the leadership of the Communist Party should not be discarded. In the new period of socialist construction, Deng Xiaoping repeatedly stressed the importance of strengthening the Party's leadership. He said, "In the final analysis, without party leadership, it would be impossible to achieve anything in contemporary China."[xlviii] The great achievements in China since the reform and opening-up were all scored under the leadership of the Communist Party. "China and China's drive for socialist modernization" he said, "must be led by the Communist Party. This is an unshakable principle."[xlix]At the same time, he also stressed that in order to strengthen the Party's leadership it is necessary first to improve it. Under new conditions and confronted by the new tasks, the Party should study new situations and problems in a spirit of reform, and improve its methods and style of work and its ways of conducting activities. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that, "In order to uphold Party leadership, we must strive to improve it."[l] "To improve Party leadership, it is necessary to improve its present state and the system under which it functions, in addition to making changes in the Party's organisation."[li] In accordance with the new historical conditions. Deng Xiaoping proposed the objective of building the party: "Our Party will become a militant Marxist party, a powerful central force leading the people throughout the country in their efforts to build a socialist society that is advanced materially and ethically."[lii]

In short, the realization of socialism and communism is the greatest and most glorious cause, but also complex and arduous task. We can only blaze a path towards socialism and communism while struggling against various hostile forces and overcoming a variety of difficulties and obstacles. In view of the pessimism felt towards revolution by some people during the period of peaceful development of capitalism, in 1913, Lenin wrote an article titled the "Historical Destiny of Marxist Doctrine." In this article he analysed the development of Marxism since the appearance of Manifesto of the Communist Party and pointed out that each of the great periods of world history had brought a new understanding and triumphs for Marxism. He also predicted, "A still greater triumph awaits Marxism, as the doctrine of the proletariat, in the coming period of history."[liii] Later historical developments demonstrated the correctness of this prediction. Today, when the world socialist movement is at a low ebb, the vigorous development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the East will surely bring about the rejuvenation of the socialist cause throughout the world. Under the guidance of Deng Xiaoping theory we will constantly show to the world through our practice that socialism has great vitality and an infinitely brighter future.

n Translated by Jiang Yajuan and Zhang Hongyan from Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2000, no. 1

n Revised by Yu Sheng and Su Xuetao
NOTES

[i] Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1994), vol. III, p.370

[ii] Karl Marx, The Civil War in France (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1974), p. 174

[iii] Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978), vol. 29, p. 103

[iv] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 370

[v] Ibid., pp. 222-223

[vi] K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1983). Vol. 3, p. 482

[vii] Op. Cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 143

[viii] Ibid., p. 232

[ix] Mao Zedong, Mao Zedong zhexue puzhu ji (Collected Philosophical Notes of Mao Zedong) (Beijing: Central Literature Press, 1988), pp. 106-107

[x] Mao Zedong, Selected Works (Beijing: Foreign Languages press, 1964), vol. 1, p. 315.

[xi] The central task is economic development, the two basic points are adherence to the `Four Cardinal Principles (keeping to the socialist road, upholding the people's democratic dictatorship, leadership by the Communist Party, and Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought) and implementation of the reform and opening-up policy.

[xii] Op. cit., Mao Zedong, vol. III, p. 164

[xiii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 164

[xiv] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1958), vol. II, p. 128

[xv] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), vol. 5, p. 49

[xvi] Mao Zedong, Collected Philosophical Notes, pp. 311-312

[xvii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 73

[xviii] Ibid., p. 285

[xix] Ibid., p. 284

[xx] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1975), p. 59

[xxi] The "Gang of Four" refers to the conspiratorial clique during the "cultural revolution" headed by Jiang Qing (a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPC). The leading members were Zhang Chunqiao (a standing member of the Politburo of the Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council), Wang Hongwen (Vice Chairman of the Central Committee), and Yao Wenyuan (a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee).

[xxii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 73

[xxiii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. II. P. 235

[xxiv] Ibid., Deng Xiaoping, vol. II, p. 53

[xxv] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 269

[xxvi] Ibid., p. 158

[xxvii] Ibid., p. 351

[xxviii] Ibid., p. 151

[xxix] Ibid., p. 351

[xxx] Ibid., p. 354

[xxxi] Ibid., p. 26

[xxxii] Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works (Chinese edition) (Beijing: the People's Publishing House, 1993), vol. II, p. 313

[xxxiii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 139

[xxxiv] Ibid., p. 351

[xxxv] Ibid., p. 361

[xxxvi] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. II, p. 176

[xxxvii] Ibid., p. 316

[xxxviii] Ibid., pp.157-158

[xxxix] Ibid., p. 201

[xl] Ibid.

[xli] K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1983, vol. 3, p. 485

[xlii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p. 235

[xliii] Ibid., p. 142

[xliv] Ibid., p.119

[xlv] Ibid., p. 360

[xlvi] Ibid., pp. 361-362

[xlvii] Ibid., p.96

[xlviii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. II. P. 251

[xlix] Ibid., p. 253

[l] Ibid.

[li] Ibid., pp. 254-255

[lii] Op.cit., Deng Xiaoping, vol. III, p.50

[liii] Op.cit., Lenin, vol. 18, p.585.

SACP Communist University

SACP — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:26:00 +0000

Communist University

Generic Courses

The list below is linked to sets of texts for use in self-education study circles.

This list will be added to, gradually, until there is a sufficient resource for all general purposes.

Capital by a Freirean Method

SACP — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:59:00 +0000

Introduction

Capital, Volume 1

Karl Marx’s “Capital, Volume 1”, first published in 1867, is the most prominent part of a project that Marx begun in the 1840s. Volumes 2, 3 and 4 were published after Marx’s death in 1883.

The project is a quest for a full explanation of what Marx called, at the end of Chapter 18 of Volume 1, “The secret of the self-expansion of capital.”

This secret is what Marx called Surplus-Value, gained by purchasing the commodity, Labour-Power, at its full value, and then putting it to work and expropriating the entire product of the actual Labour expended. This constantly-repeated process creates Capital.

In studying Capital, Volume 1, therefore, one is faced by two large challenges. The first is that the work, large as it is, cannot be fully appreciated in isolation from the history of Marx’s long quest for the secret of the self-expansion of capital, and all the implications thereof.

The second challenge is the work itself, which has an uneven shape as well as a large size.

The Communist University’s Freirean Method

The Communist University’s method, strongly influenced by the work of Paulo Freire, relies on certain simple principles and practices. Because of its size, its unevenness, and the nature of the project that it represents, Capital, Volume 1 posed much greater problems to the Communist University than any other work.

In other cases we have used extracts from books to create “Short Texts” that can be used as Freirean “codifications”¹. The point is not to learn the work, but to have a discussion. In the case of “Capital”, this principle of discussion is no less crucial; but the huge size of the project renders the search for one or two adequate “Short Texts” practically impossible.

Please note that the source of all our texts for this series has been Marxists Internet Archive.

At this point it is useful to consider the practical limitations, as the Communist University has found them to be, around pedagogy as practiced in study circles:

We meet weekly; the reading text or “codification” is given one week before we gather to discuss it. Therefore it must be sufficiently short to allow an ordinary person to be able to read it in a week. Or, which amounts to roughly the same, it should be short enough to be read out loud by one comrade to the others, in a preliminary sitting.
In the Communist University’s practice, these short texts (codifications) have been printed in an A4-folded-to-A5 stapled booklet format. This means that pages are in multiples of 4 (e.g. 4,8,12, 16, 20). The reduction from A4 to A5 requires a certain minimum font size, which in Arial font is 11-point. These limitations taken together tend to create a standard “Communist University” ratio of text to printed length.

The shape of Capital, Volume 1

Capital, Volume 1 contains 33 chapters. Most of them are short, but there are five long ones, starting with Chapter 1 (Commodities). Chapter 3 (Money) is also long, as is Chapter 10 (The Working Day), Chapter 15 (Machinery and Modern Industry), and Chapter 25 (General Law of Capital Accumulation).

The shape of the book is not random. Commodity is the right point of departure, and together with the subsequent two chapters, on Exchange, and Money, sets the scene for Chapters 4 and 5 which give the outline “General Formula for Capital”.

The remaining 28 chapters are, broadly, a carefully-paced rolling out of the idea of Surplus-Value, with all its implications, in short easy, and sometimes repetitive steps; with the exception of Chapters 10, 15 and 25. Yet these “books within the book” are not outside of the quest for “secret of the self-expansion of capital”.

Consequent design of the series “Capital by a Freirean Method”

The above considerations led to the following decisions:

The series would begin with Marx’s 1848 study-circle text called “Wage Labour and Capital”, and specifically with Engels’ 1891 Introduction to the first publication of that text, because it explains why Karl Marx worked for so many years on the question of Surplus-Value – a question that had not been fully answered in 1848, by anyone.
There would also be four other intermediate texts showing the development of Marx’s work between 1847 and 1867. These would tend to give an overview of the main work, and assist the reader/student to get a grasp of it in total.

Capital Volume 1 would be reduced, where necessary, in the following ways:

Text would be left out (i.e. “redacted”). This has been done with the third section of Chapter 1, with six of the ten sections in Chapter 15, and with all of Chapter 25.
Footnotes would be left out. This is regrettable! The footnotes to Capital are a treasury of great worth. For this reason, where there is spare space in terms of working to multiples of four pages for printing purposes (see above), footnotes have been left in.

Capital Volume 1 would be re-divided in the following ways:

Short Chapters would be combined together.
Long Chapters would be divided (or in the case of Chapter 25, left out).
In one case, (Chapters 2 and 3) one chapter is divided and part of it added to the previous chapter
The above to result a division of Capital Volume 1 into 20 parts.
The overall length of the series, including the 4 precursor texts, to be 24 parts, capable of being tackled in two 12-week parts.

The arrangement of Capital as published in the first English edition (1887) is given at the end of this Introduction, below.

Openings

The Communist University’s practice is absolutely not to have a lecturer, but instead to have one of the participating comrades, who has read the text, to “open the discussion” in the tried and tested communist manner.

An opening need not be a summary of the text. It can be a “review” of the text in the manner of a book review. Or it can be a frank statement of points in the text or expressions that the comrade found impossible to understand.

But most of all it is to bring forward one or two points for discussion out of the text, and so to “break the ice” and begin the dialogue.

In this set, which is to be published in the first place on the Internet, short “Openings” are given to each of the 24 parts of the Capital Volume 1 series. These are based on the publication of many of these parts in the Communist University blog and e-mail circulation.

These “Openings” are given as examples and as possible assistance to the reader. One could even read them all at once to get another quick overview of the work. But if their quality is not high, you should not complain. They are not given as a substitute for the text, or for the dialogue that, according to Freirean theory, will be necessary before you can internalise the text in a socially-useful way.

Capital
Volume One
The Process of Production of Capital
Contents

Prefaces and Afterwords
Part I: Commodities and Money
Ch. 1: Commodities
Ch. 2: Exchange
Ch. 3: Money, or the Circulation of Commodities

Part II: The Transformation of Money in Capital
Ch. 4: The General Formula for Capital
Ch. 5: Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital
Ch. 6: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power

Part III: The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value
Ch. 7: The Labour-Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value
Ch. 8: Constant Capital and Variable Capital
Ch. 9: The Rate of Surplus-Value
Ch. 10: The Working-Day
Ch. 11: Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value

Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value
Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value
Ch. 13: Co-operation
Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture
Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry

Part V: The Production of Absolute and of Relative Surplus-Value
Ch. 16: Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value
Ch. 17: Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in Surplus-Value
Ch. 18: Various Formula for the Rate of Surplus-Value

Part VI: Wages
Ch. 19: The Transformation of the Value (and Respective Price) of Labour-Power into Wages
Ch. 20: Time-Wages
Ch. 21: Piece-Wages
Ch. 22: National Differences of Wages

Part VII: The Accumulation of Capital
Ch. 23: Simple Reproduction
Ch. 24: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital
Ch. 25: The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation
Ch. 26: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation
Ch. 27: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land
Ch. 28: Bloody Legislation against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing down of Wages by Acts of Parliament
Ch. 29: Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer
Ch. 30: Reaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry. Creation of the Home-Market for Industrial Capital
Ch. 31: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist
Ch. 32: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation
Ch. 33: The Modern Theory of Colonisation

To read this and other Marxist texts in full, please go to http://www.marxists.org/

1. Codification: A codification is a representation of the learner’s day-to-day situations. It can be a photograph, a drawing, or even a word. As a representation, the photograph or word is an abstraction which permits dialogue leading to an analysis of the concrete reality represented. Codifications mediate between reality and its theoretical context, as well as between educators and learners who together seek to unveil the meanings of their existence.

Study Guides to Capital

Marxism.org — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:54:00 +0000

Study Guides to Capital from Marxists.org

Volume 1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/guide/index.htm

Volume 2
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/guide/index.htm

Volume 3
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/editorial/guide.htm

Movie discussion: Capitalism – A Love Story

Political Affairs — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:32:00 +0000

Capitalism: A Love story

Michael Moore's 2009 film is more relevant now then ever. Below are some possible discussion question to help better understand the issues in the movie and the problems our country faces. There aren't right or wrong answers to these questions, but lots of food for thought.

Additional footage for the film can be found at MichaelMoore.com.

1. How does the film explain the development of the "middle class" n the mid-20th century? What conditions saw the improved standard of living for many working class people? What contradictions existed at the same time?

2. The film notes the Reagan era as a dividing line between the rise of the "middle class" and its current decline. What policies did Reagan usher in and why? What were the results?

3. Moore provides stories about the impact of privatization on local communities. What were some of these?'

4. Corporations repeatedly claim that cutting jobs will allow them to save money and stay in business. Why does this not seem to work much in the examples detailed in the film?

5. Moore talks with workers and farmers about the impact of economic conditions and policies on their lives. What were some of their stories? What ways did they express solidarity with one another?

6. The film elaborates and mocks ideological justifications for capitalism. What were some of the claims for why capitalism is so good? What problems do you see with those claims?

7. The film focuses heavily on a moral condemnation of capitalism. Do you agree with that approach? Many Marxists prefer what they call a scientific critique of capitalism? Which do you prefer? Which is more effective in touching the experiences of working-class people?

8. What kind of action can your group take locally to

You can find additional readings and discussion questions about how capitalism works here. Post your thoughts on our Facebook page.

What is Capitalism?

Political Affairs — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:34:00 +0000

Pro-capitalist ideologues link capitalism with abstract democracy and claim that working-class people have the same economic interests as CEOs. The following group discussion helps to explain how capitalism actually works and what that means for the working-class.

In this session, we will begin by watching excerpts from Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story and giving new members a chance to formulate their own thoughts on what capitalism is and why it is so destructive. We will then proceed from the general to the particular, exploring diverse modes of socialist thought, investigating Marx’s definition of capitalism and class struggle, and approaching Communism as both a social/political goal and an organizing strategy. This meeting will lay out the principal questions, texts, and modes of thought that we will encounter in later meetings.

Texts to be discussed (no prior reading assumed):

    Michael Moore, Capitalism: A Love Story
    Friedrich Engels, “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”
    Karl Marx, Capital
    Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Communist Manifesto”
    V. I. Lenin, ‘Left-wing’ Communism... an Infantile Disorder

Selections from each text should be assigned for further reading and discussion.

Subjects to be covered:
1.    Capitalism as a system based on exploitation of the working class.
2.    This gives rise to the class struggle of the working class, which takes on ever new expressions.
3.    Capitalism is now state monopoly capitalism, with globalization and financialization, in the age of computers and the internet. How this impacts all working people, especially the working class, the racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth
4.    The relationship between the struggle for reforms and socialism.

Discussion questions:
1.    Can there be capitalism without the class struggle? Why not?
2.    What are the most important developments of capitalism impacting the lives of working people? Do they impact all working people equally? Why not?
3.    There is a big rising tide of struggle led by labor. But these struggles have not yet improved the lives of working people. Is it a waste of time, struggling for reforms? Why not just go for socialism itself?

What's wrong with "free trade"?

Political Affairs — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:02:00 +0000

Supporters of free trade agreements say they are needed to create economic growth. We disagree, as do most working-class and democratic organziations. The following list of links should help you develop small group discussions on the truth about free trade agreements and their impacts on the working class in the U.S. and in other countries.

Become an expert on the details and history of "free trade" and its alternatives:

Why the Colombia free trade agreement is a bad idea

CAFTA: “Free” Trade vs. Jobs, Environment, and Health

Communist Party Statement on CAFTA

Labor in the Era of Globalization

Workers Rights in the Era of Globalization

The FTAA: A Recipe for Economic Disaster

Send us additional links on these topics.

Which way to socialism?

Political Affairs — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:58:00 +0000

Capitalism seems to be able to succeed only at enriching and empowering the few at the expense of the rest of us. But how can we change that? We think socialism is a better way to organize a society. But what does that mean? And how do we do it? This group discussion as well as the additional readings should help answer some of these questions.

Read: Which way to socialism?

Group discussion:

1) What is the relationship between the political struggle for expanded democracy and the movement for socialism? Is one possible without the other?

2) The author expresses concerns about "utopian" ideas of socialism. What is the significance of that?

3) What importance does the author give to broad alliances among labor and other social movements? What work are you involved with to help build those relationships?

Further reading:
Reflections on Socialism

What is organizing?

Political Affairs — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:46:00 +0000

This discussion introduces you to how Communist Party activists and leaders work with others in their communities or organizations to build broad movements for working-class empowerment.

What is organizing video:

Discussion questions:

1) What can you do to help organize in your community?
2) How might you use the party's strategic policy and the tactics (as described in the video) to organize your work?

Further reading: Party's program