People Before Profit blog

Brother Reich is Wrong About Socialism

Thu, 17 May 2012 15:29:00 +0000

After a life in the union and socialist movements, I am always amused when the most ardent liberals take time out to redbait themselves, thus making themselves look both cowardly and ridiculous as they run away from their own values. Former Clinton Administraton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has been a consistent and for the most part sober critic of austerity politics and economics. His blog is one of the first places I go for reliable analysis of the economic news of the day. He not only knows the economics landscape well, his experience in the real world of politics makes gives him a good political BS meter. So -- I treat him as a brother!

Still, the first two paragraphs of Reich's column "The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution" are simply false.

First he says "Francois Hollande’s victory doesn’t and shouldn’t mean a movement toward socialism in Europe or elsewhere. Socialism isn’t the answer to the basic problem haunting all rich nations." Perhaps Reich only understands "socialism" to mean late Soviet--style socialism. In that case the sentiment he expresses would be true -- to an extent (although no one has ever explained to me how Russia was supposed to escape from the putrid Tsarist Autocracy in the midst of WWI except through the Bolshevik seizure of power; nor has anyone explained the dangers when corruption gets so bad that democratic institutions are nullified).

Hollande's victory is not a step towards the USSR. But, of course, socialism is an infinitely broader concept than that, if that is REALLY what troubles Reich.

Socialism, including Communist and Marxist ideology, embraces all efforts to overcome, ameliorate or mitigate the horrors of unregulated capitalism by advancing public goods and public supervision of risks to entire societies when regulation of capitalism fails. Every effort to strengthen public wealth at the expense of private is a step towards socialism. These steps happen, have happened, and will continue happening, in every society when behavior or production in the capitalist/market sectors of society result in market failures -- the inability to deliver necessary goods and services society deems essential to security and progress. Do steps toward socialism mean the end of capitalism? NO. Markets are appropriate for millions of goods and services, and capitalist relations will be a useful part of society for a long time -- even if the Communist Party were leading society!

Reich continues, "The answer is to reform capitalism. The world’s productivity revolution is outpacing the political will of rich societies to fairly distribute its benefits. The result is widening inequality coupled with slow growth and stubbornly high unemployment." Brother Reich -- what possible reform can you be considering that does not entail public sanctions against the prerogatives of wealth and private power?

You make important observations on the huge rise in productivity -- and champion the recovery of those productivity gains from the 1% to the 99%. But by denouncing "socialism" -- "I am not a socialist" -- you head into a fist fight having cut off your own right hand.

The only means of recovering those gains for the working class (whose work DID the production!) is increased bargaining power (the return of socialistic unionization -- you think a vast restoration of employee bargaining power can happen without allying with socialists???);
A more socialistic tax policy on the rich;
investing in universal, "socialistic" free education;
investing in universal, "socialistic" health care;
public "socialistic" investment in a new generation of manufacturing;
nationalizing (socializing) parts of the energy industry;
investing in more planned (socialistic) housing and infrastructure development;
socialistic public control of Wall Street activities, including public control and supervision of "too big to fail" or "too big to manage" corporations.

The day you declare "I am not a socialist" -- you implicitly agree to take the "socialistic" content of your own proposals off the table of real negotiations. In the health care debate, for example, the number one objective of the private insurance industry (revealed in Wendell Porter's Deadly Spin) was to smear Michael Moore's Sicko sufficiently to insure that single-payer "medicare-for-all" proposals were off the table. They won that fight, meaning the chief target remaining for defeat became the "public" option which, once anything "socialistic" was off the table and out of bounds, became a man with his feet planted in mid-air.

To be fair to Brother Reich, fighting red-baiting is not easy. But there is a better, truer, more honest path, however, then folding to the dishonest and false "I am not a socialist" tack. Every society on earth is part socialist and part capitalist. Everyone really knows this -- even the most truculent Republican. Every society requires public goods and transfers via government to achieve the goal of everyone sharing proportionally in the gains from our ever more creative labor. No serious participant in US politics advocates a society ALL capitalist, or ALL socialist. That we need more socialism in numerous areas of our economy and an aggressive turnaround on inequality throughout our institutions is the major question of our country in this time. We can't get there demonizing socialism. We can't get a fair and democratic consideration of the right mix of public and private prerogatives and social domains red-baiting ourselves.

Come home, Robert Reich -- don't be afraid to wear coats of many colors, of rainbow design, like Joseph of old.

Engels on the State, Family, Education and Sex

Wed, 09 May 2012 15:24:00 +0000

In the last chapter of his book Anti-Dühring, Engels treats of the state, family,education and sex by critiquing the views of the German "socialist" and professor Eugen Dühring's on these subjects. Dühring had created, on paper, a complete system of socialist governing thru means of collectives which, Engels has pointed out in his analysis in earlier parts of this book, is completely unworkable and perpetuates the capitalist relations of production and distribution which socialism is supposed to abolish.

Having set up his system Dühring undertakes to discuss the nature of the "state of the future." His ideas are, Engels maintains, watered down simplifications of notions he has gleaned from Rousseau and Hegel. In his own words, Dühring bases his state on the "sovereignty of the people." He explains what he means in the following passage of essentially meaningless mumbo jumbo: "If one presupposes agreements between each individual and every other individual in all directions, and if the object of these agreements is mutual aid against unjust offenses-- the the power required for the maintenance of right is only strengthened, and right is not deduced from the more superior strength of the many against the individual or of the majority against the minority."

Don't worry if that passage doesn't make any sense, as Dühring adds the following to explicate it. He says, "THE SLIGHTEST ERROR in the conception of the role of the collective will would DESTROY the sovereignty of the individual, and this sovereignty is the only thing conducive to the deduction of real rights." Engels thinks this pretty "thick" even by the standards of Dühring's so called "philosophy of reality."

This is especially so since the "sovereignty of the individual" consists in the fact that he or she is, Dühring says, "SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE COMPULSION by the state." This is because the state "serves natural justice" and that is the best guarantee of individual sovereignty. There will be a police force for internal security and an army as well-- to enforce the will of the state-- which is the same as that of the community of sovereign individuals and to ensure people don't use their sovereignty in an incorrect and unsovereign manner. And just in case the state makes an error, well, the citizens will still be better off than they would have been if left in the state of nature! Anyway, they will get free lawyers too boot.

Since Dühring says his new state is based on "sober and critical thought", he announces that religion will be banished from the commune."In the free society," he says, "there can be no religious worship; FOR every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers. [A] socialitarian system, rightly conceived, HAS therefore … TO ABOLISH all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship."

It is important to note, since in the real history of socialism in the twentieth century some socialist and communist states tried to eliminate religion and religious practices by forceable means, that this idea ["the state HAS to…"] comes from Dühring, an enemy of the Marxist outlook, and not from anything Marx or Engels had to say. Engels explicitly criticizes this view.

This is not to say Marx and Engels were in anyway "soft" on religion ["opium of the masses" and all that] but they respected "individual sovereignty" enough not to dream of using the "state' [which they wanted to abolish in any case] to trample on people's rights of conscience in religious affairs.

At this point Engels adds a succinct account of the Marxist view of the origin, social function, and future of religion. It is more or less as follows. Religion is just a reflection in the brains of people of the forces in the external world that are out of their control which affect their lives and that they imagine as supernatural beings which they need to fear and placate. Originally these were the powers of nature that took on the guise of gods and goddess, but as human society progressed and evolved social forces also came to assume these roles. Over time, in the West at least) the many gods and goddess representing these alien powers were distilled down to one god [monotheism e.g., Jews and Moslems, or three gods posing as one as in the Jewish-pagan synthesis called Christianity- tr] and in this form religion will have a lease on life as long as humans are dominated by natural and social powers they neither understand nor control.

In contemporary capitalist society people are dominated and controlled by an economic system that they have themselves made yet rules over them as if it were an independently existing power beyond their control. The Market-- made by humans, rules humans. This is essentially the same reification as is found in religion and it reinforces religious attitudes and beliefs already historically present in modern society. Engels thinks of this development as the First Act of human development. It is now time for the Second Act.

In the Second Act humans will take control of the means of production and distribution which they have created over the long ages [thereby hangs a tale] and by means of scientific understanding and advance be able to control them rather than being controlled by them. Science will also explain the origins of life, the workings of nature, and the role of humans, leading to advances in medicine, agriculture, education, etc., so that humans will seek to understand the world instead of bowing down before it in stupefaction.

Engels says "only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish: and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect." Dühring can't wait and wants to administratively abolish religion before humanity has reached the intellectual and social level where it will of its own accord fade away. This will only inflame resistance, antagonize the masses, and strengthen the hold of superstition over the brains of people by giving it "a prolonged lease of life." I might add, if some of the socialists and communists of the past century, let alone this one, would have taken Engels to heart many mistakes and tragedies could have been avoided.

After Herr Dühring has disposed of religion he tells us that "man, made to rely solely on himself and nature and matured in the knowledge of his collective powers, can intrepidly enter on all the roads which the course of events and his own being open to him." Fine. Let us see how "man" travels down these roads. First he is born. Then he, or she as the case may be, is under the control of his mother the "natural tutor of children" until puberty (about 14 years) when the role of the father kicks in, as long as "real and uncontested paternity" can be demonstrated. If not a guardian is appointed. Ancient Roman law serves Dühring as a model for these ideas.

This shows, Engels says, that Dühring has no sense of history. The family, for him, is immutable, basically the same in Ancient Rome as in modern capitalism with no allowance for the changes in economic conditions and social relations between the ancient world and contemporary world. Engels then quotes the following passage from volume one of Das Kapital to show the superiority of Marx's outlook to Dühring's. Marx wrote that "modern industry, by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production, outside the domestic sphere, to women, to young persons, and to children of both sexes [due to the rise of the working class movement capitalism's urge to exploit children in the productive process has been somewhat curtailed-- tr] creates a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and the relations between the sexes."

This new form is still in the process of creation, but there is no going back to the Ancient Roman family, nor even, as our Republican politicians are learning to their chagrin, to the patriarchal family of the Christian Middle Ages-- so beloved by the reactionary classes in our country.

Dühring next informs us that "Every dreamer of social reforms naturally has ready a pedagogy corresponding to his new social life." He may think he is putting others down and himself coming up with a truly scientific plan for the educational needs of society, for the "foreseeable future", but he is actually a worse dreamer than those he opposes, according to Engels.

In the schools of Dühring's future cooperative society the children will, Dühring writes, learn "everything which by itself and in principle can have any attraction for man" and so will include "the foundations and main conclusions of all sciences touching on the understanding of the world and of life." Dühring also tells us he sees in outline all the textbooks of the future but he is personally unable to actually see their contents and just what the children will be learning as that "can only really be expected from the free and enhanced forces of the new social order." But they will concentrate on physics, math, astronomy and mechanics while biology, botany, and zoology and such will be "topics for light conversation" [!]. He completely forgets to say anything about chemistry. Engels says his knowledge of the sciences seems to be confined to "Natural History for Children"-- a popular book of the 18th Century by Georg Christian Raff (1748-1788).

When it comes to the humanities, Dühring sounds like a second rate Plato. He wants to ban, for example, the great artistic creations of the past because too many of them have religious themes. As Plato banned Homer for portraying the Gods with human flaws, so Goethe is banned by Dühring for "poetic mysticism" and others for any religious content at all-- since religion is banned completely in the future state.

American monoglot educators will appreciate Herr Dühring's attitude to foreign languages. Latin and Greek will be junked entirely, who needs dead languages. Living foreign languages "will remain of secondary importance" and the students will really concentrate on their own native tongue. Engels thinks this a way to perpetuate the dulling national narrow mindedness of people who are basically ignorant of the world and of the Other. Latin and Greek actually open up people's minds to a broader perspective of the world and history, at least if they have a classical education, and learning foreign modern languages also allows peoples to have greater understanding of others and their cultures. Dühring's views are those of the narrow minded Prussian Philistine and similar to the "English only" bigotry found on the right in this country.

Engels gives Dühring credit for at least being aware of the fact there will be a difference between educational policies under socialism and those currently employed in bourgeois society, but since he keeps capitalist relations of production in place in his future communal society he can't quite figure out what those policies will be. Thus he is reduced to coming up with such ideas as "young and old will work in the serious sense of the word" which, along with other empty phrases, Engels calls "spineless and meaningless ranting."

Engels counterpoises a brief comment on socialist education from volume one of Das Kapital where Marx says that "from the Factory system budded, as Robert Owen has shown in detail, the germ of the education of the future, an education that will, in the case of every child over a given age, combine productive labour with instruction and gymnastics, not only as one of the methods of adding to the efficiency of production, but as the only method of producing fully developed human beings." Our own educational system, which produces drop outs and graduates functional illiterates, is American capitalism's answer to what education will be in the future.

Finally, after we find out how children will be educated in Dühring's future society, we find out how they are to come into the world. Dühring, no doubt inspired by Plato's Republic, tells us that future humans must be "sought in sexual union and selection, and furthermore in the care taken for or against the ensuring of certain results." We are here on the road to Dühringean eugenics. The most important thing to keep in mind about the future births is not the number but "whether nature or human circumspection succeeded or failed in regard to their quality." This leads Dühring to conclude that "It is obviously an advantage to prevent the birth of a human being who would only be a defective creature."

Modern scientific sentiment would not reject this conclusion out of hand, regardless of the feelings of those blinded by religious prejudices or logically challenged. It all depends on the kinds of defects that are presented. Dühring is thinking, however, along lines made popular by Nietzsche, of some sort of super human race compared to the run of the mill humans that unaided Nature tends to produce.

Dühring believes in a human right which may be important, but is not generally appealed to these days, for the purposes of eugenics, i.e., "the right of the unborn world to the best possible composition" [biologically-- tr]. "Conception," he says, "and, if need be, also birth [infanticide- tr] offer the opportunity , or in exceptional cases selective, care in this connection." Dühring is not just talking about medical defects-- but also "aesthetic" defects.

He thinks. in fact, that people should be bred to look like the ancient Greeks! "Grecian art -- the idealization of man in marble [not "European" man but "man"]-- will not be able to retain its historical importance when the less artistic, and therefore from the standpoint of the fate of the millions, far more important task of perfecting the human form in flesh and blood is taken in hand." OK, so we won't all look like Antinous or the Venus de Milo but that goal will be a work in progress for the future Dühringean society.

How does Dühring bring about the this perfection of the human [ancient Greeks-- Dühring had no use for modern Greeks] form? Well, he says force would be harmful but it will come about as a natural result of the mating of beautiful people-- sort of by an "invisible hand" (but in this case a different anatomical feature will be at work). Here is Dühring's quote: [From the] "higher, genuinely human motives of wholesome sexual unions … the humanly ennobled form of sexual excitement , which in its intense manifestations is PASSIONATE LOVE, when reciprocated is the best guarantee of a union which will be acceptable also in its result…. It is only an effect of the second order that from a relation which in itself is harmonious a symphoniously composed product should result."

Engels thinks Dühring's views on sex are "twaddle." This is because force would have to be used to make sure all unions were "wholesome" by Dühring's standards. In the real world it is not just the beautiful people who fall in love and have children (symphoniously composed products) but all kinds of people so "the second order" effects of love making would be the same in the future communal state of Herr Dühring as they are now. [He could however try for a rigged lottery a la Plato's Republic to match up the "best" people and only allow those with baby licenses to reproduce. This would lead to more problems than the Chinese have had with the one child policy-- which was successful in limiting population numbers but a failure from the point of view of creating balanced population growth.]

Engels also critiques Dühring's "noble ideas about the female sex in general"[prostitution is a normal activity due to the constraints of bourgeois marriage]-- but both Dühring's ideas and Engel's response are too shaped by nineteenth century conditions to be applicable to twenty-first century advanced industrial societies so I will pass this topic by and come to the conclusion of Anti-Dühring.

After having gone over all the major views that Dühring had presented in a series of writings over the years, and refuting them by giving a proper Marxist response to his mixed up theoretical constructions, Engels sums up Dühring's oeuvre as being the product of MENTAL INCOMPETENCE DUE TO MEGALOMANIA.

Postscript: Eugen Dühring survived Engel's critique and wrote more books and articles. In the 1880's he began turning out anti-Semitic writings some of which led Theodor Hertzel to conclude that the Jews needed their own state. Frederick Nietzsche's rantings against socialism were the result of his having read Dühring's works not those of Marx and Engels (although I doubt it would have made any difference). Of his many books only one has been translated into English-- his anti-Semitic tract on the Jewish question was published in 1997 as "Eugen Dühring on the Jews" by 1984 Press. Dühring died in 1921 thus being deprived of seeing the fruits of his anti-Semitic labors. These and other interesting facts about Dühring are to be found in the Wikipedia article "Eugen Dühring." These articles on Engels' book Anti-Dühring have been published serially over the past two years in Political Affairs (and some have also appeared in Counter Currents, Dissident Voice, NYC indymedia and other internet venues) and the complete set can be found published together on my blog (Thomas Riggins Blog) as well as at the blog Philosophy and Marxism Today as "Engels' Anti-Dühring: A Twenty-First Century Commentary."

Racism and the Far Right: How I Know it's Racism

Wed, 09 May 2012 13:48:00 +0000

By Anna Bates

We live in dangerous times. Racial tensions in America are high, as evidenced by Trayvon Martin's shooting and other incidents, and too few people seem to notice. Xenophobics of the Far Right, exemplified by Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, occupy mainstream media daily, providing an air of legitimacy for their clearly racist views. Obvious acts of racial violence are described as random violence, skewing the picture and disguising serious rottenness. These things suggest to me that we are dealing with the greatest threat to American Democracy since the whiplash reaction to Radical Reconstruction in the late 1860s, which spawned the first Ku Klux Klan. Here is how I recognize that deadly racism.

First, I read some good history books. Historians Herbert Aptheker, Edmund Morgan and W.E.B. DuBois correctly identified racism as the cornerstone upon which the entire American economy and government were built. This is why; although behavior may change over time, racism would be nearly impossible to root out without killing the entire organism.

I add to that history my personal experience. I know racism because I grew up a white kid in a segregated southern town. Conroe, Texas, an oil boom town from the 1930s, was so severely segregated that Black visitors from Alabama and Mississippi during the 1960s could not believe that local African Americans still lived in shinny shacks. During my childhood in the 1950s and 60s, Black and white people did not interact in Conroe, except for the few African Americans who worked for white families. We had separate churches, separate doctors, separate stores. I remember well the "white" and "colored" water fountains, rest rooms (Men, Women, and Colored), and that if a Black person ordered something from a local restaurant, it was automatically to go. Conroe did not desegregate its schools in the 1960s, opting instead for a token system wherein one or two African American kids attended the white local public schools. The Black kids went to Booker T. Washington, and used hand-me-down books from the white schools.

I moved away from Conroe and its culture many years ago, and except for visits to my parents, who lived there until their deaths in 1997 and 2004, did not return. Then, came Facebook. Three years ago, I was delighted to hear from several of my high school classmates. We exchanged photos, and stories about what we did after high school. I even attended my 40th high school reunion last year. Then, things went sour. Anti-Obama slogans and links began to appear on my page daily, all from former classmates. The ugliest, most racist material, the Joker faced Obama, racist Obama jokes, etc..., were daily items, not to mention pro-gun epithets and NRA propaganda. I retaliated by posting some pro-Obama (and also pro-choice and pro-women's health care) items. I suddenly found myself with only a couple of friends, and they only communicated to discuss nostalgic newspaper photos of how great Conroe looked during Christmas in 1961, and how they all wished it were that way now.

FINE, I thought. I left Conroe. Apparently these people did not. And, recalling the high school reunion last year, Conroe has not changed that much. It's larger, having incorporated some outlying communities, and more people live there now. A large Hispanic community grew from the 1970s on. African Americans from other places moved in and blended into a now semi-cosmopolitan town. A stranger does not notice the segregated forms that are still very obvious to me. I know this because I drove through Dugan on the visit to my high school reunion. I could not believe what I saw. Many African American in Conroe still live in shacks. And my former classmates are the reason why.

So, when I see anti-Obama posters and slogans, I recognize them for what they are. They are evidence that racism is alive and well in America today. The Southern Poverty Law Center confirms that hate groups are on the rise (SPLC Newsletter, 2/23/2011). Fringe groups such as The Sovereign Citizens Movement, which declares the entire U.S. government illegitimate, are growing. The Ku Klux Klan is rebounding. Some of these groups rally round an idea they call Christian Identity, which claims the only real Christians are descended from white people who traveled from Israel through Ireland and then to the U.S. My stomach gets tight thinking about it. This all sounds so similar to the stories we heard as white children in Conroe. The snake in the Garden of Eden was a Black man. Cain killed Abel and the Lord turned him black. I could go on and on. It is all part of a bizarre and very frightening historical narrative, and the narrative is unfinished.

The ramblings of Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent and other rightist wing-nuts are well known, and it is not difficult to see racism behind their rants. Less obvious, though, is the racism inherent in multiple "acts of random violence," such as the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 by Jared Lee Loughner, an avowed racist. The media emphasized Loughner's drug use and behavior changes rather than his anti-government views. And, are not those associated with most abortion clinic bombings affiliated with one or another right-wing organizations? This month, May 2012, five white male members of an anarchist group planned to bomb an Ohio bridge on May Day. The motives behind all these things are divergent on the surface, but beneath them run a deep, deep tide. The tide of American racism.

The election of Barak Obama three years ago gave me hope. More Americans than I thought possible now respect and acknowledge Obama as their president. Obama's attention to fairness for all Americans and his support of many efforts to improve the lives of those who have not benefitted from trickle-down economics show that he is truly a leader of the future. Despite blizzards of resistance from the far right, he got a sweeping health care bill passed, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and closed the Medicare "Donut Hole."

But with these messages of hope come admonitions of future violence. Racism, whether explicit, as in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, or implicit, as in the NRA's insistence that the Second Amendment assures their members the right to shoot anybody they don't like on sight, is alive and well in America today. To keep hope alive, we must be vigilant of racism's ugly maneuverings. Do not assume that right-wing slander is politics as usual. It is not. It is fueled by racism with a long history and deep roots. Looking forward, we can fight for progressive policies knowing something of the strength of our opposition.

The "F" Word and the 2012 U.S. Elections

Wed, 09 May 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let me say that the "F" word I am writing about is fascism-which we might call the generic term used for the last ninety years for terroristic dictatorships of the right--- national chauvinist, militarist, racist, imperialist dictatorships serving and protecting the class interests (wealth and power) of existing ruling classes by suppressing trade unions, democratic organizations and movements of the people.

Fascist movements often engage in pseudo populist rhetoric, call themselves "revolutionary" as they shift positions opportunistically on specific issues, even employ different economic policies at different times and places in history, e.g., the state directed monopoly capitalist policies of Mussolini and Hitler before WWII compared to the "free market" and privatization economic policies of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile in the 1970s and 1980s and of many contemporary military junta states.

But open terroristic dictatorships of the right defending the interests of existing ruling classes remains the same. To paraphrase a famous comment by a U.S. judge concerning pornography, fascism, because of the opportunism and adventurism of fascist movements and states, may be hard to define "but you know it when you see it."

Fascism also doesn't appear out of nowhere and its dangers take many forms. It can advance through mass political movements and parties funded by powerful capitalist interests or through military coups. In most cases, fascism can be seen as a political backlash to either a major economic crisis that the existing political system cannot contain and/ or against movements and parties of the socialist/communist left, or amorphous mass movements of the poor who constitute a direct threat to capitalist rule.

Some Examples from History

After World War I, Benito Mussolini, an ex-socialist expelled from the Italian Socialist party for his support of WWI, emerged as the most successful organizer of nationalist paramilitary groups made up of WWI veterans, those who had learned to fight and kill, to fear and hate. Although Italy was on the winning side in the war, its rulers felt that they had not gotten their share of the victor's spoils and there was great social instability in the country. Mussolini's party, calling itself fascist after the symbol of authority in the Roman Empire promised to "save Italy" from socialists, communists, and liberals and establish a new Italian Empire, as great as Rome.

Mussolini's movement/party soon gained financial support from landlords and industrialists threatened by socialist workers occupying factories and peasants refusing to pay taxes and in some cases seizing land. It was then was handed state power by a conservative government in 1922 after its black shirts gangs threatened a March on Rome.

At the time, the Fascist Party did not have great mass support and the regular army could have easily dispersed the march (which Mussolini himself feared). After governing "constitutionally" for nearly three years with the support of Italian capital(softening the people up) , the fascist regime, following the murder of a prominent socialist legislator, Giacomo Matteottti, abolished all non fascist political parties, trade unions, and mass democratic organizations.

It did so with either the indifference or approval of the major capitalist "democracies," including the U.S, where Mussolini was hailed as a "strong man" who put down the socialist and communists and made Italy more "efficient" (the best remembered phrase was that Mussolini "had made the trains run on time").1

Adolf Hitler, an obscure pre-WWI Austrian immigrant to Germany and wartime German army corporal,(a messenger or runner) led a similar movement/party in postwar Germany, a far more important and powerful nation which had lost the war.

Germany had had the largest and most influential Marxist socialist party in the world before WWI and revolutionary socialists had tried and failed to make a socialist revolution in the aftermath of the war. Hitler called his party "national socialist" (the term had resonance in Germany like the Boston Tea Party has in the U.S). but like Mussolini's fascist party, Hitler's used terroristic violence against Socialists and Communists and called for a third "super" empire (Reich) that would regain everything that the German empire had lost in WWI and create a German dominated Europe organized on the pseudo scientific "Nordic Aryan race theory" (already in use by some as a rationale for imperialism) and the oppression of Jewish and other minorities ("racially" inferior peoples) throughout a German empire dominated Europe.

Although a liberal Republic had been established in Germany after WWI and the German left had substantial mass support in large but rival Socialist and Communist parties, the conservative dominated state government of Bavaria and conservative elements of the civil service and the judiciary through Germany provided various forms of protection for the Nazis before they became a mass force, since many on the respectable right saw them as an "insurance policy" against socialist and Communist parties," just as "conservative " segregationist Southern governments in the South at the same time often provided various forms of protection for the Klu Klux Klan which they saw as an enforcer of white supremacy and a variety of policies to prevent unionization and keep all of Southern labor very cheap.

When Hitler for example sought to copy Mussolini's success with an uprising in Munich in 1923 (which ended in a fiasco in a beer hall) the Bavarian government and judiciary gave him what was in effect a slap on the wrist in the form of a very light prison sentence served under fairly luxurious conditions-a similar, albeit much more bloody uprising in Berlin three years earlier had resulted in the Prussian state Social Democratic government's execution of the ring leader, a officer named Kapp.

With the coming of the great depression, the Nazi party was able to greatly expand its base, win over millions of voters who had previously voted for conservative anti-socialist parties, and become the largest single party in Germany. Even more so than in Italy it had the support of leading industrialists and former high military officers and other sections of the German ruling class.

As in Italy a decade before but in the midst of a far greater economic crisis, a constitutional but much more rightwing Weimar government, then in power, was "reorganized "in early 1933 with Hitler, the "strong man" of the German right, as Chancellor.

However, the deepening depression and the increasing lawlessness of the Nazis led to the calling of new elections which most observers at the time believed would result in a further decline of the Nazi party's share of the vote and an increase in votes for the left, particularly the Communist party, leading to the collapse of the Hitler led "constitutional "government (what would then follow no one knew, although many expected either civil war or some kind of military coup).

What did happen of course before the elections was the Reichstag fire conspiracy, the Hitler government's use of the fire to "legally" gain the two thirds vote in the Reichstag necessary to suspend the constitution and establish martial law-the abolition of all non Nazi parties, trade unions, peoples organizations, the establishment of concentration camps initially for socialists, communists, and trade unionist opponents of the Nazis, and the savage state directed persecution of the Jewish German minority, both the religious minority and those who were declared "Jews" according to Nazi "race theory", which soon became German law.

The socialist American novelist Upton Sinclair wrote at the time that "Fascism= Capitalism + Murder." The American journalist Leland Stowe said simply that "Nazi means war." Both were to be proven very right as the Hitler regime engaged in a massive re-armament program, forged an alliance with both the Mussolini regime and the Japanese empire, supported various fascist movements in central and Eastern Europe and provided along with Mussolini massive military aid to the Spanish fascists after the initial failure of their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Spanish Popular Front government,
Leading to a civil war.

Then, following its rearmament and a new international economic downturn in 1937, it launched a campaign of territorial annexations which finally resulted in a new World War

The "F" Word becomes Invisible after WWII

The defeat of the fascist Axis alliance in World War II also brought with it major advances and victories for socialist, communist and national liberation forces through the world.

But fascism hardly ceased to exist, although the political forms associated with the European Axis states were no longer a force.

First, the "cold war" brought about a new world situation, one in which the centrist forces who to save themselves had allied with the left (the Soviet Union and Communist led partisans and armies through Europe and Asia) to fight an anti-fascist world war now to save the capitalist world system allied themselves with the right(including the former Axis powers and both their former collaborators and active supporters) to fight an anti-Communist "cold war.

Liberal ,socialist, and communist analysis of fascism, as either irrational mass rightwing politics feeding on long established prejudices(liberal) a movement of the most reactionary provincial sectors of capitalist class against modern urban industrial society(socialist) and an open terroristic dictatorship of these same reactionary sectors in the service of finance capitalism/imperialism(Communist) were supplanted by the "totalitarian" theory, which focused largely on an all powerful state disconnected from class forces or even specific ideologies.

The totalitarian theory was then used to contend that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were similar states and that fascism and communism were similar movements, regardless of the huge differences in both their ideologies and their policies in regard to militarization, relationship to religious, ethnic, and national minorities, support for existing ruling classes, support for colonial empires etc.

By 1950, the U.S., which had been the middleman between the USSR and the UK in the Center-Left alliance that defeated the fascist axis in WWII, was the dominant power in the Center -Right alliance against Communism and the Soviet Union, establishing the NATO alliance and intervening indirectly in the Chinese Civil War and directly in the Korean Civil War-allying itself openly with those who had in many cases supported the appeasement policy toward fascism symbolized by the Hitler-Chamberlain Munich agreement .

At the same time, in an act of hypocrisy worthy of the British empire at its 19th century best, U.S. cold war governments invoked over and over again both the Munich agreement and the appeasement policy in order to use military force and all other means to fight "communism" national liberation movements, and neutralist governments. In such a way was history with a decade stood on its head.

In Latin America, military junta regimes, some welcoming Nazi and other fascist war criminals with open arms, brutally oppressed their own people with the direct support of U.S. cold war administrations. Although Franco's "officially" fascist regime remained a pariah in Europe after the war, it began to receive substantial aid from the Eisenhower administration in return for military bases.

When the Central Intelligence Agency acted to overthrow a democratically elected pro worker peasant government in Guatemala (1954) which had nationalized some land owned by the U.S. United Fruit Company, it unleashed a military regime that carried out large scale terror and murder against peoples organizations while it cancelled all taxes on foreign capital and disenfranchised three quarters of the population.

In Iran, the Central Intelligence Agency (1953) had overthrown a democratically elected government which nationalized what had been a British oil monopoly, ending a constitutional monarchy led by a progressive Prime Minister and replacing it with a monarchy similar to the German fascist allied monarchies in pre WWII Rumania and Bulgaria.

In South Africa, the "Afrikaner"(Dutch and German ethnic colonial settlers) Nationalist party, led by men who had been imprisoned by the British in WWII because of their Nazi connections, established In the post British coloinlal "Republic of South Africa" a racist state which overtly copied Nazi race laws and policies as it denied all civil and human rights to the African majority and launched as its long range goal, a genocidal policy of forced resettlement of Africans into tribal "homelands" whose food production could only sustain a small fraction of those to be resettled. #

While no one used the now tabooed "F" word to describe these states,(the word was even used rather sparingly for Franco) they were all open terroristic dictatorships seeking to serve and protect the power of existing ruling classes and, in terms of the old Comintern definition, "in the service of finance capital" (now represented globally the IMF-World Bank system advanced by the U.S. and its NAT0 allies) which kept them from launching aggressive wars against each other, but supported their permanent war against their own people.

And these regimes along with various "contra" movements, death squads, paramilitary militias connected to fascist organizations and movements saw their crimes against their own people treated with "benign neglect" as long as they acted as either official or unofficial allies of the U.S, NAT0 bloc.

Contemporary Fascism and the "New World Order"

Following early Axis victories, Hitler in 1940 proclaimed a "New Order" in Europe. Although this term was closely identified with the Nazis and used widely in U.S. literature and films as a synonym for Nazi occupied Europe and what the Nazis sought to inflict on the world, George H W Bush revived the phrase to proclaim a "New World Order" at the time of the collapse of the Gorbachev led Soviet Union and the first Gulf War.

In the U.S. and other NAT0 bloc countries, there already was evidence of the resurgence of forces that arguably fitted the older definitions of fascism.

In the U.S. the rise of rightwing Christian churches and coalitions and their influence in the Republican Party saw violent fascist groups seek to use this development to form "churches" which preached Hitlerite fascism connected to a very twisted coating of Christian theology.

Feeding also on historic "anti-government" rhetoric used traditionally in the U.S. to defend the property of the upper classes and the popularization of the cowboy movie -gunslinger political imagery used as a rationale for foreign policy in the Reagan years,( and of course the most lax firearms laws in the developed world), fascist groups piggybacked on this "conservative revolution" to form both anti government gangs like the Posse Comitatas and "militias"(paramilitary groups nowhere near as large or organized or directly connected to powerful sections of the existing ruling class as the storm troopers , black shirts, iron guardists, and others who were a significant part of the European political landscape before WWII, but still greater in terms of paramilitary groups than anything that existed in any other developed country).

These U.S. groups were protected primarily by policies rooted in the distorted interpretation of the right to bear arms advanced by the National Rifle Association(NRA), whose power as a lobby was greater than any progressive group, and less directly by various conservative politicians associated with the Republican party in Western and Southern states. Also, these groups were given some given access to mass media, and even referred to as a "militia movement."

By far the best and ongoing analysis of these groups has been done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which, along with its other substantial accomplishments, deserves to be seen as a leading clearing house for anti-fascist data, analysis, and action.

Mass media's treatment of these groups was generally negative on a descriptive level and individuals members and factions were prosecuted when they committed robberies and murder.

Also, one must re-iterate that these groups, which feed on both mass fears of their scapegoats and themselves, still are in their numbers and level of organization a small fraction of mass fascist movements/parities of the past or the violent fascist gangs that roam freely through many of the world's poor countries today with the tacit approval of the ruling groups in those countries.

But it is important to recognize that the extent to which they have been allowed to disseminate racist propaganda, form gun clubs, establish paramilitary training camps, is both unique when compared to all other developed countries and represents a potential longterm danger.

In military junta states in the past and today "third world "countries with defacto repressive oligarchies, just as in the "old South" of disenfranchisement, segregation and "white primary democracy," the "militias" and the somewhat more respectable "tea partiers" serve both as watch dogs and potential political masters for those with wealth and power.

Also, in the U.S. recent acts of a reactionary judiciary packed with more and overtime more extreme reactionaries for the greater part of the last four decades by Republican administrations from Nixon to G W Bush; the assaults of the police intelligence apparatus on peace activists, anti- monopoly protesters, and citizens of the Muslim religion without probable cause for their actions; the encouragement that rightwing media, especially "talk radio," gives to vigilantism; and the glaring lack of real anti-fascist,anti-racist education in the society all act to sustain this danger.

"Conservative" politicians have for many years permitted these groups, still small and divided largely among themselves, to operate through large areas of the U.S. with general impunity in ways similar to the initially small Nazi party's ability to operate with impunity in conservative Bavaria in the pre depression Weimar Republic. Not to note address this danger today is to risk its growth into something far greater in the future.

The Obama Presidency and the Fascist Danger

Fascist forces have been growing in U.S. NAT0 bloc countries, exploiting both the immediate global capitalist crisis along with a new international labor 'market', unemployment and the corresponding erosion workers social wage---health, pension, childcare, housing and education benefits---which in the U.S. have been called "entitlements" since the Reagan era.

In France for example, the "traditional" fascist National Front, has garnered votes on anti-immigrant anti-Muslim policies while holding on to its "traditional "anti-Communist and anti-Semitic tenets. Similar ultra rightist parties have won votes on anti-non European immigrant and especially anti-Muslim immigrant campaigns, portraying Muslims as enemies within.

While the respectable parties of the center right (German Christian Democrats, French Gaullists, British Tories etc.) have so far kept these parties at arm's length, (outside of Italy, where neo-fascists were part of the Berlusconi led coalition government for years, they have   served as a distraction at best from the mass campaigns against European "austerity" governments, garnering votes by blaming immigrants, poorer countries within the European Union, and the European Union itself for the crisis.

Even in "new Russia," a "respectable" fascist oriented party, calling itself the "Liberal Democratic Party" and led by a national chauvinist and anti-Semitic politician, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, with the style of an American burlesque comic, was been used by the "new Kremlin" leadership to suffuse opposition to the system of state crony capitalism that it has fashioned.

In the U.S. though the situation is different. Whether it is better or worse is a matter of debate.

In the U.S. there is no mass fascist party gaining anywhere from five to ten percent of the vote in national elections , "hanging around" as the Nazis did in 1920s Weimar Germany, and functioning as some European parties do today mostly as a chauvinist "protest" vote among traditionally middle and working class voters hostile to the influx of non European immigrants into their declining communities.

But in the U.S. those who represent what these parties represent in Europe have become a powerful force in the Republican party, turning what was a center-right party in the pre Reagan era and right-center party in the early Reagan era into a party of the right and the ultra-right, identifying itself with a variety of policies that voters in the rest of the developed world, whether they identified with such policies or not, would see as fascist policies. The GW Bush administration provided a significant cover for de facto "F" word politics in the U.S. Using the September 11 attacks(blowback from the Reagan and Bush I funded "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan aka the Al Qaida-Taliban "terrorists" after they turned their anti-Soviet, anti-Zionist and anti-Communist "holy war" against the U.S. following the fall of the Soviet Union) as a pretext   the administration proclaimed an open ended "war against terrorism."

The administration then under a variety of guises advanced the following "F" word policies First, it established at Guantanamo on Cuban soil the most notorious prison camp in the world. Then it used methods there and at other camps regarded as torture under international law.   Also, it outsourced torture to allied repressive regimes.

In what still constitutes a great potential threat to American freedom in future Republican administrations, it sought to defend these actions with legal theory which not only sought to enhance the power of the presidency but also to defend the prerogative of the president to act above the criminal and civil law-something reminiscent of the Fuhrer Prinzep(or leader principal) used by Nazi juridical scholars to justify the Hitler regime, that is, a one way responsibility of the people and the state to the leader.

One could go on at great length to catalogue the ways in which the Bush administration went beyond the Reagan administration in its pursuit of ultra -right policies that veered in the direction of fascism---the rationale for and the policies used in the Iraq war and occupation, the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the police powers given it, the assault upon established definitions of probable cause and due process for searches, seizures, and arrests, the use of preventive detention.   What is important though is the dangers that stem from their cumulative effects and, even with the Iraq withdrawal and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, their continuation under the Obama administration.

The election of Barack Obama , the first African American to reach the presidency in 2008 to the presidency (something that virtually all Americans would have considered impossible a few years earlier), established a new situation in the country-one that offered hope to both huge numbers of Americans and people throughout world. But Obama faced both the cumulative effects of six decades of post WWII reaction and denial concerning the existence of and danger of fascism and nearly four centuries of North American institutional racism(246 years of de jure slavery followed by a century of de jure segregation and nearly a half century of de jure integration and uneven de facto integration).

Obama's very nomination and his victory (the first Democratic presidential candidate to receive a majority of the vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964) can and should be seen as a major political victory over both this sordid history of racism and the more contemporary use of racism in the Reagan and post Reagan domestic reaction. But, as the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, Civil Rights leader and key associate of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. once said "baseball teams don't strike themselves out. Rattlesnakes don't commit suicide."

The reactionaries and racists whose personal attacks on President Obama have been unprecedented for attacks on a major party candidate and sitting president-denunciations of Obama as a Muslim, Communist, Socialist, or some combination of all three, the attempts to "prove" that he was not born in the United States and thus cannot legally be President; the attempt, aided and abetted by both mainstream media and the respectable right, to turn his very name into a pejorative term ("Obama care" for example) and of course the incitement and open threats of violence against him.

These are propaganda techniques more extreme than those used by Joe McCarthy in 1950s and only slightly less extreme than those used by Adolf Hitler in Weimar Germany. And these attacks have not abated, but have continued and intensified through both mainstream electronic media and the Internet. And they have become more sinister. To the most reactionary sectors and racist "fan base" of the capitalist class,(to combine part of the Communist and Socialist definition of fascism with U.S sports entertainment analysis) the very existence of an Obama administration is a threat to the hatred and prejudice that has fed and sustained their existence.

For decades now, these reactionaries have crafted a network of commercial "talk" radio demagogues(Limbaugh, Savage, Newton, et al) using the putdowns and insults and distortions, the "traditional" propaganda techniques associated with "traditional " European fascist movements and regimes day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

The elimination of "equal time" provisions in FCC regulated U.S. media   in 1988 has enabled the capitalist backers of "fascist talk radio" to do that.   And the Right has its own powerful commercial news and entertainment television network.

The Fox news television network serves today as the leading outlet for the ultra- right, routinely crossing an unguarded border between "respectable conservatism" and what in much of Western Europe is still considered neo fascism-advancing the interests of these forces both inside and outside of the Republican party.

In a classic 1940s sociological study of American fascist rhetoric and appeal, Prophets of Deceit A Study in the Techniques of the American Agitator(1948) Leo Lowenthal and Norbert Guterman saw fascist demagogues like Hitler imitator Gerald .L. K. Smith as engaged in a racket to sell memberships, tickets to speeches, books pamphlets, etc, to audiences susceptible to their   fascist message. In a sense they were borrowing from general advertising and show business, although this did not mean that they were not dangerous.

Ultra-right commercial "talk" radio plays that role today, but it also functions along with Fox News and "televangelism "as a propaganda arm for a far right dominated Republican party.

Since rightwing fundamentalist   radio-television "evangelist" Jerry Falwell formed the "moral majority"(1979) to be followed and supplanted by rightwing 'televangelist" media mogul and Republican party power broker, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and Christian Broadcasting Network, clerically led well funded "new right" forces have become a major force inside the Republican party over the last two decades.

They have used their media and their churches to distort U.S. history in regard to the separation of Church and state, and to try to mobilize voters in a rightwing religious "united front" with conservative Roman Catholics .

Rightwing foundations, the best known of which are the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, have and continue to fund a wide variety of rightist campaigns and "educational" activities in the tradition pioneered by the 1930s Liberty League, which funded both "respectable" and overtly fascist campaigns against the New Deal, labor and the left and primarily defensive battles against the New Deal and which the Comintern in 1935 saw as an important example of the fascist danger in the U.S.

Early in the Obama administration, from the foot soldiers of these established rightwing networks, secular and religious, came "demonstrators" vilifying "big government" and all proposed Obama administration legislation, continuing with greater fury the hysterical personal and political attacks on Obama that had filled the internet during the 2008 campaign.

These groups also began to disrupt town meetings of Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and other elected federal and state and local officials, making wild charges of government conspiracies and acting in a menacing manner. Suddenly they were a self-proclaimed "tea party" funded by the Koch brothers, minor league equivalents of German Steel baron Fritz Thyssen, a major funder of the Nazis and other reactionary capitalists , embraced by right and center right mass media, and used as a "watchdog" and weapon against the Obama administration.

And their message and demonstrations, even when they were small, received widespread media coverage at a time when establishment pundits were proclaiming that the U.S. was a "center-right" country opposed to the programs on which Obama had run and been elected. Even though sections of the press reported all sorts of ugly incidents connected to "tea party" demonstrations in Washington(including racist abuse of Congressman John Lewis and harassment and threats against then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democratic legislators,) all of this went unpunished.

The Obama administration's own failings in regard to its anti-crisis stimulus program-the lack of an effective jobs and infrastructure/public sector revitalization program as the center of the stimulus, as against massive "bailout" loans to finance capital, cost the administration the active support of many young people and others who had played a leading role in Obama's election(not necessarily their votes but their community grassroots activism).

The administration also can be faulted for its attempt to use this important and largely independent progressive constituency only around election time-not as a force to sustain progressive legislative initiatives against the lobbyists and backroom party power brokers of both parties. The 2010 elections were a significant defeat for the administration and its progressive supporters. Ultra right "tea party" supported Republicans took advantage of the administration's failure to advance an effective jobs and income stimulus program to win what were essentially protest vote victories through large areas of the Industrial Middle West, in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and other states(earlier, an ultra right candidate, Christopher Christie, had won a narrow victory in the 2009 New Jersey governor's   election)

These right Republican state administrations have launched a full scale war against public sector unions, attempting to enact anti-collective bargaining legislation that would in effect extend the "right to work" principle which anti-trade union forces enacted in Southern and Western states to public sector employees through the country.

While in states with strong progressive traditions(Wisconsin, for example, the state of both La Follette and McCarthy, of Governor Scott Walker and the advancing movement to recall him from the governorship) there has been large and growing resistance to these policies and politicians at the state level, the major battles in the elections of 2012 are yet to be fought.

Anti-Fascist Strategies for 2012

President Obama will face Mitt Romney in the Presidential election. During the Republican nomination race, the overt fascist danger was most directly represented by former Pennsylvania Senator Rich Santorum, who with some success built a clerical "united front" of rightwing Protestants and Catholics by both taking ultra right stands on reproductive rights and other "social issues" and making the most open and direct attacks on and distortions of the Constitutional meaning of the separation of church and state in modern U.S. history.

Santorum also both frightened and appalled many by his support of far- reaching repression against undocumented workers and use ofe   the demagogic style associated with European and American fascists in the past, if not their specific all of their specific policies. He has withdrawn and thrown his support to Romney.

Texas Representative Ron Paul, whose style is very different from Santorum and who is seen as a "Libertarian" has been supported by a wide variety h rabidly racist and anti-Semitic neo Nazi groups through the internet (in a few cases these neo Nazis have sought Republican nominations for political offices}.

While Paul has in no way engaged in this racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric, this support may be because Paul, in his attacks on U.S. foreign policy and his call for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board, really echoes the old pre WWII "isolationists" who blamed "Jewish Wall Street" and "Jewish bankers" and the "Jew Deal" for both the depression and an anti-fascist international foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich, perhaps the most effective destructive right Republican politician after Reagan and GW Bush over the last generation(leader of the Republican right's "contract with America" multi-faceted assault on federal public assistance, rights of undocumented workers, and further deregulation of the banking system(eliminating major New Deal legislation which survived the Reagan onslaught) after failing to defeat the younger Santorum in the battle for the "F" word constituencies inside the Republican party, will soon withdraw and support Romney.

If Romney wins, all of the "F word" forces will be greatly strengthened. First, Romney will almost inevitably pursue the kind of austerity policies which have prevailed in the "Euro" zone in the U.S., a nation without a real welfare state. Sharp reductions in social security benefits, and in federal aid to everything except perhaps the military very probably would ensue.

If the crisis produced simply deeper stagnation, these groups, like their counterparts in the American South until the end of segregation, would "hang around" to blame all of the economic and social problems of the country on "tax and spend liberals", "big government,"   minority "enemies within" and foreign powers(China would be the most likely suspect) abroad.

If these policies led to a general depression, politicians like Santorum and propagandists like Savage and Newton, along with clerical right leaders might in effect be invited into and/or become the government- a government most likely suspending basic civil rights and liberties with the support of the corporations and the military industrial complex.

An Obama administration that failed to carry forward stimulus policies that directly advanced the interests of the working class would face greater threats from the far right inside and outside the Congress and the Republican party .And, if it pursued the only rational "fiscal conservative" policy available, that is substantial cuts in the military budget, the danger of some military supported coup against it.

But an Obama administration that campaigned on a peoples program to tax capital, regulate finance capital to compel it to invest in small and medium sized business for job creation, reregulate Wall Street and both outlaw many of its predatory policies and heavily tax others, would have a significant chance to establish the sort of electoral majority that the New Deal and the Great Society in its domestic policies used.

Such policies, along with a serious debt reduction policy for the people, would put the most reactionary sectors of capital very much on the defensive and encourage the main groupings of industrial and finance capital to do what capitalists here and abroad have done in similar situations-pull the plug on the "tea partiers" and the Walkers, Kasischs, and Christies of the new "respectable" right, not to mention the Republican education officials in Arizona and various anti-immigration politicians who seem to be auditioning for roles as Nazi Gauleiters, because the dangers to them of continuing such support would be too great.

This informal people's front behind and in the ideas it advances in front of the Obama national campaign, in support of progressive candidates through the country is the only serious lesson we can draw from the history of the struggles against fascism today.

Leftist refusals to confront the Republican right danger, like the misdirected Comintern inspired policies in Germany in the early 1930s, the MIR ultra left attacks on the Allende regime in Chile in the early 1970s, and the unconstructive criticisms launched today by sections of the left against the Obama administration the trade union movement and all progressive organizations that understand the necessity of supporting the administration to keep the right Republicans from seizing the presidency offer nothing that is new to the struggle against fascism.

They   increase the danger that George Santayana, a reactionary political philosopher but a smart one, understood when he said what has become a cliché mentioned endlessly but rarely applied: those who learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it.

We can and must stop them from doing that and direct all of our energies to a counterattack that will not only defeat the Republican right and the fascist danger which emanates today largely from their ranks but to prepare for peoples offensive that will fundamentally change the balance of political forces in the U.S. in the interests of labor and the people.

My frustration with the Left when it comes to electoral politics

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:38:00 +0000

I was recently asked to participate on a panel regarding the Left and electoral politics. I declined. For many people this may seem strange since I have been a very strong proponent of the Left looking at electoral politics strategically. Well, that is all true but I have encountered a problem and maybe you can help me resolve it.

Most Left “debates” on electoral politics take a very predictable route. It looks something like this:

Electoral politics will not bring about socialism and freedom.
The Democrats have consistently sold us out. They are the party of the rich.
The Republicans and the Democrats are two wings of the same evil bird of prey.
We need an alternative.
Therefore, either:

Abstain from electoral politics and wait till the masses, in their millions rise up against capitalism, or…
Create a pure, anti-corporate (if not anti-capitalist) third party right now and start running in elections even if we do not have a snow-ball’s chance in hell of winning.

What I have found striking about this line of thought, and the so-called debates that unfold around it, is that they are actually un-political and lack any sort of concrete analysis.

Let’s be clear so that we do not have a needless exchange. Electoral politics under democratic capitalism will not result in our freedom. Second, the Democrats are not the party of the working class. So, now that we have that out of the way, what do we do?

Electoral politics is a field of struggle. It is an arena. On that arena, however, we on the Left can do two things: participate in the struggle for popular power and raise issues that have the possibility of gaining greater attention. Much of the Left focuses on the latter and ignores the former. Many who focus on the struggle for power, however, abdicate being Left altogether. Therein exists the challenge.

Given the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system, a concrete analysis of the USA (rather than other countries) means that we have to grapple with what it means that in most elections independent, third party candidacies fail and are viewed as spoilers. There are certainly historical exceptions, but those exceptions prove the general rule. This means that a concrete examination of US electoral politics must focus on the notion that a third party movement on the Left will more than likely result from an “insurrection” within the Democratic Party and a major section of its base (with the character of such an “insurrection” being more of a united front rather than a pure, Left challenge). This is to be counterposed with the idea that such a party arises out of nothing, or to put it in its best case, out of generalized popular discontent.

So, if we on the Left really want to discuss electoral politics we must examine a concrete question: what do we do in the USA given the nature of the electoral system? If your answer is to simply raise the red flag of radicalism to see who salutes, with all due respect, you are not serious about politics; you are stuck in the world of pure ideology.

The larger challenge for the Left in electoral politics is conducting the fight, in and through our mass organizations, for the recognition of the need for an independent, progressive program that represents the interests of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. We should not start with organization in the abstract, but with program. We then need to figure out under what conditions we run people within Democratic Party primaries and under what circumstances we run independently. Always, I should add, recognizing that this is a fight within the context of democratic capitalism for structural reforms, thereby laying the basis for the longer-term struggle for socialism...

…That is, if we are interested in the fight for power rather than just being ‘correct.’ But, alas, it will mean that we will need to get a bit untidy in the alliances we will need to build.

Show me a ‘purist’ revolution and I will show you a bridge that you can buy for almost nothing.

Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a longtime labor, racial justice and international activist. He is an Editorial Board member and columnist for BlackCommentator.com and a Senior Scholar for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. He is the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and a founder of the Black Radical Congress.

Fletcher is the co-author (with Fernando Gapasin) of Solidarity Divided, The Crisis in Organized Labor and A New Path Toward Social Justice (University of California Press). He was formerly the Vice President for International Trade Union Development Programs for the George Meany Center of the AFL-CIO. Prior the George Meany Center, Fletcher served as Education Director and later Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO.

Fletcher got his start in the labor movement as a rank and file member of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America. Combining labor and community work, he was also involved in ongoing efforts to desegregate the Boston building trades. He later served in leadership and staff positions in District 65-United Auto Workers, National Postal Mail Handlers Union and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Fletcher is a graduate of Harvard University and has authored numerous articles and speaks widely on domestic and international topics, racial justice and labor issues.

The Peoples Front

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:18:00 +0000

The policy of the People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, proclaimed by the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, has aroused a mighty echo among the working masses of all countries. The practical realization of this policy in France and Spain has provided clear proof that the People's Front is actually possible and has enhanced its popularity.

There is not a single country, at the present time, where the idea of the People's Front does not daily find more and more adherents among all those who cherish democracy and freedom, among all those who advocate peace among nations. The effort to form a People's Front is growing as well in countries where the bourgeois-democratic revolution has still by no means had its last say; in Japan, for instance, where the fascist-feudal military clique, with its rapacious military adventures on Chinese territory and on the frontiers of the great Soviet Union, is thrusting the Japanese people into an abyss of most terrible calamities. And it is growing also in the so-called classic countries of bourgeois democracy, in Great Britain, for instance, where the destinies of nations have been traditionally decided by the two parties of monopoly capital -- the Tory and the Liberal -- which, by their reactionary policy both nationally and internationally, pave the way for the burial of democracy and peace.

The tremendous historical significance, the correctness and timeliness of the People's Front policy, are perhaps particularly clearly expressed in the attitude toward this policy shown by the enemies of the proletariat, the enemies of democracy and peace, the fascist war-incendiaries, and the reactionary forces throughout the world. The governments of capitalist countries, bourgeois parties, statesmen and politicians, bourgeois newspapers, have all become seriously alarmed by the decisions of the Congress. The reactionaries of all countries have raised an unparalleled campaign of slander and calumny against the Communist International and against all adherents of the People's Front. In fascist Germany they have even formed a special organization, called the "Anti-Comintern," to carry on propaganda on an international scale against the Communist International and to combat the policy of the People's Front. At the National-Socialist Congress in Nuremberg, Hitler, Goebbels and Rosenberg opened a particularly furious cannonade against the danger of the People's Front, which is menacing the fascist dictatorship, and against democracy in general. While directing the most vehement outbursts against the already existing People's Front in France and Spain, they at the same time thus expressed their alarm and fear of the People's Front movement which is taking shape in Germany itself. The Pope at Rome and their "graces" the bishops in different countries hastened with epistles and sermons, to shield their flock from that "frightful Bolshevik danger," the People's Front. The question of the People's Front is always in the columns of the press in the capitalist countries and is the subject of the most lively discussion.

The workers' class enemy quickly sensed and understood what a tremendous danger the People's Front, the unity of all anti-fascist forces, constitutes for him. As long as the proletariat is disunited, as long as it is isolated from the other strata of toilers, the working people in town and country, as long as it has not established proper relationships and collaboration with the other democratic forces in the country, it is not so difficult, as the examples of Italy, Germany and Austria have shown, for the handful of financial and industrial magnates, for the fascist bourgeoisie, to crush the working class movement, to defeat the various strata of the people one by one, and destroy democracy. The fascists have successfully applied the well-known crafty motto -- "divide and rule."

But when the scattered proletarian detachments, at the initiative of the Communists, join hands for the struggle against the common enemy, when the working class, marching as a unit, begins to act together with the peasantry, the lower middle classes and all democratic elements, on the basis of the People's Front program, then the offensive of the fascist bourgeoisie is confronted with an insurmountable barrier. A force arises which can offer determined resistance to fascism, prevent it from coming to power in countries of bourgeois democracy and overthrow its barbarous rule where it is already established.

As the examples of France and Spain have shown, the establishment of the People's Front signifies a turning point in the relation of forces between the proletariat on the one hand, and the fascist bourgeoisie on the other; to the advantage of millions of the working masses. The People's Front makes it possible for the lower middle classes, the peasantry and the democratic intelligentsia, not only to resist the tutelage and oppression of the clique of finance capital, but also to rise up against it in defense of their vital interests and rights, relying for support on the militant collaboration of the working class nationally and on an international scale. The People's Front offers a way out of the situation which seemed so hopeless to the sections of the lower middle classes, who considered themselves doomed to submission to fascist domination. The People's Front helps the working class to avoid the political isolation toward which the bourgeoisie purposely impels it; it creates the most favorable conditions for the working class to accomplish its historic role, to head the struggle of their people against the small clique of financial magnates, big capitalists and landlords, to be in the vanguard in the uncompleted democratic revolution and in all movements for progress and culture. The class struggle between exploited and exploiters thus receives an immeasurably wider base and a mighty scope.

While the split in the ranks of the working class, the absence of unity between them and the other strata of the working people, pave the way to power for fascism, the unity of the proletarian ranks and the formation of the People's Front ensure victory for democracy over fascism, defend peace against fascist incendiaries of war, and in the long run pave the way for the victory of labor over capital.

It is difficult to imagine a higher degree of political shortsightedness and absurdity than to contrast the principles of the class struggle with the policy of the People's Front, as some of our overzealous critics "from the Left" do in regard to the decisions of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International. We frequently observe the characteristic phenomenon that not a few Left Socialists, who have become disillusioned with the Social-Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and are moving away from reformism are frequently inclined to go to the other extreme and become the victims of sectarianism and Leftist excesses. They make the mistake of identifying the policy of the People's Front with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and demand "a pure working-class policy," declaring that the joint struggle of the working class and the democratic sections of the lower middle classes, the peasantry and intelligentsia against fascism constitutes a retreat from the position of the class struggle. But this does not at all mean that the People's Front policy is identical with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie it only shows that we must patiently explain the class meaning of the People's Front policy to the sincere Left Socialists and help them to get rid of their own political shortsightedness, which can only play into the hands of fascism and reaction in general.

2

As was stated at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, the People's Front will be formed in a different way in different countries, depending on the historical social and political peculiarities of each country and the concrete situation existing therein. To imitate' uncritically and transfer mechanically the methods and forms of the People's Front in one country to another can only complicate its formation, expansion and consolidation.

However, as experience has shown, it is equally true for the majority of the capitalist countries, that:

First, the formation of the People's Front is possible in the actual struggle today against fascism;

Second the People's Front will be realized the more rapidly and the sections of the working masses joining it will be the greater, the more determinedly the working class itself acts as one unit, the more quickly its organizations, and in the first place the mass trade unions and the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties, bring about unity of action in the struggle against fascism;

Third, the People's Front will spread and strengthen as its program for the defense of the interests of the working people, for the defense of democracy and peace against fascism and the fascist warmongers, is carried out;

Fourth, the success of the People's Front is entirely dependent upon the extent to which its ranks are consolidated, and upon the extent to which the masses and organizations which take part in it have undergone political and organizational preparation so as to be ready promptly to repulse every blow aimed by fascism, without waiting for its general offensive.

Today, when the Spanish people is engaged in a deadly struggle against the fascist rebels, when fascism is raising its head everywhere in the capitalist countries and, in the first place, in France, Czechoslovakia and Belgium, it is the supreme duty of the working class to hasten in every way the formation and consolidation of the People's Front by establishing united action nationally and on an international scale. It is the duty of Communists to do everything necessary, taking into consideration the conditions in their own countries, to help the working class to fulfill this its historic task.

If we are briefly to formulate the most important, immediate tasks which the whole situation today places before the world proletariat, they may be reduced to the following:

To exert every effort to help the Spanish people to crush the fascist rebels;

Not to allow the People's Front in France to be discredited or disrupted;

To hasten by every means the establishment of a world People's Front of struggle against fascism and war.

All these tasks are closely linked. The most urgent, though, of these tasks, the very first at the present moment, is that of organizing international aid to the Spanish people for their victory over fascism.

The course of development in all the capitalist countries in the near future will depend a great deal upon the outcome of the struggle of the Spanish people against the fascist brigands. The action undertaken by the fascists in Spain has shown once more that fascism is not only the bitterest enemy of the proletariat, the enemy of the Soviet Socialist Republics, but the enemy of every form of liberty, of every democratic country, even if its political and economic regime does not go beyond the bounds of bourgeois society.

Fascism means the destruction of all the democratic rights won by the people, the establishment of a kingdom of darkness and ignorance and the destruction of culture; it means nonsensical race theories and the preaching of hatred of man for man, for the purpose of kindling wars of conquest. Death and destruction are being spread today in Spain by the rabble who form the Foreign Legion, by the duped Moroccan troops led by fascist generals, and by the ammunition and military units sent to Spain by the fascist rulers of Germany, Italy and Portugal. The combatants of the Republican army fighting at the walls of Madrid, in Catalonia, in the mountains of Asturias, all over the peninsula, are laying down their lives to defend not only the liberty and independence of Republican Spain, but also the democratic gains of all nations, and the cause of peace against the fascist war incendiaries.

The special significance of the Spanish events consists in the fact that they have demonstrated the mighty power of united proletarian action, the power of the People's Front in the struggle against fascism. For it is now quite clear to everybody that if united action had not been achieved between the Communist, Socialist and Anarchist workers in Spain, if a broad fighting front of the Spanish people -- from the Communists to the Left Republicans -- had not been formed, the fascist generals would long ago have established their dictatorship. They would have wreaked bloody vengeance upon the workers and other toilers and upon all democratic elements all over the whole of Spanish territory. They would have doomed the country to an orgy of medieval reaction and inquisition, would have placed it under the heel of German and Italian fascism, would have handed over to them the most important strategic points in the Mediterranean, and have turned Spain into a military base for carrying out their robber war plans.

But in Spain the fascist rebels and their inspirers from Berlin and Rome have encountered that force which is barring their way. They have encountered the armed resistance of the People's Front. The Spanish people by their heroic struggle are today demonstrating how democracy is to be defended against fascism. The victory of the Spanish people is the interest of all who do not want to suffer fascist barbarism in their country. The victory of the Spanish people will be the victory of the whole of world democracy, the victory of progress and culture over fascist reaction, the victory of the peace the People's Front in France and strike a heavy blow at fascism in all countries.

The heroic struggle of the Spanish people serves as a striking and convincing warning to the fascist forces of darkness in those countries where they are feverishly preparing for fascist coups d'état, that the time has passed when fascism can make use of disunity in the ranks of the working class and other toilers, when it can catch the people unawares, when it can deceive the politically backward sections of the population and seize state power. It shows that where there are a firm People's Front and international solidarity of action among the working class, it will be impossible to establish fascist rule over a people prepared to defend their freedom and independence. Thus, the cause of democracy and peace in Europe, the struggle against fascism and war in all countries, is linked in a thousand ways with the interests of the People's Front in Spain, whose courageous fighters have taken up arms to defend the Republic and ensure the victory of the Spanish revolution.

3

Everything that has happened during the recent period, and primarily the lessons of the Spanish events, point to the fact that the time has come when we must defend democracy by every means, including the force of arms. These are the lessons that must be learned and well remembered by all workers and other toilers, by all those who do not want to become victims of fascist bondage and savage violence.

It is not at all that the supporters of democracy and peace are in general advocates of armed struggle, but that fascism kindles the flames of civil war against the democratic regime of the country, brings about destruction and death, and compels the people to defend their lives, their freedom and independence by taking up arms.

It must be understood that it is not a case now of some far distant menace of fascism, but that fascism, which has already set up its terroristic dictatorship in such big countries as Germany and Italy, and is seeking to do the same in Spain, is preparing to crush the working class movement and to destroy democracy in other countries, and that it kindles the flames of world imperialist war.

The war undertaken by fascism against the Spanish people cannot be considered as a casual isolated act. No, this war is a link to the chain of the fascist offensive on the international arena. No illusions must be harbored that the war undertaken by fascism against the Spanish people will be the last of its kind. Fascism is preparing to strike at democracy in France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, at the democracy of England, Switzerland, Scandinavia and other countries. Everywhere the fascist reactionaries are feverishly working, from within and without, to prepare, organize and, at a convenient moment, to carry out fascist rebellions and coups d'état. In order to prepare for a new imperialist war, to seize foreign territories and to subject other nations, in order to ensure the unbridled rule of the most reactionary, rapacious elements of finance capital and to Organize a crusade against the Soviet Union, fascism needs to smash the working class movement and destroy European democracy.

All adherents of democracy must bear in mind that the fate of anti-fascist democracy in Europe is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the working class, with the establishment of the People's Front. Democracy will inevitably perish under the blows of the fascist offensive, if it does not rely for support on the working class and the broad masses of the working people, if it is not prepared to defend itself against fascism by every means at its disposal.

The policy of retreating before fascism, both nationally and on an international scale, brings grist to the mill of fascism; it brings destruction to the nations, it means the end of democracy. This policy is equally harmful for those who retreat before fascism inside the country and those states which retreat before it on the international arena.

The fascist rulers of Germany are systematically blackmailing the countries of bourgeois democracy, and the present rulers of those countries succumb to the influence of this blackmail. But it must be realized that the brazen fascists are becoming the more insolent the more concessions are ceded to them, and the less the resistance they meet. The fascists are using their well-tried method of provocation. In Germany they burned the Reichstag and then shouted that the Communists had done it. In Spain they started a rebellion against the parliamentary regime, against the lawful republican government, and then shouted that the People's Front was to blame for the civil war. The fascists put fear into the hearts of the spineless liberals and flabby democrats; while the democratic jobbers fearing for their profits and the ministers, politicians and leaders from the ranks of various liberal and democratic parties who cling to their soft seats, as well as not a few people from the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals, give way to this intimidation and do their utmost to find means of conciliation with fascism. They try to persuade us that such a "middle" policy can be adopted whereby "the wolves would be satisfied and the sheep go unharmed." But concessions will not sate the fascist wolves. This kind of policy will not check them. Actually it only leads to demobilizing the forces and the will of the working masses.

The Spanish events provide a particularly vivid example in this respect, too. It is now clear to all that the fascists, and first and foremost the fascists of Germany and Italy who have raised the revolt, with the Spanish generals as their cat's-paws, counted upon the young Spanish Republican government not offering them any serious resistance; they expected that it would not be difficult for them to subject the country and take over its natural wealth and the islands having strategic importance. In resorting to military action in Spain the fascists had before them the examples of the recent past, when their criminal acts had been allowed to go unpunished. The introduction of compulsory military service in Germany, the militarization of the Rhineland, the seizure of Ethiopia by Italy and the earlier seizure of parts of China by Japan, which took place with the connivance of the bourgeois democratic countries and the League of Nations, have whetted the appetites of the fascist bullies and encouraged them to attempt a new robber raid. The fascists would never have dared to kindle the flames of civil war in other countries, to send arms, airplanes, tanks, flotillas of warships and, lastly, army units, had they been promptly and firmly checked. They would have been compelled to retreat if; at the very beginning of the fascist rebellion in Spain, they had encountered the mighty force of the international working class movement marching in a united front, if they had encountered resistance on the part of the bourgeois democratic governments, if these governments had not supported the blockade of the Spanish Republic by their fraudulent policy of non-intervention.

We often hear the argument advanced by people who pretend to be adherents of democracy, that the establishment of the People's Front only leads to increased fascist aggression, that it hastens the armed action of fascism. From this they draw the conclusion that if you want to avoid the barbarous rule of fascism, do not form a People's Front, but try to come to terms peacefully with Hitler and Mussolini and your own Hitlers and Mussolinis in each country. But nothing could be more misguiding and harmful for the proletariat and the people in the bourgeois democratic countries than to follow the sheepish wisdom of these woebegone democrats. It amounts to the absurd, stupid, foul moral: "Don't annoy the beast if you don't want it to attack you." And this monstrous moral is being taught to the Social-Democratic workers precisely after the cruel defeat of the working people of Germany and Austria!

For in Germany and Austria, as is well known, the leaders of Social-Democracy and the trade unions had absolutely refused to undertake any joint action with the Communists, their excuse being that the united front with the Communist Party would alienate the middle strata from the working class, would strengthen the position and the aggression of fascism, would hasten on its general offensive and lead to fascist victory and the annihilation of democracy. It was as a result of this policy that the German and Austrian people suffered heavy defeats, followed by countless horrors and calamities.

On the other hand, we see that the People's Front in France has barred the way against fascism, while it is precisely owing to the People's Front that for five months now the Spanish people have been heroically defending their liberty and independence. In this grave struggle the chances for victory will be the greater the more the Spanish working class is able to maintain to the end the firm unity of the People's Front, the more it is able to subordinate the historically formed differences between the Communists, Socialists and Anarchists, to the greater interests of the people, to the cause of suppressing the fascist rebellion, the more determinedly it resists the attempts at taking dangerous leaps over the inevitable stages of the revolution advocated by certain shortsighted sectarians, light-minded visionaries and Trotskyite provocateurs. Finally, the quicker and more resolute the support afforded to the Spanish people by the world proletariat and the whole of progressive mankind, the sooner will the Spanish people finish with the fascist rebels.

An analogy, it is true, is not always proof, but frequently it throws a clearer light on a given situation. We can definitely assert that if; at the time of the Leipzig trial when the sword of brutal Hitler fascism hung over the heads of the accused Communists, the anti-fascists of all countries, and we in court, had adhered to this wiseacre policy of "Don't annoy the beast," German fascism would not then have suffered such a moral and political defeat, the heads of the falsely accused Communists would not have remained on their shoulders, and the "St. Bartholomew Night" prepared by the bloodthirsty fascists for the thousands of prisoners of fascism in the jails and concentration camps would not have been averted.

No, the policy of "Don't annoy the beast," is an unworthy policy! It is a policy which under all circumstances is fatal for the working class, for democracy and peace. On the contrary, the fascist beast must be muzzled. It must be confronted by the mighty organized fist of the People's Front. It must be muzzled in iron so as to prevent it from biting. It must be struck at and finished once and for all, in order to save the democratic gains won by the people and safeguard peace.

This, of course, does not mean that we should fall prey to the provocations of the fascists, who, while using all means to kindle the flames of civil war inside the country and imperialist war abroad, seek to deceive the masses of the people and create the impression that it is precisely the parties of the People's Front and the states which support peace that lead to civil war and military complications.

In the contemporary political history of Europe we have two most important and instructive examples showing different attitudes toward fascism that led to diametrically opposite results.

While in Germany the Social-Democratic leaders refused to establish united working class action and, precisely because of this, facilitated the advent of the fascists to power, we have a different example in France. The French proletariat, thanks to the joint action of the Communist and Socialist Parties and the policy of unswerving struggle on the basis of the People's Front against the fascist danger, caused fascism to be effectively repulsed and prevented the fascists from establishing their rule. This is the greatest victory of the proletariat and democracy in Europe after the coming of fascism to power in Germany. And the working people of other capitalist countries can and must learn much from the French proletariat.

But these successes in France are only the first successes. They must be consolidated; they demand that the offensive against fascism proceed further. Every attempt to discredit and break up the People's Front must meet with the most resolute resistance on the part of all workers, all anti-fascists. The mustering of the fascist forces within the country, the growing fascist aggression in neighboring countries, the Spanish events, which are fraught with lessons to be learned, indicate clearly to the workers and all anti-fascists that they must increase their efforts tenfold in the struggle against fascism, that they must forge an even stronger and more stable united People's Front.

There is no ground to doubt that this line will be followed persistently and firmly, as the only correct line in the struggle against growing fascist aggression. But maintaining the People's Front in France does not mean by far that the working class will support the present government at any price. The composition of the government may change, but the People's Front must remain and grow stronger all the time. If for some reason or other the existing government should turn out to be unable to put through the program of the People's Front, if it takes the line of retreat before the enemy at home and abroad, if its policy leads to the discrediting of the People's Front and thus weakens the resistance to the fascist offensive, then the working class, while still further strengthening the bonds of the People's Front, will strive to bring about the substitution of another government for the present one, of a government which will firmly carry out the program of the People's Front, will be capable of dealing with the fascist danger, will safeguard the democratic liberties of the French people and ensure its defense against foreign fascist aggression.

Alongside with maintaining and strengthening the People's Front in France, the unfolding of united action among all sections of the English working class against fascism and war deserves special attention. England plays a tremendous role in the whole of the political life of the world. Her position most definitely influences a number of bourgeois democratic countries and the international situation in general. The whole situation today raises with particular force the question of the role of the working class of England nationally and on an international scale. This fact imposes on it particularly important obligations with regard to the struggle against fascism and for the preservation of peace, and also with regard to the task of establishing international unity of the working class movement. The English working class won democratic rights earlier than the working people of other countries. The democratic regime they won has made it possible for them to influence the policies of their country to a greater extent than is the case with the proletariat of a number of other countries. The English workers possess powerful means for the struggle for democracy, to safeguard peace against fascism and, in particular, against the fascist brigands in Spain and the German, Italian and Portuguese interventionists.

There is no doubt that the working class of England, with the glorious traditions of the Chartist movement behind it, the proletariat in whose midst the First International of Marx and Engels was established, and which possesses powerful, united trade union organizations, will find in itself sufficient strength and will power to overcome all obstacles on the way to creating a united People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, and to fulfill with honor its international obligations in defense of democracy, culture and peace.

4

The decisive role in the task of establishing a mighty People's Front belongs to the working class. It can and must rally around itself all working people, all the forces of democracy, all anti-fascists. At the present juncture, when we are faced with furious fascist aggression directed, as was particularly clearly demonstrated by the Nuremberg Congress of the bestial German fascists,against every kind of democracy, when everything must be done to save the Spanish democratic republic, when over the world hangs the ominous threat of a new world imperialist war, it is not only impermissible to allow the forces of the proletariat to be divided, but it is impermissible and criminal to allow any slackening in the work of establishing the united front. This slackening only plays into the hands of fascism. It may cause the proletariat and democracy to suffer new heavy blows.

The working class must no longer tolerate a situation where, at a time when in Spain the Socialist and Communist workers are fighting and dying together at the front, defending not only the liberty and democracy of the Spanish people but the democracy and culture of the whole of Europe against fascist barbarism, there are to be found leaders of the Second Socialist International who bring all their influence to bear to widen the split in the proletarian ranks.

At a time when the fascist rebels in Spain are slaughtering Socialist and Communist workers who are fighting shoulder to shoulder at the front, when they are spreading death and destruction throughout the country, the leadership of the Socialist Inter national persistently refuses to organize aid for the Spanish people jointly with the Communist International.

There are a number of countries with Social-Democratic governments or coalition governments in which Social-Democratic ministers, leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties and of the Socialist International, are taking part. But not only do these governments not make common cause with the Soviet Union in its position on the Spanish question, the only position which is in accord with the interests of the Spanish people and with the cause of the defense of democracy and peace, but by the manner in which they act they lend support to the hypocritical policy of non-intervention and actually hinder the cause of effective resistance to the fascist interventionists and murderers of the Spanish people.

Of course, the responsibility for this policy, which is most detrimental to the interests of the world proletariat, lies with the Socialist leaders who are carrying it out. But it would be against the historical truth if we were to keep silent concerning that share of responsibility which falls upon all leaders and members of the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals. For the leaders speak and act on their behalf, as their representatives. Inasmuch as they allow such a policy to be pursued, they cannot disclaim responsibility for it. They must become cognizant of the common duty history places upon them, together with the Communists, to do everything to bar the way against fascism and to safeguard peace.

In the formation and extension of the People's Front of struggle against fascism and war, the greatest significance is attached to the united front of the working class itself in the main capitalist countries, to united action on the part of the Communist and Social-Democratic parties, as well as the trade unions of different political tendencies and, on the international arena, to joint action of the Communist and Socialist and Amsterdam International. All obstacles in the way of this united action must be removed as rapidly as possible. To this end the Communist Parties and all supporters of proletarian unity and the People's Front in the ranks of the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals have a tremendous amount of intensive daily activity ahead of them.

The Seventh Congress of the Communist International was fully aware of the fact that it is no simple task to put an end to the split in the ranks of the working class. All that the enemies of the working class, their agents and henchmen have done over the course of long decades for the purpose of dividing the forces of the working people cannot be eliminated with a wave of the hand and by mere wishes.

Our whole experience since the congress has shown still more clearly that the road to united action on the part of the working class nationally and on an international scale is far from being a straight, smooth, paved road. It is a pretty hard, zigzag road, often thorny and steep. Open and covert enemies of unity never cease to throw up different kinds of obstacles and barriers along that road. Every step has to be taken after great effort, by stubborn work and struggle. There are the misguided ones who must have things explained to them patiently, so that they may become convinced. There are the waverers and those of little faith who have to be urged on all the time. There are saboteurs and double-dealers who must be ruthlessly exposed. There is a persistent struggle to be waged against the cunning sophists, the crafty politicians and practiced demagogues, who do their utmost to persuade the rank and file, the politically inexperienced workers, that two times two are not four, but three, that the united front of the working class does not increase their power, but only leads to increased fascist aggression.

And at the same time it is necessary to be on guard against falling prey to the provocative maneuvers of the enemies of unity, but untiringly to extend a brotherly hand to all organizations of the working people, inviting them to joint struggle even when they have avowed opponents of unity at their head. For every Communist, every class-conscious worker, must not forget for a minute that the opponents of unity of the international proletariat would be extremely gratified if, in the face of their sabotage and provocation, the Communists themselves would give up the struggle for unity and refrain from consistently carrying out the People's Front policy. This would only make it easier for these leaders to carry on in their role as splitters and would save them for the time being from the severe verdict of the proletariat and of history. We must know how to carry on an unabated, ideological struggle against reformism and other anti-Marxist tendencies in the ranks of the working class movement, and at the same time fight persistently for the establishment of the united People's Front and carefully avoid any disruption of united action in the daily struggle against fascism and war.

Twenty-two years ago, on the eve of the world imperialist war, when he was gathering together the forces of the working class for the coming struggle for socialism, the great Lenin spoke of the tremendous importance of unity in the ranks of the proletariat:

The workers do need unity. And the thing that must be understood above all else is that, apart from the workers themselves, no one will "give" them unity, no one is in a position to help their unity. Unity cannot be "promised"-that would be an empty boast, self-deception; unity cannot be "created" out of "agreement" between little groups of intellectuals -- this is an error of the saddest, most naive and ignorant type.

Unity must be won, and only by the workers themselves; the class-conscious workers themselves are capable of achieving this by stubborn and persistent work.

Nothing is easier than to write the word "unity" in letters a yard high, to promise unity, to "proclaim" oneself an adherent of unity. But in reality, unity can only be advanced by work and the organization of the advanced workers, of all class-conscious workers.

This is not easy. It requires work, persistence, the rallying together of all class-conscious workers. But without such work there is no use in talking of the unity of the workers.
[V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 20:319]

These remarkable words of Lenin are particularly valuable and instructive for the working class of all capitalist countries at the present period.

5

The whole course of events since the Seventh Congress of the Communist International provides indisputable confirmation of the vital necessity of the earliest possible realization of its historic slogans regarding working class unity and the People's Front of struggle against the worst enemy of mankind -- fascism. The Communist International and the Communist Parties of the various countries, backed by the masses of the working people, will not cease for one moment to exert all their power in the fight to bring about this unity. They will not fall prey to any provocation whatsoever directed toward widening the split in the ranks of the working class and breaking up the People's Front. And despite the opposition of the saboteurs in the Socialist and Amsterdam Internationals, the world proletariat will bring about its militant unity.

In the struggle against fascism and war, not empty words, not platonic wishes, but action is needed. To achieve this action it is necessary to bring about the unification of all the forces of the working class and to carry out unswervingly the policy of the People's Front.

Unity of the Working Class against Fascism

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:12:00 +0000

Concluding speech before the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International

Comrades, the very full discussion on my report bear witness to the immense interest taken by the Congress in the fundamental tactical problems and tasks of the struggle of the working class against the offensive of capital and fascism, and against the threat of an imperialist war.

Summing up the eight-day discussion, we can state that all the principal propositions contained in the report have met with the unanimous approval of the Congress. None, of the speakers objected to the tactical line we have proposed or to the resolution which has been submitted.

I venture to say that at none of the previous Congresses of the Communist International has such ideological and political solidarity been revealed as at the present Congress. The complete unanimity displayed at the Congress indicates that the necessity of revising our policy and tactics in accordance with the changed conditions and on the basis of the extremely abundant and instructive experience of the past few years, has come to be fully recognized in our ranks.

This unanimity may, undoubtedly be regarded as one of the most important conditions for success in solving the paramount immediate problem of the international proletarian movement, namely,establishing unity of action of all sections of the working class in the struggle against fascism.

The successful solution of this problem requires, first, that Communists, skilfully wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist analysis, while carefully studying the actual situation and the allignment of class forces as these develop and that they plan their activity and struggle accordingly

We must mercilessly root out the weakness not infrequently observed among our comrades, for cut-and-dried schemes, lifeless formulas and ready-made patterns. We must put an end to the state of affairs in which Communists, when lacking the knowledge or ability for Marxist-Leninist analysis substitute for it general phrases and slogans such as 'the revolutionary way out of the crisis,' without making the slightest serious attempt to explain what must be the conditions, the relationship of class forces, the degree of revolutionary maturity of the proletariat and mass of working people, and the level of influence of the Communist Party for making possible such a revolutionary way out of the crisis. Without such an analysis all these catchwords become dud shells, empty phrases which only obscure out tasks of the day. Without a concrete Marxist-Leninist analysis we shall never be able correctly to present and solve the problem of fascism, the problems of the proletarian united front and the Popular Front, the problem of our attitude to bourgeois democracy, the problem of a united front government, the problem of the processes going on -within the working class, particularly among the Social Democratic workers, or any of the numerous other new and complex problems with which life itself and the development of the class struggle confront us now and will confront us in the future.

Second, we need live people - people who have grown up from the masses of the workers, have sprung from their every-day struggle, people of militant action, whole-heartedly devoted to the cause of the proletariat people whose brains and hands will give effect to the decisions of our Congress. Without Bolshevik, Leninist cadres we shall be unable to solve the enormous problems that confront the working people in the fight against fascism.

Third, we need people equipped with the compass of Marxist-Leninist theory, without the skilful use of which they, turn into narrow-minded and shortsighted practicians, unable to look ahead, who take decisions only from case to case, and lose the broad perspective of the struggle which shows the masses where we are going and we are leading the working people.

Fourth, we need the organization of the masses in order to put our decisions into practice. Our ideological and political influence alone is not enough. We must put a stop to reliance on the hope that the movement will develop of its own accord, which is one of our fundamental weaknesses. We must remember that without persistent, prolonged, patient, and sometimes seemingly thankless organizational work on our part the masses will never make for the Communist shore. In order to be able to organize the masses we must acquire the Leninist art of making our decisions the property not only of the Communists but also of the widest masses of working people. We must learn to talk to the masses, not in the language of book formulas, but in the language of fighters for the cause of the masses, whose every, word and every idea reflect the innermost thoughts and sentiments of millions.

It is primarily with these problems that I should like to deal in my reply to the discussion.

Comrades, the Congress has welcomed the new tactical lines with great enthusiasm and unanimity. Enthusiasm and unanimity are, excellent things of course, but it is still better when these are combined with a deeply considered and critical approach to the tasks that confront us, with a proper mastery of the decisions adopted and a real understanding of the means and methods by which these decisions are to be applied to the particular circumstances of each country.

After all, we have unanimously. adopted good resolutions before now, but the trouble was that we not infrequently adopted these decisions in a formal manner, and at best made them the property of only the small vanguard of the working class. Our decisions did not become flesh and blood for millions of people, nor a guide to their actions.

Can we assert that we have already finally, abandoned this formal approach to adopted decisions? No. It must be said that even at this Congress the speeches of some of the comrades gave indication of vestiges of formalism, a desire made itself felt at times to substitute for the concrete analysis of reality, and living experience some sort of new scheme, some sort of new, over-simplified, lifeless formula, to represent as actually existing what we desire, but what does not yet exist.

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST FASCISM MUST BE CONCRETE

No general characterization of fascism, however correct in itself, can relieve us of the need to study and take into account the special features of the development of fascism and the various forms of fascist dictatorship in the individual countries and at its various stages. It is necessary in each country to investigate, study and ascertain the national peculiar ties, the specific national features of fascism and to map out accordingly effective methods and forms of struggle against fascism.

Lenin persistently warned us against such 'stereotyped methods, such mechanical levelling and identification of tactical rules, of rules of struggle.' This warning is particularly to the point when it is a question of fighting at enemy, who so subtly and Jesuitically exploits the national sentiments and prejudices of the masses and the anti-capitalist inclinations in the interests of big capital. Such an enemy must be known to perfection, from every angle. We must, without any, delay whatever, react to his various manoeuvres, discover his hidden moves, be prepared to repel him in any, arena and at any moment. We must not hesitate even to learn from the enemy if that will help us more quickly and more effectively to wring his neck.

It would be a gross mistake to lay down any sort of universal scheme of the development of fascism, valid for all countries and all peoples. Such a scheme would not help but would hamper us in carrying on a real struggle. Apart from everything else, it would result in indiscriminately thrusting into the camp of fascism those sections of the population which, if properly approached, could at a certain stage of development be brought into the struggle against fascism or could at least be neutralized.

Let us take, for example, the development of fascism in France and in Germany. Some comrades believe that, generally speaking, fascism cannot develop as easily in France as in Germany. What is true and what is false in this contention? It is true that there were no such deepseated democratic traditions in Germany as there are. In France, which went through several revolutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is true that France is a country which won the war and imposed the Versailles treaty on other countries, that the national sentiments of the French people have not been hurt as they have been in Germany, where this factor played such a great part. It is true that in France the basic masses of the peasantry are prorepublic and anti-fascist, especially in the south, in contrast to Germany, where even before fascism came to power a considerable section of the peasantry was under the influence of reactionary parties.

But, Comrades, notwithstanding the existing differences in the development of the fascist movement in France and in Germany, notwithstanding the factors which impede the onslaught of fascism in France, it would be shortsighted not to notice the uninterrupted growth there of the fascist peril or to underestimate the possibility of a fascist coup d'état Moreover, a number of factors in France favour the development of fascism. One must not forget that the economic crisis, which began later in France than in other capitalist countries, continues to become deeper and more acute, and that this greatly encourages the orgy of fascist demagogy. French fascism holds strong positions in the army, among the officers, such as the National Socialists did not have in the Reichswehr before their advent to power. Furthermore, in no other country, perhaps, has the parliamentary regime been corrupted to such an enormous extent and caused such indignation among the masses as in France, and the French fascists, as we know, use this demagogically in their fight against bourgeois democracy. Nor must it be forgotten that the development of fascism is furthered by the French bourgeoisie's keen fear of losing its political and military hegemony in Europe.

Hence it follows that the successes scored by the antifascist movement in France, of which Comrades Thorez and Cachin have spoken here and over which we so heartily rejoice, are still far from indicating that the working masses have definitely succeeded in blocking the road to fascism. We must emphatically stress once more the great importance of the tasks of the French working class in the struggle against fascism, of which I have already spoken in my report.

It would likewise be dangerous to cherish illusions regarding the weakness of fascism in other countries where it does not have a broad mass base. We have the example of such countries as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland, where fascism, although it had no broad base, came to power, relying on the armed forces of the state, and then sought to broaden its base by making use of the state apparatus.

Comrade Dutt was right in his contention that there has been a tendency among us to contemplate fascism in general, without taking into account the specific features of the fascist movement in the various countries, erroneously classifying all reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie as fascism and going so far as calling the entire non-Communist camp fascist. The struggle against fascism was not strengthened but rather weakened in consequence.

Even now we still have survivals of a stereotyped approach to the question of fascism. When some comrades assert that Roosevelt's 'New Deal' represents an even clearer and more pronounced form of the development of the bourgeoisie toward fascism than the 'National Government' in Great Britain, for example, is this not a manifestation of such a stereotyped approach to the question? One must be very partial to hackneyed schemes not to see that the most partial to reactionary circles of American finance capital, which are attacking Roosevelt, are above all the very force which is stimulating and organizing the fascist movement in the United States, Not to see the beginnings of real fascism in the United States behind the hypocritical outpourings of these circles 'in defence of the democratic rights of the American citizen' is tantamount to misleading the working class in the struggle against its worst enemy.

In the colonial and semi-colonial countries also, as was mentioned in the discussion, certain fascist groups are developing, but of course there can be no question of the kind of fascism that we are accustomed to see in Germany Italy and other capitalist countries. Here we must study and take into account the quite special economic, political and historical conditions, in accordance with which fascism is assuming and will continue to assume peculiar forms of its own.

Unable to approach the phenomena of real life concretely, some comrades who suffer from mental laziness substitute general, noncommittal formulas for a careful and concrete study of the actual situation and the relationship of class forces. They remind us, not of sharpshooters who shoot with unerring aim, but of those 'crack' riflemen who regularly and unfailingly miss the target,shooting either too high or too low, too near or too far. But, we, Comrades, as Communist fighters in the labour movement, as the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, want to be sharpshooters who unfailingly hit the target.

UNITED PROLETARIAN FRONT OR ANTI-FASCIST POPULAR FRONT

Some comrades are quite needlessly racking their brains over the problem of what to begin with - the united proletarian front or the anti-fascist Popular Front.

Some say that we cannot start forming the anti-fascist Popular Front until we have organized a solid united front of the proletariat.

Others argue that, since the establishment of the united proletarian front meets in a number of countries with the resistance of the reactionary part of Social Democracy, it is better to start at once with building up the Popular Front, and then develop the united working class front on this basis.

Evidently, both groups fail to understand that the united proletarian front and the anti-fascist Popular Front are connected by the living dialectics of struggle; that they are interwoven, the one passing into the other in the process of the practical struggle against fascism, and that there is certainly no Chinese wall to keep them apart.

For it cannot be seriously supposed that it is possible to establish a genuine anti-fascist Popular Front without securing the unity of action of the working class itself, the leading force of this anti-fascist Popular Front. At the same time, the further development of the united proletarian front depends, to a considerable degree, upon its transformation into a Popular Front against fascism.

Comrades, just picture to yourselves a devotee of cut-and-dried theories of this kind, gazing upon our resolution and contriving his pet scheme with the zeal of a true pedant:

First, local united proletarian front from below;

Then, regional united front from below;

Thereafter, united front from above, passing through the same stages;

Then, unity in the trade union movement;

After that, the enlistment of other anti-fascist parties;

This to be followed by the extended Popular Front, from above and from below.

After which the movement must be raised to a higher level, politicized, revolutionized, and so on and so forth.

You will say, Comrades, that this is sheer nonsense. I agree with you. But the unfortunate thing is that in some form or other this kind of sectarian nonsense is still to be found quite frequently in our ranks.

How does the matter really stand? Of course, we must strive everywhere for a wide Popular Front of struggle against fascism. But in a number of countries we shall not get beyond general talk about the Popular Front unless we succeed in mobilizing the masses of the workers for the purpose of breaking down the resistance of the reactionary, section of Social Democracy to the proletarian united front of struggle. Primarily this is how the matter stands in Great Britain, where the working class comprises the majority, of the population and where the bulk of the working class follows the lead of the trade unions and the Labour Party. That is how matters stand in Belgium and in the Scandinavian countries, where the numerically small Communist Parties must face strong mass trade unions and numerically large Social Democratic Parties.

In these countries the Communists would commit a very serious political mistake if they shirked the struggle to establish a united proletarian front, under cover of general talk about the Popular Front, which cannot be formed without the participation of the mass working class organizations. In order to bring about a genuine Popular Front in these countries, the Communists must carry out an enormous amount of political and organizational work among the masses of the workers. They must overcome the preconceived ideas of these masses, who regard their large reformist organizations as already the embodiment of proletarian unity. They must convince these masses that the establishment of a united front with the Communists means a shift on the part of those masses to the position of the class struggle, and that only this shift guarantees success in the struggle against the offensive of capital and fascism. We shall not overcome our difficulties by setting ourselves much wider tasks here. On the contrary, in fighting to remove these difficulties we shall, in fact and not in words alone, prepare the ground for the creation of a genuine Popular Front of struggle against fascism, against the capitalist offensive and against the threat of imperialist war.

The problem is different in countries like Poland, where a strong peasant movement is developing alongside the labour movement, where the peasant masses have their own organizations, which 'are becoming radicalized as a result of the agrarian crisis, and where national oppression evokes indignation among the national minorities. Here the development of the Popular Front of struggle will proceed parallel with the development of the united proletarian front, and at times in this type of country the movement for a general Popular Front may even outstrip the movement for a working-class front.

Take a country like Spain, which is in the process of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Can it be said that because the proletariat is split up into numerous small organizations, complete fighting unity of the working class must first be established here before a workers' and peasants' front against Lerroux ¹⁾ and Gil Robles ²⁾ is created? By tackling the question in this way we would isolate tile proletariat from the peasantry, we would in effect be withdrawing the slogan of the agrarian revolution, and we would make it easier for the enemies of the people to disunite the prolelariat and the peasantry and set the peasantry in opposition to the working class. Yet this, Comrades, as is well known, was one of the main reasons why the working class was defeated in the October events of 1934 in the Asturias.

However, one thing must not he forgotten in all countries, where the proletariat is comparatively small in numbers, where the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeois strata predominate, it is all the more necessary to make every effort to set up a firm united front of the working class itself, so that it may be able to take its place as the leading factor in relation to all the working people.

Thus, Comrades, in attacking the problem of the proletarian front and the Popular Front, there can be no general panacea suitable for all cases, all countries, all peoples. In this matter universalism, the application of one and the same recipe to all countries, is equivalent, if, you will allow me to say so, to ignorance, and ignorance should be flogged, even when it stalks about, nay, particularly when it stalks about in the cloak of universal cut-and-dried schemes.

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE UNITED FRONT OF THE PROLETARIAT

Comrades, in view of the tactical problems confronting us, it is very important to give a correct reply to the question of whither Social Democracy at the present time is still the principal bulwark of the bourgeoisie, and if so, where?

Some of the comrades who participated in the discussion (Comrades Florin, butt) touched upon this question but in view of its importance a fuller reply must be given to it, for it is a question which workers of all trends, particularly Social Democratic workers, are asking and cannot help asking.

It must be borne in mind that in a number of countries the position of Social Democracy in the bourgeois state, and its attitude towards the bourgeoisie, has been undergoing a change.

In the first place, the crisis has severely shaken the position of even the most secure sections of the working class, the so-called aristocracy of labour which, as we know, is the main support of Social Democracy. These sections, too, are beginning more and more to revise their views as to the expediency of the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

Second, as I pointed out in my report, the bourgeoisie in a number of countries is itself compelled to abandon bourgeois democracy and resort to the terroristic form of dictatorship, depriving Social Democracy not only of its previous position in the state system of finance capital, but also, under certain conditions, of its legal status, persecuting and even suppressing it.

Third, under the influence of the lessons learned from the defeat of the workers in Germany, Austria and Spain ³⁾, a defeat which was largely due to the Social Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and, on the other hand, under the influence of the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union as a result of Bolshevik policy and the application of revolutionary Marxism, the Social Democratic workers are becoming revolutionized and are beginning to turn to the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

The combined effect of this has been to make it increasingly difficult, and in some countries actually impossible, for Social Democracy to preserve its former role of a bulwark of the bourgeoisie.

Failure to understand this is particularly harmful in those countries where the fascist dictatorship has deprived Social Democracy of its legal status. From this point of view the self-criticism of those German comrades who in their speeches mentioned the necessity of ceasing to cling to the letter of obsolete formulas and decisions concerning Social Democracy, of ceasing to ignore the changes that have taken place in its position, was correct. It is clear that if we ignore these changes, it will lead to a distortion of our policy for bringing about the unity of the working class, and will Make it easier for the reactionary elements of the Social Democratic Parties to sabotage the united front.

The process of revolutionization in the ranks of the Social Democratic Parties, now going on in all countries, is developing unevenly. It must not be imagined that the Social Democratic workers who are becoming revolutionized will at once and on a mass scale pass over to the position of consistent class struggle and will straightway unite with the Communists without any intermediate stages. In a number of countries this will be a more or less difficult, complicated and prolonged process, essentially dependent, at any rate, on the correctness of our policy and tactics. We must even reckon with the possibility that, in passing from the position of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, some Social Democratic Parties and organizations will continue to exist for a time as independent organizations or parties. In such an event there can, of course, be no thought of such Social Democratic organizations or parties being regarded as a bulwark of the bourgeoisie.

It cannot be expected that workers who are under the influence of those Social Democratic the ideology of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, which has been instilled in them for decades, will break with this ideology of their own accord, by the action of objective causes alone. No. It is our business, the business of Communists, to help them free themselves from the hold of reformist ideology. The work of explaining the principles and programme of Communism must be carried on patiently, in a comradely fashion, and must be adapted to the degree of development of the individual Social Democratic workers. Our criticism of Social Democracy must become more concrete and systematic, and must be based on the experience of the Social Democratic masses themselves. It must be borne in mind that primarily by utilizing their experience in the joint struggle with the Communists against the class enemy will it be possible and necessary to facilitate and speed up the revolutionary development of the Social Democratic workers. There is no more effective way for overcoming the doubts and hesitations of the Social Democratic workers than by their participation in the proletarian united front.

We shall do all in our power to make it easier, not only for the Social Democratic workers, but also for those leading members of the Social Democratic Parties and organizations who sincerely desire to adopt the revolutionary class position, to work and fight with us against the class enemy. At the same time we declare that any Social Democratic functionary, lower official or worker who continues to uphold the disruptive tactics of the reactionary Social Democratic leaders, who comes out against the united front and thus directly or indirectly aids the class enemy, will thereby incur at least equal guilt before the working class as those who are historically responsible for having supported the Social Democratic policy of class collaboration, the policy which in a number of European countries doomed the revolution in 1918 and cleared the way for fascism.

The attitude to the united front marks the watershed between the reactionary sections of Social Democracy and the sections that are becoming revolutionary. Our assistance to the latter will be the more effective the more we intensify, our fight against the reactionary camp of Social Democracy that takes part in a bloc with the bourgeoisie. And within the Left camp the self-determination of its various elements will take place the sooner, the more determinedly the Communists fight for a united front with the Social Democratic Parties. The experience of the class struggle and the participation of the Social Democrats in the united front movement will show who in that camp will prove to be 'Left' in words and who is really Left.

THE UNITED FRONT GOVERNMENT

While the attitude of Social Democracy towards the practical realization of the proletarian united front is, generally speaking, the chief sign in every country of whether the previous role in the bourgeois state of the Social Democratic Party or of its individual parts has changed, and if so, to what extent - the attitude of Social Democracy on the issue of a united front government will be a particularly clear test in this respect.

When a situation arises in which the question of creating a united front government becomes an immediate practical problem, this issue will become a decisive test of the policy of Social Democracy in the given country: either jointly with the bourgeoisie, that is moving towards fascism, against the working class, or jointly with the revolutionary proletariat against fascism and reaction, not merely in words but in deeds. That is how the question will inevitably present itself at the time the united front government is formed as well as while it is in power.

With regard to the character and conditions for the formation of the united front government or anti-fascist popular Front government, I think that my report gave what was necessary for general tactical direction. To expect us over and above this to indicate all possible forms and all conditions under which such governments may be formed would mean to lose oneself in barren conjecture.

I would like to utter a note of warning against oversimplification or the application of cut-and-dried schemes in this question. Life is more complex than any scheme. For example, it would be wrong to imagine that the united front government is an indispensable stage on the road to the establishment of proletarian dictatorship. That is just as wrong as the former assertion that there will be no intermediary .stages in the fascist countries and that fascist dictatorship is certain to be immediately superseded by proletarian dictatorship.

The whole question boils down to this: Will the proletariat itself be prepared at the decisive moment for the direct overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of its own power, and will it be able in that event to ensure the ,support of its allies? Or will the movement of the united proletarian from and the anti-fascist Popular Front at the particular stage be in a position only to suppress or overthrow fascism, without directly proceeding to abolish the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? In the latter case it would be an intolerable piece of political shortsightedness, and not serious revolutionary politics, on this ground alone to refuse to create and support a united front or a Popular Front government.

It is likewise not difficult to understand that the establishment of a united front government in countries where fascism is not yet in power is something different from the creation of such a government in countries where the fascist dictatorship holds sway. In the latter countries a united front government can be created only in the process of overthrowing fascist rule. Incountries where the bourgeois-democratic revolution is developing, a Popular Front government may become the government of the democratic dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry.

As I have already pointed out in my report, the Communists will do all in their power to support a united front government to the extent that the latter will really fight against the enemies of the people and grant freedom of action to the Communist Party and to the working class. The question of whether Communists will take part in the ,government will be determined entirely by, the actual situation prevailing at the time Such questions will be settled as they arise. No readymade recipes can be prescribed in advance.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY

In his speech Comrade Lenski pointed out that while mobilizing the masses to repel the onslaught of fascism against the rights of the working people, the Polish Party at the same time 'had its misgivings about formulating positive democratic demands lest this would create democratic illusions among the masses.' The Polish Party is, of course, not the only one in which such fear of formulating positive democratic demands exists in one form or another.

Where does this fear steam from, Comrades? It comes from an incorrect, non-dialectical conception of our attitude towards bourgeois democracy. We Communists are unswerving upholders of Soviet democracy, the great example of which is the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union, where the introduction of equal suffrage and the direct and secret ballot has been proclaimed by-resolution of the Seventh Congress of Soviets, at the very time when the last vestiges of bourgeois democracy, are being wiped out in the capitalist countries. This Soviet democracy presupposes the victory of the proletarian revolution, the conversion of private ownership of the means of production into public ownership, the adoption of the road to socialism by the overwhelming majority of the people. This democracy does not represent a final form; it develops and will continue to develop, depending on the further achievements of socialist construction, in the creation of a classless society and in the overcoming of the survivals of capitalism in economic life and in the minds of the people.

But today the millions of working people living under capitalism are faced with the necessity of deciding their attitude to those forms in which the rule of the bourgeoisie is clad in the various countries. We are not Anarchists, and it is not at all a matter of indifference to us what kind of political regime exists in any given country: whether a bourgeois dictatorship in the form of bourgeois democracy, even with democratic rights and liberties greatly curtailed, or a bourgeois dictatorship in its open, fascist form. While being upholders of Soviet democracy, we shall defend every inch the democratic gains which the working class has wrested in the course of years of stubborn struggle, and shall resolutely fight to extend these gains.

How great were the sacrifices of the British working class before it secured the right to strike, a legal status for its trade unions, the right of assembly and freedom of the press, extension of the franchise, and other rights. How many tens of thousands of workers gave their lives in the revolutionary battles fought in France in the nineteenth century to obtain the elementary rights and the lawful opportunity of organizing their forces for the struggle against the exploiters. The proletariat of all countries has shed much of its blood to win bourgeois- democratic liberties and will naturally fight with all its strength to retain them.

Our attitude to bourgeois democracy is not the same under all conditions. For instance, at the lime of the October

Revolution, the Russian Bolsheviks engaged in a life-and-death struggle against all those political parties which, under the slogan of the defence of bourgeois democracy, opposed the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. The Bolsheviks fought these parties because the banner of bourgeois democracy had at that time become the standard around which all counter-revolutionary forces mobilized to challenge the victory of the proletariat. The situation is quite different in the capitalist countries at present. Now the fascist counter-revoution is attacking bourgeois democracy in an effort to establish the most barbarous regime of exploitation and suppression of the working masses. Now the working masses in a number of capitalist countries are faced with the necessity of making a definite choice, and of making it today, not between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois democracy , but between bourgeois democracy and fascism.

Besides, we have now a situation which differs from that which existed, for example, in the epoch of capitalist stabilization. At that time the fascist danger was not as acute as it is today. At that time it was bourgeois dictatorship in the form of bourgeois democracy that the revolutionary workers were facing in a number of countries and it was against bourgeois democracy, that they were concentrating their fire. In Germany, they fought against the Weimar Republic, not because it was a republic, but because it was a bourgeois republic that was engaged in crushing the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, especially in 1918-20 and in 1923.

But could the Communists retain the same position also when the fascist movement began to raise its head, when, for instance, in 1932 the fascists in Germany, were organizing and arming hundreds of thousands of storm troopers against the working class" Of course not. It was the mistake of the Communists in a number of countries, particularly in Germany, that they failed to take account of the changes that had taken place, but continued to repeat the slogans and maintain the tactical positions that had been correct a few years before, especially when the struggle for the proletarian dictatorship was an immediate issue, and when the entire German counter-revolution was rallying under the banner of the Weimar Republic, as it did in 1918-20.

And the circumstance that even today we can still notice in our ranks a fear of launching positive democratic slogans indicates how little our comrades have mastered the Marxist-Leninist method of approaching such important problems of our tactics. Some say that the struggle for democratic rights may divert the workers from the struggle for the proletarian dictatorship. It may not be amiss to recall what Lenin said on this question:

It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy., so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy. (V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 133>

These words should be firmly fixed in the memories of all our comrades, bearing in mind that in history great revolutions have grown out of small movements for the defence of the elementary rights of the workingclass. But in order to be able to link up the struggle for democratic rights with the struggle of the working class for socialism, it is necessary first and foremost to discard any cut-and-dried approach to the question of defence of bourgeois democracy.

A CORRECT LINE ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH

Comrades, it is clear, of course, that for the Communist International and each of its Sections the fundamental thing is to work out a correct line. But a correct line alone is not enough for concrete leadership in the class struggle.

For that, a number of conditions must be fulfilled, above all the following:

First, organizational guarantees that adopted decisions will be carried out in practice and that all obstacles in the way will be resolutely overcome. What comrade Stalin said at the 12th Congress of the CPSU(b) about the conditions necessary to carry out the Party line, can and must be applied fully to the decisions taken by our Congress.

Comrade Stalin said:

Some people imagine that it is quite sufficient to map out a correct Party line, to proclaim it so as to bring it to everyone's attention, to set it forth in general theses and resolutions and to vote it unanimously, and victory will come by itself, so to say, of its own accord Of course this is quite wrong. This is a big illusion. Only incorrigible bureaucrats are capable of such reasoning. . . . Fine resolutions and declarations in favour of the general policy of the Party are just the beginning because they only indicate a desire for victory, not victory itself. After the correct policy has been outlined, and the correct solution indicated, success depends on organizational work, on the organization of the struggle to implement the Party line, and the proper selection of workers, on the control over the implementation of the decisions on the part of the leading organs. If these are lacking, the correct Party line and correct decisions stand a great risk of being seriously impaired. What is more, after the correct policy has been hammered out, everything depends on organizational work, including the political line itself - its implementation or its failure.

It is hardly necessary to add anything to these words, which must become a guiding principle in the whole work of our Party.

Another condition is the ability to convert decisions of the Communist International and its Sections into decisions of the widest masses themselves. This is all the more necessary 'low, when we are faced with the task of organizing a united front of the proletariat and drawing very wide masses of the people into an anti-fascist Popular Front. The political and tactical genius of Lenin stands out most clearly and vividly in his masterly ability to get the masses to understand the correct line and the slogans of the Party through their own experience. If we trace the history of Bolshevism, that greatest of treasure houses of the political strategy, and tactics of the revolutionary, workers' movement, we shall see that the Bolsheviks never substituted methods of leading the Party for methods of leading the masses.

Comrade Stalin pointed out that one of the particular features of the tactics of the Russian Bolsheviks on the eve of the October Revolution resided in the fact that they were able to find the roads and turns which led the masses to the slogans of the Party, and to the very 'threshold of the revolution' in a natural way helping them to feel, check and recognize the correctness of these slogans through their own experience; that they did not confuse Party leadership with leadership of the masses, but clearly saw the difference between the former and the latter, thus elaborating tactics not merely as a science of Party leadership but of the leadership of millions of working people.

Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the masses cannot assimilate our decisions unless we learn to speak a language which they understand. We do not always know how to speak simply concretely, in images which are familiar and intelligible to the masses. We are still unable to refrain from abstract formulas which we have learnt by rote. As a matter of fact if you look through our leaflets, newspapers, resolutions and theses, you will find that they are often written in a language and style so heavy that they are difficult for even our Party functionaries to understand, let alone the rank-and-file workers.

If we consider, Comrades, that the workers, especially in fascist countries, who distribute or only read these leaflets risk their very lives by doing so, we shall realize still more clearly, the need of writing for the masses in a language which they understand, so that the sacrifices made shall not have been in vain.

The same applies in no less degree to our oral agitation and propaganda. We must admit quite frankly that in this respect the fascists have often proved more dexterous and flexible than many of our comrades

I recall, for example, a meeting of unemployed in Berlin before Hitler's accession to power. It was at the time of the trial of those notorious swindlers and profiteers, the Sklarek brothers, which dragged on for several months. A National Socialist speaker in addressing the meeting made demagogic use of that trial to further his own ends. He referred to the swindlers, the bribery and other crimes committed by the Sklarek brothers, emphasized that the trial had been dragging on for months and figured out how many hundreds of thousands of marks it had already cost the German people. To the accompaniment of loud applause the speaker declared that such bandits as the Sklarek brothers should have been shot without any ado and the money wasted on the trial should have gone to the unemployed.

A Communist rose and asked for the floor. The chairman at first refused but under the pressure of the audience, which wanted to bear a Communist, he had to let him speak. When the Communist got up on the platform, everybody awaited with tense expectation what the Communist speak-er would have to say. Well, what did he say?

'Comrades,' he began in a loud and ringing voice, 'the Plenum of the Communist International has just closed. It showed the way to the salvation of the working class. The chief task it puts before You. Comrades, is to win the majority of the working class. ... The Plenum pointed out that the unemployed movement must be politicized. The Plenum calls on us to raise it to a higher level.... The Plenum appeals for this movement to be raised to a higher level.'

He went on in the same strain, evidently under the impression that he was 'explaining' authentic decisions of the Plenum.

Could such a speech appeal to the unemployed? Could they find any satisfaction in the fact that first we intended to politicize, then revolutionize, and finally mobilize them in order to raise their movement to a higher level?

Sitting in a corner of the hall, I observed with chagrin how the unemployed. who had been so eager to hear a Communist in order to find out from him what to do concretely, began to yawn and display unmistakable signs of disappointment. And I was not at all surprised when towards the end the chairman rudely cut our speaker short without any, protest from the meeting.

This, unfortunately, is not the only case of its kind in our agitational work. Nor were such cases confined to Germany. To agitate in such fashion means to agitate against one's own cause. It is high time to put an end once and for all to these, to say, the least, childish methods of agitation.

During my report, the chairman, Comrade Kuusinen, received a characteristic letter from the floor of the Congress addressed to me. Let me read it:

In your speech at the Congress, please take up the following question, namely, that all resolutions and decisions adopted in the future by the Communist International be written so that not only trained Communists can get the meaning, but that any working man reading the material of the Comintern might without any preliminary training be able to see at once what the Communists want, and of what service communism is to mankind. Some Party leaders forget this. They Must be reminded of it, and very strongly, too. Also that agitation for communism be conducted in understandable language.

I do not know exactly who is the author of this letter, but I have no doubt that this comrade voiced in his letter the opinion and desire of millions of workers. Many of our comrades think that the more highsounding words and the more formulas, often unintelligible to the masses, they use the better their agitation and propaganda, forgetting that the greatest leader and theoretician of the working class of our epoch, Lenin, has always spoken and written in highly popular language, readily understood by the masses.

Every one of us must make this a law , a Bolshevik law, an elementary rule:

When writing or speaking, always have in mind the rank-and-file worker who must understand you, must believe in your appeal and be ready to follow you. You must have in mind those for whom you write, to whom you speak.

CADRES

Comrades, our best resolutions will remain scraps of paper if we lack the people who can put them into effect. Unfortunately, however, I must state that the problem of cadres, one of the most important questions facing us, has received almost no attention at this Congress.

The report of the Executive Committee of the Communist International was discussed for seven days, there were many speakers from various countries, but only a few, and they only in passing, discussed this question, so extremely vital for the Communist Parties and the labour movement, In their practical work our Parties have not yet realize by far that people, cadres, decide everything.

A negligent attitude to the problem of cadres is all the more impermissible as we are constantly losing some of the most valuable of our cadres in the struggle. For we are not a learned society but a militant movement which is constantly in the firing line. Our most energetic, most courageous and most class-conscious elements are in the front ranks. It is precisely these front-line men that the enemy hunts down, murders, throws into jail and concentration camps and subjects to excruciating torture, particularly in fascist countries. This gives rise to the urgent necessity of constantly replenishing the ranks, cultivating and training new cadres as well as carefully preserving the existing cadres.

The problem of cadres is of particular urgency for the additional reason that under our influence the mass united front movement is gaining momentum and bringing forward many thousands of new working-class militants. Moreover, it is not only voting revolutionary elements, not only workers just becoming revolutionary, who have never before participated in a political movement, that stream into our ranks. Very often former members and militants of the Social Democratic Parties also join us. These new cadres require special attention, particularly in the illegal Communist Parties, the more so because in their practical work these cadres with their poor theoretical training frequently come up against very serious political problems which they have to solve for themselves.

The problem of what should be the correct policy with regard to cadres is a very serious one for our Parties, as well as for the Young Communist League and for all other mass organizations - for the entire revolutionary labour movement.

What does a correct policy. with regard to cadres imply?

First, knowing one's people. As a rule there is no systematic study. of cadres in our Parties. Only, recently have the Communist Parties of France and Poland and, in the East, the Communist Party of China, achieved certain successes in this direction. The Communist Party of Germany, before its underground period, had also undertaken a of its cadres. The experience of these Parties has shown that as soon as they began to study their people, Party workers were discovered who had remained unnoticed before. On the other hand, the Parties began to be purged of alien elements who were ideologically and politically harmful. It is sufficient to point to the example of Célor and Barbé in France who, when put under the Bolshevik microscope, turned out to be agents of the class enemy, and were thrown out of the Party'. In Hungary the verification of cadres made it easier to discover nests of provocateurs, agents of the enemy, who had sedulously, concealed their identity.

Second, proper promotion of cadres. Promotion should not be something casual but one of the normal functions of the Party. It is bad when promotion is made exclusively on the basis of narrow Party considerations, without regard to whether the Communist promoted has contact with the masses or not. Promotion should take place on the basis of the ability, of the various Party workers to discharge particular functions, and of their popularity, among the masses. We have examples in our Parties of promotions which have produced excellent results. For instance, we have a Spanish woman Communist, sitting in the Presidium of this Congress, Comrade Dolores. Two years ago she was still a rank-and-file Party-worker. But in the very first clashes with the class enemy she proved to be an excellent agitator and fighter. Subsequently. promoted to the leading body. of the Party, she has proved herself a most worthy member of that body.

I could point to a number of similar cases in several other countries, but in the majority of cases promotions are made in an unorganized and haphazard manner, and therefore are not always fortunate. Sometimes moralizers, phrasemongers and chatterboxes who actually harm the cause are promoted to leading positions.

Third, the ability to use people to the best advantage. We must be able to ascertain and utilize the valuable qualities of every, single active member. There are no ideal people; we must take them as they are and correct their weaknesses and shortcomings. We know of glaring examples in our Parties of the wrong utilization of good, honest Communists who might have been very useful had they, been given work that they were better fit to do.

Fourth, proper distribution of cadres. First of all, we must see to it that the main links of the movement are in the hands of capable people who have contacts with the masses, who have sprung from the grassroots, who have initiative and are staunch. The more important districts should have an appropriate number of such activists. In capitalist countries it is not an easy matter to transfer cadres from one place to another. Such a task encounters a number of obstacles and difficulties, including lack of funds, family considerations, etc., difficulties which must be taken into account and properly overcome. But usually we neglect to do this altogether.

Fifth, systematic assistance to cadres. This assistance should consist in detailed instruction, in friendly check-up, in correction of shortcomings and errors, and in concrete day-to-day guidance of cadres.

Sixth, care for the preservation of cadres. We must learn promptly to withdraw Party workers to the rear whenever circumstances so require and replace them by others. We must demand that the Party, leadership, particularly in countries where the Parties are illegal, assume paramount resposibility for the preservation of cadres. The proper preservation of cadres also presupposes a highly efficient organization of secrecy in the Party. In some of our Parties many, comrades think that the Parties are already prepared for the event of illegality even though they, have reorganized them only formally, according to ready-made rules. We had to pay very dearly for having started the real work of reorganization only after the Party had gone underground under the direct heavy blows of the enemy. Remember the severe losses the Communist Party of Germany suffered during its transition to underground conditions. Its experience should serve as a serious warning to those of our Parties which today are still legal but may lose their legal status tomorrow.

Only, a correct policy in regard to cadres will enable our Parties to develop and utilize all available forces to the utmost, and obtain from the enormous reservoir of the mass movement ever fresh reinforcements of new and] better active workers.

What should be our main criterion in selecting cadres?

First, absolute devotion to the cause of the working class, loyalty to the Party, tested in face of the class enemy - in battle, in prison, in court.

Second, the closest possible contact with the masses. The comrades concerned must be wholly absorbed in the interests of the masses, feel the life pulse of the masses, know their sentiments and requirements. The prestige of the leaders of our Party organizations should be based, first of all, on the fact that the masses regard them as their leaders and are convinced through their own experience of their ability as leaders and of their determination and self-sacrifice in struggle.

Third, ability independently to find one's bearings in given circumstances and not to be afraid of assuming responsibility in making decisions. He who fears to take responsibility is not a leader. He who is unable to display initiative, who says: 'I will do only what I am told,' is not a Bolshevik. Only he is a real Bolshevik leader who does not lose his head at moments of defeat, who does not get a swelled head at moments of success, who displays indomitable firmness in carrying out decisions. Cadres develop and grow best when they are placed in the position of having to solve concrete problems of the struggle independently, and are aware that they are fully responsible for their decisions.

Fourth, discipline and Bolshevik hardening in the struggle against the class enemy as well as in their irreconcilable opposition to all deviations from the Bolshevik line.

We must place all the more emphazis on these conditions which determine the correct selection of cadres, because in practice preference is very often given to a comrade who, for example, is able to write well and is a good speaker, but is not a man or woman of action, and is not suited for the struggle as some other comrade who may not be able to write or speak so well, but is staunch comrade, possessing initiative and contact with the masses, and is capable of going into battle and leading others into battle. Have there not been many cases of sectarians, doctrinaires or moralizers crowding out loyal mass workers, genuine workingclass leaders?

Our leading cadres should combine the knowledge of what they must do with Bolshevik stamina revolutionary strength of character and the power to carry it through.

In connection with the question of cadres, permit me, comrades, to dwell also on the very great part which the International Labour Defence is called upon to play, in relation to the cadres of the labour movement. The material and moral assistance which the ILD organizations render to our prisoners and their families, to political emigrants, to persecuted revolutionaries and anti-fascists, has saved the lives and preserved the strength and fighting capacity of thousands upon thousands of most valuable fighters of the working class in many countries. Those of us who have been in jail have found out directly, through our own experience the enormous significance of the activity of the ILD.

By, its activity the ILD has won the affection, devotion and deep gratitude of hundreds of thousands of proletarians and of revolutionary elements among the peasantry and intellectuals.

Under present conditions, when bourgeois reaction is growing, when fascism is raging and the class struggle is becoming more acute, the role of the ILD is increasing immensely. The task now before the ILD is to become a genuine mass organization of the working people in all capitalist Countries (particularly, in fascist countries, where it must adapt itself to the special conditions prevailing there). It must become, so to speak, a sort of 'Red Cross' of the united front of the proletariat and of the anti-fascist Popular Front, embracing millions of working people - the 'Red Cross' of the army of the toiling classes embattled I fascism, fighting for peace and socialism. If the ILD is to perform its part successfully,, it must train thousands of its own active militants, a multitude of its own cadres, ILD cadres, answering in their character and capacity to the special purposes of this extremely important organization.

And here I must say as categorically, and as sharply as possible that while a bureaucratic approach and a soulless attitude towards people is harmful in the labour movement taken in general, in the sphere of activity, of the ILD such an attitude is an evil bordering on the criminal. The fighters of the working class, the victims of reaction and fascism who are suffering agony, in torture chambers and concentration camps, political emigrants and their families, should all meet with the most sympathetic care and solicitude on the part of the organizations and functionaries of the ILD. The ILD must still better appreciate and discharge its duty of assisting the fighters in the proletarian and anti-fascist movement, particularly in physically and morally preserving the cadres of the workers' movement. The Communists and revolutionary workers who are active in the ILD organizations must realize at every step the enormous responsibility they have before the working class and the Communist International for the successful fulfilment of the role and tasks of the ILD.

Comrades, as you know, cadres receive their best train in the process of struggle, in surmounting difficulties and withstanding tests, and also from favourable and unfavourable examples of conduct. We have hundreds of exampies of splendid conduct in times of strikes, during demonstrations, in jail, in court. We have thousands of instances of heroism, but unfortunately also not a few cases of faintheartedness, lack of firmness and even desertion. We often forget these examples, both good and bad. We do not teach people to benefit by these examples. We do not show them what should be emulated and what rejected. We must study, the conduct of our comrades and militant workers during class conflicts, under police interrogation, in the jails and concentration camps, in court, etc. The good examples should be brought to light and held up as models to be followed, and all that is rotten, non-Bolshevik and philistine should be cast aside. Since the Reichstag Fire Trial we have had quite a few comrades whose statements before bourgeois and fascist courts show that numerous cadres are growing up with an excellent understanding of what really constitutes Bolshevik conduct in court.

But how many even of you, delegates to the Congress, know the details of the trial of the railwaymen in Rumania, know about the trial of Fiete Schulze, who was subsequently beheaded by the fascists in Germany, the trial of our valiant Japanese comrade Itsikawa, the trial of the Bulgarian revolutionary soldiers, and many other trials at which admirable examples of proletarian heroism were displayed?

Such worthy examples of proletarian heroism must be popularized, must be contrasted with the manifestations of faint-heartedness, philistinism, and every kind of rottenness and frailty in cur ranks and the ranks of the working class. These examples must be used most extensively, in educating the cadres of the workers' movement.

Comrades, our Party leaders often complain that there are no people, that they are short of people for agitational and propaganda work, for the newspapers, the trade unions, for work among the youth, among women. Not enough, not enough - that is the cry. We simply haven't got the people. To this we could reply in the old yet eternally new words of Lenin:

There are no people - yet there are enormous numbers of people. There are enormous numbers of people, because the working class and ever more diverse strata of society, year after year, throw up from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest.... At the same time we have no people, because we have... no talented organizers capable of organizing extensive and at the same time uniform and harmonious work that would give employment to all forces, even the most inconsiderable. (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 436-437)

These words of Lenin must be throughly grasped by our Parties and applied by them as a guide in their everyday work. There are plenty of people. They need only to be discovered in our own organizations, during strikes and demon strations, in various mass organizations of the workers, in united front bodies. They must be helped to grow in the course of their work and struggle, they must be put in a situation where they can really be useful to the workers cause.

Comrades, we Communists are people of action. Ours is the problem of practical struggle against the offensive of capital, against fascism and the threat of imperialist war, the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. It is precisely this practical task that obliges Communist cadres to equip themselves with revolutionary theory, for theory gives those engaged in practical work the power of orientation, clarity of vision, assurance in work, belief in the triumph of our cause.

But real revolutionary theory is irreconcilably hostile to all emasculated theorizing, all barren play with abstract definitions. Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action; Lenin used to say. It is such a theory that our cadres need, and they need it as badly as they need their daily bread, as they need air or water.

Whoever really wishes to rid our work of deadening, cut-and-dried schemes, of pernicious scholasticism, must burn them out with a red-hot iron, both by practical, active struggle waged together with and at the head of the masses, and by untiring effort to master the mighty, fertile, all powerful teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin.

In this connection I consider it particularly necessary to draw your attention to the work of our Party schools. It is not pedants, moralizers or adepts at quoting that our schools must train. No. It is practical frontrank fighters in the cause of the working class that should graduate from there, people who are front-rank fighters not only because of their boldness and readiness for self-sacrifice, but also because they see further than rank-and-file workers and know better than they the path that leads to the emancipation of the working people. All sections of the Communist International must without any dilly-dallying seriously take up the question of the proper organization of Party schools, in order to turn them into smithies where these fighting cadres are forged.

The principal task of our Party schools, it seems to me, is to teach the Party and Young Communist League members there how to apply, the Marxist-Leninist method to the concrete situation in particular countries, to definite conditions, not the struggle against an enemy 'in general,' but against a particular, definite enemy. This makes necessary a study of not merely the letter of Leninism, but its living revolutionary spirit.

There are two ways of training cadres in our Party schools:

First method: teaching people abstract theory, trying to give them the greatest possible dose of dry learning, coaching them how to write theses and resolutions in a literary style and only incidentally touching upon the problems of the particular 'country, of the particular labour movement, its history and traditions, and the experience of the Communist Party in question.

Second method: theoretical training in which mastering the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism is based on practical study by the student of the key problems of the struggle of the proletariat in his own country. On returning to his practical work, the student will then be able to find his bearings by himself, and become an independent practical organizer and leader capable of leading the masses in battle against the class enemy.

Not all graduates of our Party schools prove to be suit able. There are many phrases, abstractions, a good deal of book knowledge and show of learning. But we need real truly Bolshevik organizers and leaders of the masses. And we need them badly this very day. It does not matter if such students cannot write good theses (though we need that very much, too), but they must know how to organize and lead undaunted by difficulties, capable of surmounting them.

Revolutionary theory is the generalized, summarized experience of the revolutionary movement. Communists must carefully utilize in their countries not only the experience of the past but also the experience of the present struggle of other detachments of the international workers' movement. However, correct utilization of experience does not by any means denote mechanical transposition of readymade forms and methods of struggle from one set of conditions to another, from one country to another, as so often happens in our Parties. Bare imitation, simple copying of methods and forms of work, even of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in countries where capitalism is still supreme, may with the best of intentions result in harm rather than good, as has so often actually been the case. It is precisely from the experience of the Russian Bolsheviks that we must learn to apply effectually, to the specific conditions of life in each country, the single international line; in the struggle against capitalism we must learn pitilessly to cast aside, pillory and hold up to general ridicule all phrase -mongering, use of hackneyed formulas, pedantry and dogmatism.

It is necessary to learn, Comrades, to learn always, at every, step, in the course of the struggle, at liberty and in jail. To learn and to fight, to fight and to learn.

Comrades, never has any international congress of Communists aroused such keen interest on the part of world public opinion as we witness now in regard to our present Congress. It may be said without fear of exaggeration that there is not a single serious newspaper, not a single political party, not a single more or less serious political or social leader that is not following the course of our Congress with the closest attention.

The eyes of millions of workers, peasants, small townspeople, office workers and intellectuals, of colonial peoples and oppressed nationalities are turned towards Moscow, the great capital of the first but not the last state of the international proletariat. In this we see a confirmation of the enormous importance and urgency of the questions discussed at the Congress and of its decisions.

The frenzied howling of the fascists of all countries, particularly of rabid German fascism, only confirms us in the belief 'that our decisions have indeed hit the mark.

In the dark night of bourgeois reaction and fascism in which the class enemy is endeavouring to keep the working masses of the capitalist countries, the Communist International, the international Party. of the Bolsheviks, stands out like a beacon, showing all mankind the one way to emancipation from the voke of capitalism, from fascist barbarity and the horrors of imperialist war.

The establishment of unity of action of the working class is the decisive stage on that road. Yes, unity. of action by, the organizations of the working class of every trend, the consolidation of its forces in all spheres of its activity and in all sectors of the class struggle.

The working class must achieve the unify of its trade unions. In vain do some reformist trade union leaders attempt to frighten the workers with the spectre of a trade union democracy. destroyed by the interference of the Communist Parties in the affairs of the united trade unions, by the existence of Communist factions within the trade unions. To depict us Communists as opponents of trade union democracy. is sheer nonsense. We advocate and consistently uphold the right of the trade unions to decide their problems for themselves. We are even prepared to forego the creation of Communist factions in the trade unions if that is necessary in the interests of trade union unity. We are prepared to come to an agreement on the independence of the united trade unions from all political parties. But we are decidedly opposed to any dependence of the trade unions on the bourgeoise, and do not give up our basic point of view that it is impermissible for trade unions to adopt a neutral position in regard to the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

The working class must strive to secure the union of all forces of the working-class youth and of all organizations of the anti-fascist youth, and win over that section of the working youth which has come under the demoralizing influence of fascism and other enemies of the people.

The working class must and will achieve unity of action in all fields of the labour movement. This will come about !he sooner the more firmly and resolutely we Communists and revolutionary workers of all capitalist countries apply. in practice the new tactical line adopted by our Congress in relation to the most important urgent questions of the international workers' movement.

We know that there are many difficulties ahead. Our path is not a smooth asphalt road, our path is not strewn with roses. The working class will have to overcome many an obstacle, including obstacles in its own midst; it faces the task above all of reducing to naught the disruptive machinations of the reactionary elements of Social Democracy. Many are the sacrifices that will be exacted under the hammer blows of bourgeois reaction and fascism. The revolutionary ship of the proletariat will have to steer its course through a multitude of submerged rocks before it reaches its port.

But the working class in the capitalist countries is today no longer what it was in 1914, at the beginning of the imperialist war, nor what it was in 1918, at the end of the war. The working class has behind it twenty years of rich experience and revolutionary trials, bitter lessons of a number of defeats, especially in Germany, Austria and Spain.

The working class has before it the inspiring example of the Soviet Union, the land of victorious socialism, an example of how the class enemy can be defeated, how the working class can establish its own government and build a socialist society .

The bourgeoisie no longer holds undivided dominion over the whole expanse of the world. Now the victorious working class rules over one sixth of the globe. Soviets rule over a vast part of the great China.

The working class possesses a firm, well-knit revolutionary vanguard, the Communist International.

The whole course of historical development, Comrades, favours the cause of the working class. In vain are the efforts of the reactionaries, the fascists of every hue, the entire world bourgeoisie, to turn back the wheel of history. No, that wheel is turning forward and will continue to turn forward towards a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, until the final victory of socialism throughout the world.

There is but one thing that the working class of the capitalist countries still lacks - unity in its own ranks.

So let the battle cry of the Communist International, the clarion call of Marx, Engels and Lenin ring out all the more loudly from this platform to the whole world.

Workers of all countries, unite...

NOTES

1) Lerroux, Alexandro Garcia - Spanish politician and leader of the Republican Radical Party. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the first Republican government after the proclamation of the Republic of April 1931, sided with Franco during the fascist uprising.

2) Robles, Gil - Spanish reactionary statesman, minister in the Lerroux Government.

3) Referring to the defeat of the German revolution in 1918-1923, the defeat of the revolutionary movement in Austria in 1934 and the defeat of the workers' revolutions in Asturia (Spani) in 1934.

Keynote to National Conference: Connecting the dots from here to socialism

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:32:00 +0000

Introduction

I also want to welcome you to our annual conference.

I also want to extend a special welcome to Comrade Ana Maria Prestes Rabelo of the Communist Party of Brazil. Comrade Ana, who is a member of the Central Committee and International Department, will be with us all weekend.

We look forward to her presentation later today, which I’m sure will give us a picture of a party that skillfully works in a very complex situation.

We thank the Communist Party of Brazil for making this possible.

Before I get into my report, which should be understood as a work in progress, I thought it would be useful to say a few words about the thinking behind this conference. One might assume that a conference in an election year would focus laser-like on the present political moment.

Such an assumption is both right and wrong. This conference will not ignore the elections to be sure, but it does at the same time have a grander design. It will connect the dots so to speak between our immediate and our longer-range political tasks.

Or to put it differently, we hope to connect the struggle at the ballot box today with the struggle for socialism tomorrow.

We have discussed this relationship before, but not enough and not to everyone’s satisfaction.

Too many comrades ask: do we have a strategy beyond defeating right wing extremism that leads in the direction of socialism? Have we given up the fight for an independent political formation lead by labor and the racially oppressed? Is socialism still our goal? And, most importantly, how do we get to socialism from here?

Capitalism doesn’t work

Before addressing these questions, I want to make a case against capitalism.

Since its earliest days, capitalism has inflicted incalculable harm on humanity. Primitive accumulation, genocide, wars, slavery, ruthless wage exploitation, territorial annexation, racist, gender, and other forms of inequality – all this and more occupy prominent places in the history of capitalism.

And yet as ghastly as this is, the future could be even worse for a simple reason: capitalism’s destructive power, driven by its inner logic to pump profits out the labor of working people, has grown exponentially compared to a century ago. Unless restrained and eventually dismantled, this power is capable of doing irreversible damage to our planet.

Consider some of the new dangers that make socialism necessary.

First is the prospect of unending war and mass annihilation. With the winding down of the Cold War, most people assumed that the war danger, conventional and nuclear, would ease. Subsequent events, however, have erased these modest hopes. The nuclear threat remains and imperialist driven conventional wars scar the landscape and brutally extinguish the lives of millions of people.

Another threat to humanity’s future is environmental degradation. Almost daily we hear of species extinction, global warming, resource depletion, deforestation, desertification, and on and on to the point where we are nearly accustomed to this gathering catastrophe.

Our planet cannot indefinitely absorb the impact of profit-driven, growth-without-limits capitalism. Many scientists say that unless we radically change our methods of production and consumption patterns, we will reach the point where damage to the planet will become irreversible.

The earth is sending distress signals to its human inhabitants. And they will become louder still as long as the reproduction of capital dominates the reproduction of nature.

Democracy

Still another danger is the many-sided assault on democracy and democratic institutions in the recent period, resulting from the rise of the national security state, capitalist globalization, the political ascendancy of the extreme right, and the invasion of corporate money into the political process.

At the epicenter of the struggle for democracy (and socialism) is the struggle against racism and for full equality. More than anything else it is corrosive of class and democratic consciousness and practices. It is an ideological underpinning of U.S. aggression and the “War against Terrorism.” And it is a dagger in the heart of working class and democratic unity.

If the right wing gains in popularity and power it will be on the back of racism in the first place. The intensification of racism in words and deeds (including a wave of murders) in the wake of the 2008 elections is not by chance. It is the calculated policy of right wing extremists (including the GOP presidential candidates) who are desperate to beat the president at the polls as well as fatally fracture a people’s movement that is growing in understanding, strength and unity.

The racist surge as well as the other attacks on democratic rights and liberties are exceedingly dangerous to our nation’s future. But the role of the democratic movement is not to lament them, nor to cry that fascism is imminent. Its role is to fight more energetically to preserve and expand democracy and democratic liberties.

Shift in power on global level

Still another danger is whether U.S. imperialism will peacefully accommodate to the rise of new competing powers and especially China. Or will it pursue a policy of maintaining global dominance by military means.

If history is any guide, there is ample reason to be concerned. The decline of dominant powers in the past (England for example) and the rise of new ones have brought in their wake war, instability, and even chaos in international relations.

No administration, including the present one, has shown any willingness to yield on U.S. primacy in world affairs. That doesn’t auger well for the future.

It’s the economy

Finally, the economic engine of capitalism is sputtering. On a global level capitalism never worked for the majority of the earth’s inhabitants. At its very dawn capitalism was divided into a core and peripheral zone. In the former the productive forces underwent periodic renewal, the working class grew, and living standards increased, while the latter produced primary materials, provided a source of cheap slave, languished in poverty and underdevelopment, and became a sink for destructive environmental practices of the developed world.

While the relationship between the core and periphery has changed, for example new dynamic centers of accumulation have emerged such as China, India, and Brazil, the majority of the world’s people on the periphery still live in poverty, disease and destitution.

These conditions of subordination, oppression, and exploitation are not by happenstance. They are structured into the economic and political relationships between the core and periphery, between imperialism and the countries of the South.

For a while it seemed as if capitalism in the first world was immune to its own worst excesses. Indeed, U.S. capitalism went through a phase of development in which employment, wages and benefits steadily climbed upward for substantial sections of the working class in tandem with economic growth rates and corporate profits.

It seemed as if capitalism's harsh features had permanently given way to steady growth, upward mobility, and broadly shared prosperity. The American Dream seemed to be within everybody's reach.

But to the surprise of many this "Golden Age" of capitalism didn't last. By the mid-1970s stagflation, rising unemployment and declining wages took hold. Over the next three decades the living conditions for working people deteriorated, thanks to neoliberal globalization, the takeover of the economy by nonproductive finance capital, and a right-wing-led ruling class offensive.

And with the Great Recession of 2008 the metamorphosis was complete. Working people in their vast majority found themselves on a fast moving treadmill. Some ran faster to stay in place, while many fell behind. Meanwhile, the 1 percent not only navigated their way through the Great Recession, but did so by enriching themselves many times over.

What is the upshot of all this?

Capitalism has morphed from a generator of jobs and rising income to a generator of unemployment, inequality, and insecurity. It is hard to imagine the restoration of a growth and employment dynamic and path that will provide plentiful jobs and rising income without a qualitative turn in the balance of class and social forces.

To make matters worse the extreme right is determined to pursue polices globally and domestically that will further impoverish working people – not to mention hasten the decline of U.S. capitalism.

I hope that the foregoing makes the case that socialism is not just a good idea, but an existential imperative – to preserve peace and our planet, to expand democracy, to eliminate gross racial, gender and other forms inequalities, and to provide a secure life for the billions living on this earth.

Thus, the overriding question is: how do we get to socialism? After all, there is no direct path. Socialism can’t be hot-housed. It takes more than militant slogans.

If there were a straight and smooth path to socialism we would have taken it long ago.

Transitional periods

In its formative period, the world communist movement had a disdainful attitude towards transitional forms and stages. The struggle for socialism was direct and compressed in time. It was damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

The operative slogans were “class against class,” and “No Retreat, No Surrender.”

But things didn’t work out the way that those young militants believed. Revolution gave way to counterrevolution.

In the aftermath of this upheaval in the early 1920s, Lenin argued that the revolutionary process would stretch out over time and go through different stages, with distinct strategic tasks specific to each stage.

He further argued that the new communist parties must search for forms of transition to socialism, springing from a sober estimation of the level of class consciousness and the balance of class and social forces at a particular moment.

Unfortunately, Lenin died at a relatively young age and his advice was largely ignored. In fact, it wasn’t until the 7th Congress of the Communist International in 1935 that this serious weakness of the communist movement was corrected. In his address to that gathering, Georgi Dimitrov , the famous Bulgarian Communist, said that the immediate strategic task was not socialism, but rather to build a broad working class led people’s coalition to defeat the growing fascist threat.

Dimitrov ridiculed what he called “cut and dried” schemes that ignored the political situation and dynamics on the ground. He maintained that strategic and tactical concepts had to be fashioned to fit concrete reality, to fit a particular stage of struggle.

He argued that communists must shed simplistic understandings of the revolutionary process like class against class, skipping intermediate stages of struggle, and countering every demand of the social democrats with a demand that was twice as radical.

His report was at once an impassioned plea for a broad based alliance with the working class at its core and an insistent argument against “self-satisfied sectarianism,” an attitude and practice that consisted of taking seemingly militant REVOLUTIOINARY positions that were divorced from the concrete realities on the ground.

That was then. So where do we stand now? What is the path to socialism? What is our overall strategy?

Strategy and strategic policy

Before attempting to concretely answer that question, I want to make some general observations about strategy and strategic policy. To begin with, a well thought out strategy can make the difference between victory and defeat. Our party in 1930s, for example, changed its strategic policy in the mid 1930s (from class against class to the building of a broad working class led people’s coalition against the economic crisis and fascism). In doing so, we enhanced our status and prestige, grew rapidly in size, and advanced the broader movement in innumerable ways.

By the same token, a wrongly conceived strategy can isolate the party and weaken the working class and people’s movement.

A strategic policy is not an exact roadmap to the future, but a broad outline of where we want to go. It delineates to millions a path from one stage of struggle to another stage in the context of a larger revolutionary process.

It pinpoints the main social forces hindering progressive development, while at the same time identifying the main class and social forces that have an objective interest in moving society to a higher stage of struggle. A strategic policy doesn’t provide neat boundaries that seal off one stage of struggle from another nor does it adhere to a set timetable. In fact, it can take an agonizingly long time to complete.

Strategic policies don’t grow out of thin air or moral outrage or our desire for revolution. Instead, it is determined by two factors.

One is an objective assessment of the level of social and economic development of a society; an anti-corporate strategy, for example, would been of little help to the revolutionaries of 1776.
The other factor is a concrete estimate of the balance of forces of all the social classes and groups in society. Finally, tactics (issues of struggle, forms of organization and unity, slogans, demands, etc.) flow from a strategic policy, not the other way around.

Road to socialism

With the foregoing in mind, let me outline the main stages of struggle as our new program envisions them. The first is the struggle against right wing extremism. This is not a new policy; it goes back to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. At that point and since then it became evident that the main obstacle to social progress remains rightwing extremism and its corporate backers. They cast a reactionary shadow over the whole political process then and now. The election of Barack Obama was a blow to the right, but subsequent events have demonstrated that it wasn’t a decisive blow.

The right still retains considerable power, and initiative to frame the debate and disrupt the legislative and political agenda.

Its overarching goal this year is to regain control of all three branches of the federal government. How dangerous is that? In my view it would set the stage for a period of extreme rightwing onslaught.

If you don’t believe me take a glimpse at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio where rightwing Republicans took control of the levers of power in 2010 and then ruthlessly rolled back rights, eliminated social programs and attacked the labor movement.

Those actions are a harbinger of what the Republican Party would do if in command of the federal government next year.

By contrast, the decisive defeat of the right would weaken Wall Street and the entire corporate class, give leverage and momentum to the people’s movement and clear the ground for an era that puts people and nature before profits and “free markets.”

But that will happen only if an electoral coalition is assembled that includes the left, progressives, independents and moderates.

Said differently and dialectically, the defeat of the right at the polls next year cannot be achieved on a pure anti-corporate basis, given the existing relationship of forces. The 99 per cent versus the 1 per cent is a good slogan and representation of economic reality, but it doesn’t reflect the actual political balance of forces on the ground at this moment.

The political complexion of the country is more complicated, thus making a broader strategy that reaches out to moderates (Republican as well as Democrats) and independents necessary.

Moreover, such a strategy if successful becomes the basis on which tens of millions will encounter a new relationship of forces, which, in turn, is the ground on which to move to a higher level of understanding and struggle.

None of this is to suggest that the Democrats aren’t now or won’t be in the future an obstacle to progressive change; in too many instances they are, but they aren’t the main obstacle for the moment.

This election, then, is not about choosing a lesser evil. It is about our nation’s future: are we going to move in a progressive-democratic or rightwing anti-democratic-authoritarian direction (I distinguish this characterization from fascism which has a particular meaning – the open terroristic dictatorship of the most backward sections of the capitalist class – in the communist movement)

Thus, the labor-led people’s coalition, and Communists as a current within that coalition, must make every phase of the election process a number one priority.

The people’s coalition must be a major factor in the primaries. It must reach, register and educate new and stay-at-home voters. It must guarantee a maximum voter turnout on Election Day.

No less important, it must unrelentingly expose the reactionary positions of the Republican candidates and their racist and anti-democratic systematic campaign to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters.

Not everyone shares this view. Some think the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Others go further and say that the Democrats are worse because they create popular illusions that change is possible within the two-party system. Still others say the electoral process is so compromised by corporate money that participating in it is a fool’s errand. And finally there are advocates of running a third-party presidential candidate in this election.

I can understand these sentiments, but only up to a point. Like it or not, millions go to the polls in spite of their misgivings. They are invested in the electoral process. Voting is a sacred duty. And the Democratic Party is the vehicle of reform for tens of millions, the majority of whom are working and oppressed people.

What is more, labor will throw itself into the campaign to elect Democrats, moderate as well as progressive, albeit from its own organizational base. Four hundred thousand campaign volunteers are going to walk neighborhoods this fall.

Much the same can be said about the racially oppressed. Ditto women and seniors. The majority of youth will also take part in the elections, and like four years ago on the side of President Obama and the Democrats.

A third-party presidential candidate would only help the extreme right as well as isolate the left from the broader movement.

The two parties of the capitalist class have similarities. That is undeniable. But differences also exist at the level of social composition and political policies – policies that can be widened under the impact of a powerful people’s movement, as they were in earlier historical periods.

The past three years have been frustrating to be sure; much the same could be said about the past three decades. But frustration and impatience are a poor excuse for a strategic and tactical policy in relation to the coming elections and politics generally.

Only a very sober and objective analysis should guide our thinking and actions. It is easy to imagine any number of electoral strategies, but the question is: which one is rooted in objective realities and advances class and democratic struggles? Which one positions the popular forces to go on the offensive in the post-election period? Which outcome will clear the ground of neoliberal polices and debris? Which one will weaken the corporate class as a whole?

To skip over the current stage in the name of militant radicalism may feel revolutionary, but in the end it is self-defeating and strategically misguided.

Anti-corporate stage

The decisive defeat of the right in November will result in a different and far more favorable balance of forces. The fight for a people’s agenda, the fight for an anti-crisis economic program will bring the labor led people’s movement into loggerheads with corporate economic and political power. Although the terrain of struggle will tilt in the direction of the broad democratic movement, no one should expect that the corporate class to retreat without a struggle. Employing its considerable political, economic, and ideological power it will attempt to disrupt, divide, and divert the people’s movement in the short term. In the longer term it will seek to regain the initiative and unrivaled political dominance.

Needless to say, it will get help from the mass media as well as breathe new life into the extreme right wing. And expect racism in new as well as old, open as well as veiled forms to continue as the corporate class attempts to reverse the election outcome, poison class consciousness, and divide the people’s movement. Only a closer alliance of a surging labor movement and its strategic allies – the African American people, Latino people, and other peoples of color, women and youth – have the wherewithal to turn back this corporate counterattack, while at the same time enact progressive measures such as public works jobs, living wages, economic conversion to peace time and green production, affirmative action, immigrant rights, housing relief, shorter hours, infrastructure renewal, expand democratic rights, etc. At the same time, new forms of independent political action will continue to grow outside of the Democratic Party apparatus.

Indeed, as the anti-corporate struggle intensifies the contradictions and tensions within the Democratic Party will continue to grow given the multiclass class character of the party.
While pressures to break with the corporate elements in the Democratic Party and their program will surely surface, it is unlikely that any formal rupture will occur before this broad alliance exhausts every (or nearly every) opportunity to reform the Democratic Party, including converting it into a people’s party.

Obviously we welcome the growing trends towards political independence. After all, it hard, if not impossible to imagine, any deep going anti-corporate reform unless the multi-racial working class, the racially oppressed, women, and youth (and their allies) have their own political formation. Such a development in all likelihood would be combined with new forms of organization (Immigrant rights organizations and Occupy are examples of this phenomenon) and the growth and maturing of the left, not least the Communist Party. This stage of struggle doesn’t supplant capitalism, but brings the socialist stage closer as tens of millions become convinced in the course of struggle (experience is a great teacher; messaging, sloganeering, and agitation is not enough) that capitalism doesn’t work for them.

Of course, objective conditions as well as unforeseen events will leave their mark on this bitter confrontation. Social change seldom follows a prescribed course. We envision a process of change, but not a process into which everything must fit; history is more multi-form than we can ever imagine. Thus we have to anticipate novelty, that is, unforeseen turns and breaks in the political process.

The socialist stage

The struggle for socialism is a complex process with no fixed timetable. Periods of advance yield to periods of retreat and vice versa. Shifting alliances form and reform with each side struggling to turn provisional allies into stable ones. New political understandings that accent unity, equality, empowerment, and anti-capitalism compete with ruling class notions that frame how millions understand the world, and the state becomes a contested battleground.

The opening stage in this process will see a substantial and sustained shift to the left among the core forces of social change (the multi-racial working class, people of color, women, and youth plus various social movements), a deepening of anti-racist (including anti-immigrant) consciousness and practice, growing support for an anti-crisis program, the further congealing of an anti-corporate alliance of social groupings, and the growth of the Communist Party and other left organizations.

This stage will culminate in the election of a people’s government, based on a left and progressive majority at the polls.

The election of a people’s government will mark the transition of the revolutionary process to a second stage. It will be characterized by a combined struggle inside and outside of government to implement the key policies of an anti-crisis program.

Of special importance at this stage are steps to control the movement of capital, to redistribute income from the wealthy to working people, and to place under democratic control sectors of the economy, such as finance, that are a threat to the people’s government and socialist revolution.
At the same time, legislative initiatives to counteract the grip of a small number of monopoly conglomerates on the capitalist mass media will be of critical importance. A more diverse pattern of ownership and control in the print, broadcasting, film, telecommunications and web-based media would mirror the wide range of interests and aspirations in a modern, democratic society.

So there is no misunderstanding, it should be said that a people’s government does not mean that the entire capitalist state and its personnel are now on the side of a fundamental transformation of society.

Therefore, the state itself will become a focal point for sharp class and democratic struggles. In the early going, the people’s government will have to introduce extensive changes in recruitment, staffing and management policies within the diplomatic services, government agencies, the judiciary, the police, the secret services and armed forces for the purpose of replacing key personnel with supporters of the government’s goals.

It will be vital to secure the widest possible public support for these steps, including in mass referendums, while continuing to extend and deepen democratic rights, improve the living standards of working people and other non-corporate strata, and reduce racial, gender, and other inequalities.

New bodies of working class and popular power, if history is any guide, are likely to arise in the course of these struggles.

This thrust by the new government will almost certainly meet the most determined resistance from powerful sections of the capitalist class and its forces within and outside the state apparatus. (Unlike other countries we can worry less about outside interference militarily and economically because of our dominant position in world affairs and the likelihood that we will not be the first to make this transition.)

Thus, enormous confrontations will occur, signifying that the revolutionary process has entered its third and most crucial stage as tens of millions come to the realization that capitalism is the problem. In the course of these confrontations – not least in the electoral arena – the question of who controls the state will be decided – the corporate- finance capitalist class or the working class and its allies.

Much will depend not only on the balance of forces in the state and in society as a whole, but also on the sustained mobilization of tens of millions to uphold the people’s democratic will and to respond in a timely way to any acts of sabotage.

In the course of this process, the constructive involvement of the labor movement in general and the public sector trade unions in particular will be essential.

For many reasons (the sanctity of life, the terrifically destructive weaponry that exists, the lasting wounds that are left in the aftermath of an armed engagement, etc.) the socialist movement seeks a peaceful path. The extent to which this is possible will depend the scope of the popular mobilization and the ability of the socialist movement to minimize the capacity for resistance of the capitalist class, including the utilization the slightest divisions in its ranks. As the working class and oppressed invariably bear the brunt of counter-revolutionary violence, it is the duty of the socialist forces to devise such a strategy, rather than propose simplistic notions of violent insurrection and armed struggle.

At one time, we envisioned a narrowing of the movement from the anti-corporate stage of struggle to the socialist stage. There was a grain of truth here, but only a grain; probably some social strata will peel away as the dawn breaks on socialism, but at the same time, the overall movement must be gaining in breadth and depth. It must be winning ever more millions of people to its banner, including those who were formerly politically passive or a part of the opposition bloc.

Therefore, any notion of the transition to socialism as a purely working-class affair or a project of just the left should be rejected. Only a movement of the great majority and in the interests of the great majority, only a movement whose mass character deepens again and again, is capable of winning socialism in our country.

Political rupture

Even when a political rupture occurs, it will be neither complete nor irreversible. On the day after the transfer of power, socio-economic life will probably look much like it did the day before and power will continue to be contested.

In such circumstances, as important as the battle of ideas is, it is also imperative to continue to enact measures to weaken the class adversary, while at the same time taking steps to expand the rights of tens of millions, and enact people driven economic measures.

It is also imperative to win bigger majorities in subsequent elections.

Thus, revolutions are not a single act, but rather a series of events and complex processes stretching over time.

Nationally specific path

Nor are revolutions imitative. While there are clearly some common features, this transformational process can happen in a variety of ways; one size doesn’t fit all.

In considering forms of transition to socialism, we should be unabashed proponents of our own nationally specific path.

While we should study the experiences of other countries, those experiences should not imprison our political imagination.

If I were to write a book on our own country’s path to socialism, I would make the particular features a main thread, not an addendum. For example, given the democratic sentiments of the American people and given the powerful impact of race and gender on the politics, economics, culture, consciousness, and historical trajectory of our nation, our vision of socialism must include an unyielding commitment to completing the unfinished democratic tasks that we will inherit and expanding democracy, beginning with the eradication of racism and male supremacy.

Even the slightest devaluing of democracy or the fight against racism and gender oppression will keep the socialist movement on the political periphery.

The Communists and the left

We also have to anticipate that multiple parties and movements will be a feature of the U.S. path to socialism.

That said, I would argue that our party has a unique role both now and in the future.

Our embrace of a theory of society and social change that is historical, ecological, dialectical, comprehensive and independently elaborated – without shortcuts, simplifications or official boundaries.

Our affinity to the American radical/democratic tradition.

Our use of class analysis and categories in a way that is broad and unifying.

Our focus on the real needs, struggles and interests of the working class and people.

Our commitment to equality and internationalism in their various forms.

Our determination to assist (and lead) in the building of a broad people’s movement at the core of which is the multi-racial working class, people of color, women, and youth.

Our understanding of the special (central) place of the struggle against racism in the fight for social advance and socialism.

Our disposition for action, but not any kind of action, but united action along a specific strategic and tactical path.

Our accent on social processes and contradictions.

Our conviction that the multi-racial, male- female working class and its organized sector play a decisive role on the path to social progress and socialism.

Our refusal to confuse slogans and militancy for analysis.

Our insistence on making a concrete presentation of every question.

Our belief in the necessity of a broad strategic perspective.

Our use of flexible tactics that unite and move forward the labor led people’s movement

Our appreciation of the interconnection between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism.

Our ability to stay clear of false oppositions between partial and more advanced demands, between gradual and radical change, between electoral forms of action and direct action, between patriotism and anti-imperialism, between struggle against the state and struggle within the state, and between anti-capitalism and rifts in capital.

Our insistence that the electoral/legislative arena grows in importance as we move down the road to socialism.

Our belief that popular majorities make change.

Our vision of Bill of Rights socialism.

Our confidence in the democratic and revolutionary character of the American people.

I could go on, but I think my point that our party is unique and necessary to the revolutionary process at every stage.

What will it will look like

Socialism USA will not be drab. It will have a modern and dynamic feel, celebrate the best traditions of our nation, and give patriotism a new democratic content.

It will bring the social and democratic into the heart of our government, economy, media and culture.

It will complete the unfinished democratic tasks left to us by capitalism.

It will expand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Our socialism will embrace people-centered values - in place of profit-centered values - as we overcome divisions of class, gender, race, ethnicity and sexual preference.

It will encourage new social arrangements to care for the very young and the very old.

U.S. socialism will insist on the separation of church and state, but it will also assume that people of faith and non-faith will be active participants in society.

It will also bring an end to exploitation of wage labor, not in one fell swoop, but over time.

A mixed economy operating in a regulated socialist market and combining different forms of state, cooperative and private property (with social property predominant) will define the economic landscape.

Such a mixture of ownership relations and market mechanisms does not preclude economic planning or a national investment strategy.

Finally, socialism will give priority to sustainability and sufficiency, not growth without limits.

A bigger Communist Party

I would be remiss if I ended this report without appealing to you to build the Communist Party and Young Communist League in size and influence. We are too small to be sure, but the good news is that we are growing.

Still we could grow faster if we went about it more deliberately and concretely. After all, people like what we do and say.

A good measure of this is the thousands of people who “like” us on Facebook. As of last week, 20,000 liked us on the People’s World page and 18,000 liked us on the Communist Party page.

And in both instances, the number steadily grows week by week.

Here is a pool of possible new members if we work at it. Plus there are the hundreds of people in mass movements who appreciate our role and if approached right might well join the Party.

What a difference that would make in our ability to bring to life our strategic policy both now and in the future!

Can we do any less?

Sam Webb is National Chairperson, Communist Party, USA. This article is from the keynote remarks at the CPUSA National Conference, April 20-22. at Winston Unity Hall, NYC.

We Are the Real Uniters

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:42:00 +0000

WE ARE THE REAL UNITERS

I want to thank Sam Webb for his fine report. His analysis, in both letter and spirit will be welcomed by our party and will help light the path to people's victory in this period and beyond. The reports of Juan Lopez, Joelle Fishman , Lisa will do much to help guide our party through theses critical challenging times. And to Ana Maria Prestes Rabelo of the Communist Party of Brazil -- thank you so much for your remarks yesterday. We want you to know that our party understands it's special international responsibilities. We understand what is at stake and we are fighting in solidarity with the world's peoples and against US imperialism and for peace and justice everywhere. Thank you so much. Our two parties are united in the struggle to bring about that better world that we both know is possible.

I am very glad Sam made reference to Georgi Dimitrov's phenomenal address to the 7th World Congress of the Communist International in 1935. The impact of Dimitrov's brilliant report changed the world. It was set in a different period, but ideologically, theoretically and politically offers big lessons for us today.

Dimitrov was a international hero in our movement and beyond. He had to fight for his life in the fascist courts when he was falsely accused of setting fire to the Reichstag (German Parliament). The fascists set that fire and used it to create an anti communist, anti Semitic, hysteria so that they could crush the left and solidify their fascist dictatorship in Germany. And that is what they did.

Among those falsely charged was Georgi Dimitrov, a Bulgarian Communist and a leader of The Communist International. The Nazis used the fire to launch a rein of terror. Ten thousand members of the Communist Party were thrown in prison. Communist leaders were tortured and murdered. Dimitrov was imprisoned for 7 months. For five of those 7 months he was held in chains. The Nazis wanted to dehumanize and demoralize this comrade so that when he walked into the courtroom, he would not be able to defend himself.

But they underestimated this worker, his courage, and his great understanding. Dimitrov, who was not a lawyer (he was a printer by trade), rejected the court appointed counsel and demanded his right to defend himself. At a time of anti communist and anti-democratic terror, Comrade Dimitrov went into that fascist court, defended himself and against all odds he won his acquittal.

That was in 1933. In 1935 he gave the famous report to the 7th world congress of the Communist International calling for working class and popular unity against Fascism. Dimitrov remains a heroic figure in the world communist movement. In Dimitrov's "United Front against Fascism", unity in struggle is the dominant theme. Dimitrov creatively applied our science to a complex objective situation. He countered right and left sectarian tendency in our ranks and laid out effective tactics within the framework of a winning strategy.

Unity theme

Unity was based on the understanding that while they played a leading role, the Communist alone, as courageous and committed as they were, the Soviet people alone, as sacrificing and determined as the were, could not win this battle alone. The left along, even the international working class alone, though decisive, could not defeat the Fascist drive for world domination. That struggle had to include all class strata and peoples world wide who opposed fascism.

Fascism is a form of capitalist rule. It is the worst form. It had to be defeated on the battlefield. But also it had to be defeated in the hearts and minds of masses. The popular Front was powerful enough to defeat the Rome, Tokyo, Berlin Axis. History is very clear about that. Our party has a history on this question. This discussion was part of the early formation of our party. Wm. Z Foster in his history of our party was critical of the "Left Manifesto" that our comrades united around in their split from the Socialist. He said it was great in the fight against right opportunism but fell short in the fight against left sectarianism. Foster pointed out that the Manifesto "fairly reeked with this traditional sectarianism in practice'"(He was taking about traditional in the American Marxist Movement). He wrote,

"It failed completely to develop a program of united front action with labor's natural allies, especially the Negro people and the farmers" And, he added, mistakenly considered the anti capitalist struggle to be "one of the working class alone" .. He further pointed out that the left manifesto, " left partial demands completely out"..."and reduced it's parliamentary activity simply to one of agitation"

He then quotes Alexander Bittelman on the matter, who said, "The left wing did not seem to realize that revolutionary mass action grows [only] out of the real living issues of the class struggle, as it develops day by day". ( History of the Communist Party of the United States", Pg. 168, By Wm. Z. Foster, 1952, International Publishers )

The "Left Manifesto" was written in 1919 a year before Lenin's "Left wing Communism an Infantile Disorder" came out. "Left Wing Communism" greatly enhanced the discussion and led to an ideological turning-point for our movement which was the basis for the development of tactics that grew the party to its largest size, its greatest influence and biggest achievements.
The united Front and the popular front concept literally saved this world from decades of terroristic Fascist rule. Yesterday, Bea Lumpkin mentioned that 100 million lives were lost in the struggle against fascism. It is a rejection of left sectarian practice that is a barrier in the battle for democracy and therefore a barrier in the fight for Socialism.

Look at the Republican Campaign. It reeks with racism. It promotes violence against immigrants and people of color. When I think of the senseless murder of Trayvon and the murders in Tulsa; when I think of Sharon Engler's call for "2nd Amendment solutions," and the GOP's promotion of violence as solutions to political problems; when I think of their attacks on marriage equality and the violence against LGBT folks -- I think it is all connected. The open promotion of violence against the life of the African American President seems to me to be almost tolerated in the media. Frankly, what I worry about the Secret Service is, are they protecting the President? Ted Nugent's violent talk against the President, at of all places the NRA convention, is treated as acceptable in the right wing media. In other periods if a peace leader would have said the things Nugent said, they would have been in handcuffs. It would not have been tolerated with other Presidents. Why is it ok now?

Their attacks on the size of government are really attacks on the working class, racial minorities, on women, on youth, on the hungry and homeless. They are attacks on pubic education, social security, pensions and the right to health care for all. To connect creating jobs to concessions to the rich is outrageous. Since they oppose government intervention what they saying to the jobless? They are saying that the unemployed and their families have to wait until the rich get all the concessions they want before they get work. They want to reduce labor's strength to a point were they can't fight back so that they can maximize their profits to new heights.

And don't hold your breath on those jobs comrades. Poverty wages are not the answer and will bring new and deeper crisis. Remember, we had full employment under slavery. These right wing nut jobs need to understand, WE ARE NOT GOING BACK . If Obama is elected of course there will be a struggle; a struggle that the democratic forces could win I would say. If he is defeated, the movement will suffer a big set back and the Country will be pushed backwards. THAT IS WHY WE FIGHT TO BUILD REAL BROAD PEOPLE'S UNITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC (SMALL "D") AND PROGRESSIVE FORCES TO PUSH THE STRUGGLE FORWARD. WHAT LABOR AND ALLIES ARE DOING WILL BUILD POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE AND WILL BRING GREAT CHANGES.

Is it revolutionary?

At a time when the survival of capitalism (as the right wing sees it) is sharply at odds with democratic rights, the fight for democracy as we understand it is a radicalizing struggle that HAS AND WILL TRANSFORM THIS SYSTEM. Comrade we are the real uniters and we fight with a clear conscience and an honest heart.

COMRADES,

Seven years from this September will be our centennial year. We have mush to celebrate. We have a proud history of struggle. Our party has weathered many storms. We are the most attacked party in US history. Our almost 93 year history, we have been outlawed more than once by this capitalist government . Many US political parties have come and gone. But our party survived. How did we survive? Our understanding of the united front and popular front and how to build broad unity has been a big part of how we've survived.
I believe what we are doing now goes beyond this election struggle. I believe we are helping to build a new foundation for great change. I ask you, Can we do it? And what should you answer?

SI SE PUEDE!!

Thank you.

Jarvis Tyner is Executive Vice Chairperson of the CPUSA. These remarks were delivered at the annual Party Conference at Winston Unity Hall, April 20-22, 2012.

Obama On End of Compromise with Republican Extremism

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:19:00 +0000

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/03/remarks-president-associated-press-luncheon

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, good afternoon, and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak to all of you -- and to have a microphone that I can see. (Laughter.) Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him. (Laughter.)

Clearly, we’re already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments. You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write -- unless, of course, you're writing about the other guy -- in which case, good job. (Laughter.)

But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now -- issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.

In the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?

This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008. It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.

Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent’s love and attention.

As President, I’ve eliminated dozens of programs that weren’t working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office -- since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.

So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea. But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children. That belief is why we’ve been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we’ve been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.

That belief is also why we’ve sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need.

For generations, nearly all of these investments -- from transportation to education to retirement programs -- have been supported by people in both parties. As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges. It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren’t part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth.

Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require. Ask any company where they’d rather locate and hire workers –- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that’s committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development?

It doesn’t make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don’t have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.

In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That’s how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That’s why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we’d convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we’d just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off. We’re told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it’s good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That’s the theory.

Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we’ve tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.

Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.

It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn’t have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people’s health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn’t afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people’s money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.

So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. You'd think they’d say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today’s middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn’t gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people’s financial aid.

But that’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget "radical" and said it would contribute to "right-wing social engineering." This is coming from Newt Gingrich.

And yet, this isn’t a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party’s governing platform. This is what they’re running on. One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he’s “very supportive” of this new budget, and he even called it "marvelous" -- which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget. (Laughter.) It’s a word you don’t often hear generally. (Laughter.)

So here’s what this "marvelous" budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can’t afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.

This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending –- exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this -- because I don’t think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.

The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.

Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.

That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.

Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall -- but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.

This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.

If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt -- period. Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated.

And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.

And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We’re told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states -- that's the pitch: Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better. But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed -- a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million.

Who are these Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.

Then there’s Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit. That’s a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.

But here’s the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president: Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they’ll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they’ve been doing for decades -- that’s too bad. Seniors bear the risk. If the voucher isn’t enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad.

So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.

The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won’t be on our books -- is because we’ve shifted it to seniors. They’ll bear more of the costs themselves. It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.

Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.

We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.

Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That’s an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country -- $150,000.

Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year’s worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined -- investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we’d be better off as a country if that’s how we spend it.

This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It’s laughable.

The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created -- which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn’t agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- I'm sorry -- it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. That’s why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach: Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue.

This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.

And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s and the '80s. That’s part of how we got ahead. And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation?

So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice. And I’ve already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory. In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan.

And I’m willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again -- there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.

I’ve also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven’t always been comfortable with. But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system. It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies. It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program. It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more. It changes the way we pay for health care -- not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results.

And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need.

We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes -- an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he’s paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right.

And the choice is really very simple. If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place -- or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose -- then one of two things happen: Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class. Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare. College students will lose some of their financial aid. Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less. I repeat what I’ve said before: That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math.

If that’s the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we’re going to make sure every American knows about it. In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we’ve called the Buffett Rule. Simple concept: If you make more than a million dollars a year -- not that you have a million dollars -- if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your taxes shouldn’t go up. That’s the proposal.

Now, you’ll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won’t raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. Maybe not, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want. I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. And by the way, I believe it’s the right thing to do.

This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. We have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

And this sense of responsibility -- to each other and our country -- this isn’t a partisan feeling. This isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism. And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.

MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Mr. President. We appreciate so much you being with us today. I have some questions from the audience, which I will ask -- and I'll be more careful than I was last time I did this.

Republicans have been sharply critical of your budget ideas as well. What can you say to the Americans who just want both sides to stop fighting and get some work done on their behalf?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I completely understand the American people’s frustrations, because the truth is that these are eminently solvable problems. I know that Christine Lagarde is here from the IMF, and she’s looking at the books of a lot of other countries around the world. The kinds of challenges they face fiscally are so much more severe than anything that we confront -- if we make some sensible decisions.

So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right. These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand.

Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.

So let's look at Bowles-Simpson. Essentially, my differences with Bowles-Simpson were I actually proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts. The Republicans want to increase defense spending and take in no revenue, which makes it impossible to balance the deficit under the terms that Bowles-Simpson laid out -- unless you essentially eliminate discretionary spending. You don't just cut discretionary spending. Everything we think of as being pretty important -- from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to environmental protection -- we'd essentially have to eliminate.

I guess another way of thinking about this is -- and this bears on your reporting. I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented -- which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

And so I think it's important to put the current debate in some historical context. It's not just true, by the way, of the budget. It's true of a lot of the debates that we're having out here.

Cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. The first President to talk about cap and trade was George H.W. Bush. Now you've got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let's gut the EPA.

Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.

So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions I'm taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What's changed is the center of the Republican Party. And that’s certainly true with the budget.

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, the managing director of the (inaudible) for continuation of United States leadership (inaudible) economic issues, and underscored the need for a lower deficit and lower debt. How can you respond to that claim?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, she's absolutely right. It's interesting, when I travel around the world at these international fora -- and I've said this before -- the degree to which America is still the one indispensable nation, the degree to which, even as other countries are rising and their economies are expanding, we are still looked to for leadership, for agenda setting -- not just because of our size, not just because of our military power, but because there is a sense that unlike most superpowers in the past, we try to set out a set of universal rules, a set of principles by which everybody can benefit.

And that’s true on the economic front as well. We continue to be the world’s largest market, an important engine for economic growth. We can’t return to a time when by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth.

I said this a few months after I was elected at the first G20 summit. I said the days when Americans using their credit cards and home equity loans finance the rest of the world’s growth by taking in imports from every place else -- those days are over. On the other hand, we continue to be a extraordinarily important market and foundation for global economic growth.

We do have to take care of our deficits. I think Christine has spoken before, and I think most economists would argue as well, that the challenge when it comes to our deficits is not short-term discretionary spending, which is manageable. As I said before and I want to repeat, as a percentage of our GDP, our discretionary spending -- all the things that the Republicans are proposing cutting -- is actually lower than it's been since Dwight Eisenhower. There has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs that help the poor, environmental programs, education programs. That’s not our problem.

Our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15 and 16 percent -- far lower than it has been historically, certainly far lower than it was under Ronald Reagan -- at the same time as our health care costs have surged, and our demographics mean that there is more and more pressure being placed on financing our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

So at a time when the recovery is still gaining steam, and unemployment is still very high, the solution should be pretty apparent. And that is even as we continue to make investments in growth today -- for example, putting some of our construction workers back to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges, or helping states to rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge difficulty retaining quality teachers in the classroom -- all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at a responsible level and to deal with our health care programs in a responsible way. And that's exactly what I'm proposing.

And what we've proposed is let's go back, for folks who are making more than $250,000 a year, to levels that were in place during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were doing just fine, and the economy was growing a lot stronger than it did after they were cut. And let's take on Medicare and Medicaid in a serious way -- which is not just a matter of taking those costs off the books, off the federal books, and pushing them onto individual seniors, but let's actually reduce health care costs. Because we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced, developed nation on Earth.

And that would seem to be a sensible proposal. The problem right now is not the technical means to solve it. The problem is our politics. And that's part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about, is, are we, as a country, willing to get back to common-sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget. And it can be done.

One last point I want to make, Dean, that I think is important, because it goes to the growth issue. If state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current recovery -- on par to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now. If the construction industry were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point lower. The challenge we have right now -- part of the challenge we have in terms of growth has to do with the very specific issues of huge cuts in state and local government, and the housing market still recovering from this massive bubble. And that -- those two things are huge headwinds in terms of growth.

I say this because if we, for example, put some of those construction workers back to work, or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways. And that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care programs over the long term.

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.

What I did emphasize yesterday is there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. This is not an abstract exercise. I get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it’s not fully implemented. Young people who are 24, 25, who say, you know what, I just got diagnosed with a tumor. First of all, I would not have gone to get a check-up if I hadn’t had health insurance. Second of all, I wouldn’t have been able to afford to get it treated had I not been on my parent’s plan. Thank you and thank Congress for getting this done.

I get letters from folks who have just lost their job, their COBRA is running out. They’re in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer, and they’re worried when their COBRA runs out, if they’re still sick, what are they going to be able to do because they’re not going to be able to get health insurance.

And the point I think that was made very ably before the Supreme Court, but I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses. One way is the single-payer plan -- everybody is under a single system, like Medicare. The other way is to set up a system in which you don’t have people who are healthy but don’t bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room.

That doesn’t work, and so, as a consequence, we've got to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does.

So I don’t anticipate the Court striking this down. I think they take their responsibilities very seriously. But I think what's more important is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to recognize that in a country like ours -- the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth -- we shouldn’t have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it.

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you've been very, very generous with your time, and we appreciate very much you being here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you.

END