viernes, 23 de febrero de 2018

How the PCUSA Has Improved My Life







By: O’Connell

Back in 2014, I was an ill-informed and opportunist anarcho-communist. I wanted to change the lives of the all oppressed and working people but I was skeptical of government, I aligned with the anarcho-communists only in that regard. However unlike the anarcho-communists I understood the importance of the transition state, aka socialism.
It would not be long I come in contact with the Party of Communists USA, and reached out with enthusiasm to the Secretariat. He tells me that the organization is a Marxist-Leninist (ML) organization and they hold to that line. However even despite such he still sent me an introduction package with ML literature, which, after taking the time to read, I started questioning and opposing my previous position as a anarcho-communist. As the Secretariat sent me more literature, and I took the time to study ML stances on my own, I soon started transitioning to becoming a Marxist-Leninist. I did what I did before, before I became a anarcho-communist, I spent probably close to 5 months just studying ML ideology, and sooner or later, I became a firm ML cadre member of the party. During this period I was also teaching two other friends of mine who basically labeled me their teacher, after a year they became a ML just like me. Now they organize alongside me.
After so long I continued to grow my knowledge and Marxist library, I started getting involved in commissions in my party and trying to produce for it what I could and do what I could to see it advanced. Truly I have watched the PCUSA grow to a strong, well principled cadre organization.
Now, today, I am part of its leadership and organizing activists seeking to not only strengthen it but push it forward as our political demographics in America change from the average centrist position. To make the PCUSA the leading anti-imperialist, anti-revisionist, Marxist-Leninist vanguard for the working class and oppressed people of America.
Now that I have explained my story, how do I know my party is on the right path, that it is principled and firm to its theory, that it takes care of its members and helps them learn and builds dedication in the cadre to the movement?
Because I am an example of it.

What is Socialism?

SOCIALIST SOCIETY
Nowhere in Marx’s writings is there to be found a detailed account of the new social system which was to follow capitalism. Marx wrote no “Utopia” of the kind that earlier writers had produced – writings based only on the general idea of a society from which the more obvious evils of the society in which they lived had been removed. But from the general laws of social development Marx was able to outline the features of the new society and the way in which it would develop.
Perhaps the most, in a sense the most obvious, point made by Marx was that the organisation of the new society would not begin, so to speak, on a clearer field. Therefore it was futile to think in terms of a society “which has developed on its own foundations.” It was not a question of thinking out the highest possible number of good features and mixing them together to get the conception of a socialist society which we would then create out of nothing. Such an approach was totally unscientific, and the result could not possibly conform to reality.
On the contrary, an actual socialist society, like all previous forms of society, would only come into existence on the basis of what already existed before it; that is to say, it would be a society “just emerging from capitalist society, and which therefore in all respects – economic, moral and intellectual – still bears the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it sprung.”
In fact, it is the actual development within capitalist society which prepares the way for socialism, and indicates the character of the change. Production becomes increasingly social, in the sense that more and more people are associated in the making of every single thing; factories get larger and larger, and the process of production links together a very large number of people in the course of transforming raw materials into the finished article. There is greater and greater interdependence between people; the old feudal ties and connections have long been broken by capitalism, but in its development capitalism has built new connections of a far wider character – so wide that every individual becomes more or less dependent on what happens to society as a whole.
But although this is the steady tendency of capitalist production, the fact is that the product, made by the co-operative work of society, is the property of an individual or group and not the property of society. The first step in building up a socialist society must therefore be to give society the product which it has made; and this means that society as a whole must own the means of production – the factories, mines, machinery, ships, etc., which under capitalism are privately owned.
But this socialisation of the means of production itself takes place only on the basis of what the new society inherits from the old. And it is only the relatively large concerns which are so to speak ready to be taken over by society. Capitalist development has prepared them for this. There is already a complete divorce between the owners and the production process in such concerns; the only link is the dividend or interest paid by the concern to the shareholders. Production is carried on by a staff of workers and employees; the transfer of ownership to society as a whole does not alter their work. Therefore these large concerns can be taken over immediately.
The position is different in the case of smaller enterprises, especially in those where the owner himself plays an important part in production. It is obvious that the management of a large number of separate small factories is a very difficult thing – in fact, it is impossible in the early stages of a working-class government. What is essential is to prepare the way for the centralised management of these smaller enterprises, including both town industries and small farms.
What practical steps in this direction can be taken? The general method is to encourage co-operation, as a first step, so that these small producers learn to produce in common, and one productive unit takes the place of scores of smaller ones. Engels showed this in relation to small-holders, in regard to whom he wrote:
“Our task will first of all consist in transforming their individual production and individual ownership into cooperative production and co-operative ownership, not forcibly, but by way of example, and by offering social aid for this purpose.” (Handbook of Marxism, p. 564).
This transformation, “not forcibly, but by way of example, and by offering social aid,” is the essential basis of the Marxist approach to the building up of a socialist society. Of course, as shown in the previous chapter, Marx saw that the former ruling class would not quietly accept the changed conditions, and would carry on the class struggle as long as they could in the effort to restore the old order; the working class therefore needed a State apparatus of force to meet such attacks and defeat them. But the process, of building the new society was an economic process, not dependent on the use of force.
Hence it follows that, once the working class has broken the resistance of the former ruling class and has established its own control, it over the larger enterprises, the banks, the railways and other “commanding height:..” of industry and trade, but does not at once take over all and trade, and therefore does not force everyone ‘to accept socialism on the morrow of the revolution. What fire revolution immediately achieves therefore is not and could not be socialism, but working-class power to build socialism. And it must Le many years before the building is completed, and all production and distribution is on a socialist basis.
The first essential feature of socialism is that the of production are taken from private ownership and used for society as, a whole. But the Marxist basis or this is not any ethical “principle.” It is simply that private ownership of the means of production in fact checks production, prevents the full use of the productive powers which man has created. Therefore the transfer of ownership to society as a whole is only the clearing of the ground; the next step is the conscious, planned development of the productive forces.
It is a mistake to think that this development is only necessary in a backward industrial country such as Russia was in 1917. Marx was thinking of advanced industrial countries when he wrote that after taking power “the proletariat will use its political supremacy . . . to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” And although these productive resources, for example in Britain, have increased enormously since Marx’s day, the fact is that they are still backward in relation to, what scientific knowledge today makes possible. They are backward because of the capitalist system – because economic crises constantly cheek production; because production is for the market, and as the market is restricted under capitalism, the growth of the productive forces is restricted; because monopoly buys up technical inventions, and prevents them from being widely used; because production cannot be planned, and so there is no systematic growth; because capitalism has kept agriculture separate and backward; because capitalism has to devote enormous resources for wars between rival groups, wars against the colonial peoples; because capitalism separates manual from mental work, and therefore does not open the floodgates of invention; because the class struggle absorbs an enormous amount of human energy; because capitalism leaves millions unemployed.
Therefore the factories and the mines, the power-stations and the railways, agriculture and fishing can and must be reorganised and made more up-to-date, so that a far higher level of production can be reached. What is the object of this? To raise the standard of living of the people.
One of the favorite arguments of the anti-socialists used to be that if everything produced in Britain was divided up equally, this would make very little difference in the standard of living of the workers. Even if this were true – and it is not – it has absolutely nothing to do with Marx’s conception of socialism. Marx saw that socialism would raise the level of production to undreamed-of heights. It is not merely because Tsarist Russia was backward that industrial production in the Soviet Union in 1938 was over eight times the pre-war level; even in industrial Britain an enormous increase could and would be made.
This increase in the level of production, and therefore in the standard of living of the people, is the material basis on which the intellectual and cultural level of the people will be raised.
But the whole development requires planned production. In capitalist society, new factories are built and production of any particular article is increased when a higher profit can be made by this increase. And it does not by any means follow that the higher profit means that the article in question is needed by the people. The demand may come from a tiny section of very rich people; or some exceptional circumstances may raise prices for one article. Where profit is the motive force, there can be only anarchy in production, and the result is constant over-production in one direction and under-production in another.
In socialist society, where production is not for profit but for use, a plan of production is possible. In fact, it is possible even before industry is fully socialised. As soon as the main enterprises are socialised, and the others are more or less regulated, a plan of production can be made – a plan that grows more accurate every year.
So we see that Marx saw socialism as implying, in the economic field, ownership of the means of production by society as a whole; a rapid increase in the productive forces, planned production. And it is the character of the plan of production that contains the secret of why there cannot be any over-production under socialism in spite of the fact that the means of production are always being increased.
The national plan of production consists of two parts: the plan for new means of production – buildings, machinery, raw materials, etc., – and the plan for articles of consumption, not only food and clothing but also education, health services, entertainment, sport and so on, besides administration. So long as defence forces are required, these must also be provided for in the plan.
There can never be over-production, because the total output of articles of consumption is then allocated. to the people – that is to say, total wages and allowances of all kinds are fixed to equal the total price of articles of consumption. There may, of course, be bad planning – provision may be made one year for more bicycles than the people want and too few boots. But such defects are easily remedied by an adjustment of the next plan, so that the balance is righted. It is always only a case of adjusting production between one thing and another – never of reducing total production, for total consumption never falls short of total production of consumption goods. As planned production of these rises, so does their planned distribution.
But they are not divided out in kind among the people. The machinery used is the distribution of money to the people, in the form of wages or allowances. As the prices of the consumption goods are fixed, the total wages and allowances paid can be made equal to the total price of the consumption goods. There is never any discrepancy between production and consumption – the people have everything that is available. Increased production means increasing the quantity of goods available and therefore the quantity taken by the people.
The part played by prices in socialist society is often misunderstood. In the capitalist system, price fluctuations indicate the relation between supply and demand. If prices rise, this means the supply is too small; if prices fall, the supply is too great and must be reduced. Prices therefore act as the regulator of production. But in socialist society prices are simply a regulator of consumption; production goes according to plan. and prices are deliberately fixed, so that what is produced will be consumed.
How is the total output of consumption goods shared out among the people? It is a complete misconception to think that Marx ever held that the products would be shared out equally. Why not? Because a socialist society is not built up completely new, but on the foundations it inherits from capitalism. To share out equally would be to penalise everyone whose standard of living had been above the average. The skilled workers, whose work in increasing production is in fact more important for society than the work of the unskilled labourer, would be penalised. Equality based on the unequal conditions left by capitalism would therefore not be just, but unjust. Marx was quite clear on this point; he wrote: “Rights, instead of being equal, must be unequal … Justice can never rise superior to the economic conditions of society and the cultural development conditioned by them.”
Men who have just emerged from capitalist society are in fact unequal, and must be treated unequally if society is to be fair to them. On the other hand, society only has this obligation to them if they serve society. Therefore “he that does not work, neither shall he eat.” And it follows also from this that the man who does more useful work for society also is given a higher standard of living. The distribution of the total products available for consumption is therefore based on the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.
But socialist society does not remain at the level inherited from capitalism; it raises production each year, and at the same time it raises the technical skill and the cultural development of the people. And the inequality of wages – the fact that skilled and culturally developed people get more than the unskilled – acts as an incentive to everyone to raise his or her qualifications. In turn the higher skill means more production – there is more to go round, and this enables everyone’s standard of living to be raised. Inequality in a socialist society is therefore a lever by which the whole social level is raised, not, as in capitalism, a weapon for increasing the wealth of the few and the poverty of the many.
Did Marx consider that this inequality would be a permanent feature of the future society? No, in the sense that a stage would be reached when it was no longer necessary to give people a share proportionate to the service they render to society.
After all, to divide up the product according to work done or any other principle is to confess that there is not enough to satisfy everyone’s needs. In capitalist society a family which is able to afford as much bread as all members of the family need does not share out a loaf on any principle: every member of the family takes what he or she needs. And when production in a socialist society has risen to such a height that all citizens can take what they need without anyone going short, there is no longer the slightest point in measuringand limiting what anyone takes. When that stage is reached, the principle on which production and distribution are based becomes: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
It is the point at which this becomes possible that distinguishes communism from socialism. Socialism, as Marx used the term, is the first stage, when the means of production are owned by the people and therefore there is no longer any exploitation of man by man, but before planned socialist production has raised the country’s output to such a height that everyone can have what he needs.
But the stage of communism implies much more than merely material sufficiency. From the time when the working class takes power and begins the change to socialism, a change also begins to take place in the outlook of the people. All kinds of barriers which under capitalism seemed rigid grow weaker and are finally broken down. Education and all opportunities for development are open to. all children equally, no matter what the status or income of their parents may be. “Caste” differences no longer count. Children learn to use their hands as well as their brains. And this equalisation of physical and mental work gradually spreads through the whole people. Everyone becomes an “intellectual,” while intellectuals no longer separate themselves off from physical work.
Women are no longer looked on as inferior or unable to play their part in every sphere of the life of society. Special measures are taken to make it easier for them to work. Creches are established at the factories, in the blocks of flats, and so on, so that mothers can have greater freedom. The work of women in the home is reduced by communal kitchens, laundries and restaurants. There is no compulsion on women to work, but they are given facilities which make work easy for them.
The barriers between national groups are broken down. There are no “subject races” in a socialist society; no one is treated as superior or inferior because of his colour or nationality. All national groups are helped to develop their economic resources as well as their literary and artistic traditions.
Democracy is not limited to voting for a representative in parliament every five years. In every factory, in every block of flats, in every aspect of life, men and women are shaping their own lives and the destiny of their country. More and more people are drawn into some sphere of public life, given responsibility for helping themselves and others. This is a much fuller, more real democracy than exists anywhere else.
The difference between the town and the countryside is broken down. The workers in the villages learn to use machinery and raise their technical skill to the level of the town workers. Educational and cultural facilities formerly available only in the towns grow up in the countryside.
In a word, on the basis of the changes in material conditions which socialism brings, vast changes also take place in the development and outlook of men and women. They will be people with “an all-round development, an all-round training, people who will be able to do everything.”
Above all, the self-seeking, individualist outlook bred by capitalism will have been replaced by a really social outlook, a sense of responsibility to society; as Marx put it: “labour has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life.” In that stage of society, Communist society, there will no longer be any need for incentives or inducements to work, because the men and women of that day will have no other outlook than playing their part in the further development of society.
Is this Utopian? It could only be regarded as Utopian by people who do not understand the materialist basis of Marxism, which has been touched on in Chapter II. Human beings have no fixed characteristics and outlook, eternally permanent. In primitive tribal society, even in those forms of it which have survived to recent times, the sense of responsibility to the tribe is very great. In later society, after the division of society into classes, the sense of social responsibility was broken down, but still showed itself in a certain feeling of responsibility to the class. In capitalist society there is the most extreme disintegation of social responsibility: the system makes “every man for himself” the main principle of life.
But even within capitalist society there is what is known as “solidarity” among the workers – the sense of a common interest, a common responsibility. This is not an idea which someone has thought of and put into the heads of workers: it is an idea which arises out of the material conditions of working-class life, the fact that they get their living in the same way, working alongside each other. The typical grasping individualist, on the other hand, the man with no sense of social or collective responsibility, is the capitalist surrounded by competitors, all struggling to survive by killing each other. Of course, the ideas of the dominant class – the competition and rivalry instead of solidarity – tend to spread among the workers, especially among those who are picked out by the employers for special advancement of any kind. But the fundamental basis for the outlook of any class (as distinct from individuals) is the material conditions of life, the way it gets its living.
Hence it follows that the outlook of people can be changed by changing their material conditions, the way in which they get their living. No example could be better than the change which has been brought about in the outlook of the peasantry in the Soviet Union. Everyone who wrote of the peasant in Tsarist Russia described his self-seeking, grasping individualism. Critics of the revolution used to assert that the peasant could never be converted to socialism, that the revolution would he broken by the peasantry. And it is perfectly true that the outlook of the peasantry was so limited, so fixed by their old conditions of life, that they could never have been “converted” to socialism by arguments, or forced into socialism by compulsion. What these critics did not understand, as they were not Marxists, was that a model farm, a tractor station near them, would make them see in practice that better crops were got by large-scale methods. They were won for machinery and methods which could only be operated by breaking down their individual landmarks and working the land collectively. And this in turn broke down the separatism of their outlook. Now they are settling down to a collective basis of living, and they are becoming a new type of peasantry – a collective peasantry, with a sense of collective responsibility, which is already some distance along the road to a social outlook.
When therefore the material basis in any country is socialist production and distribution, when the way in which all the people get their living is by working for society as a whole, then the sense of social responsibility so to speak develops naturally; people no longer need to be convinced that the social principle is right. It is not a question of an abstract moral duty having to establish itself over the instinctive desires of “human nature;” human nature itself is transformed by practice, by custom.
Up to this point we have not considered the implications of socialist or communist society covering the whole world. But Marx’s whole account of socialist society shows that it will mean the end of wars. When production and distribution in each country are organised on a socialist basis, there will be no group in any country which will have the slightest interest in conquering other countries. A’ capitalist country conquers some relatively backward country to extend the capitalist system, to open up new chances for profitable investments by the finance-capital group; to get new contracts for railways and docks, perhaps for new mining machinery; to obtain new sources of cheap raw materials and new markets. But for an advanced industrial socialist country to conquer by force of arms some backward country would be simply ridiculous; to extend the socialist system to that backward country would mean lowering the standard of living of the advanced socialist country. Once again, it is not a question of morals; socialist societies will not make war because there is nothing they, or any groups within them, can gain from war.
For the same reason no socialist State is in the least interested in holding back any backward country. On the contrary, the more every country develops its industry and cultural level, the better it will be for all the other socialist countries, the higher the standard of living throughout the world, the richer the content of life. Therefore those socialist countries which are industrially advanced will help the more backward countries to develop, not hold them back and, of course, not exploit them in any way.
In such a world socialist system the further advance that man could make defies the imagination. With all economic life planned in every country, and a world plan co-ordinating the plans of each separate country, with scientific discoveries and technical inventions shared out at once between all countries, with the exchange of every form of cultural achievement, man would indeed take giant’s strides forward.
Towards what? Marx never attempted to foretell, because the conditions are too unknown for any scientific forecast. But this much is clear: with the establishment of communism throughout the world, the long chapter of man’s history of class divisions and class struggles will have come to an end. There will be no new division into classes, chiefly because in a communist society there is nothing to give rise to it. The division into classes at a time when men’s output was low served to provide organisers and discoverers of higher productive forces; the class division continued to fulfil this function, and under capitalism it helped the concentration of production and the vast improvements in technique.
But at the stage when man has equipped himself with such vast productive forces that only a couple of hours’ work a day is necessary, the division into classes can well end, and must end. From that point on, man will resume his struggle with nature, but with the odds on his side. No longer trying to win nature with magic, or avert natural disasters with prayer, no longer blindly groping his way through class struggles and wars, but sure of himself, confident of his power to control the forces of nature and to march on – that is man in communist society as pictured by Marx.

Thomas Paine: A Revolutionary Light


Image result for thomas paine common sense
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine, with fiery passion and revolutionary fortitude distributed his literature throughout the first 13 colonies with the penalty of treason on his head. Agitation swept the American workers and farmers into a heap and energized them enough to take up arms in the ranks of a colonial militia against the world’s most powerful empire. Tom is mostly forgotten and only brought back to recollection with the ramblings of Glenn Beck and his knock-off cooption of Paine’s revolutionary pamphlet. Thomas Paine though, laid the foundations for American Democracy in its youngest form. In the modern USA it is obvious that the American rhetoric was owned by the landed interests and did not meet the stated assurances of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As Communists, we are compelled to weigh the rhetoric of American Democracy against its realization in material ways. Marx explains:
People cannot be liberated, as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. ‘Liberation’ is a historical and not a mental act and it is brought about by historical conditions.
Looking at the statistics of atrocities the conditions seem bleak; over 20 transwomen were murdered in 2015, the rising rate of youth homelessness and intense wealth disparities, just to name a few, are telltale signs that the American experiment was not a result of a revolution carried out to its conclusion. But what if lying inside the many sectors of American liberal thought, resides a pure Democratic-Republican that sought collective unity and welfare, the state as an instrument of People’s rule in a very simplistic majoritarian sense and a conception of justice as equal right and opportunity to the world’s resources? This would break our dogmatic slumber away from the slave owning patriarchs of Washington, Hamilton and Madison.
Thomas Paine gave passionate words to the world’s peasants and poor and prophetically proclaimed that the American Revolution as the first of its kind and will roll violently into every Monarchial state and dismantle it acting in the spirit of the people towards a point of justice; seeing the great victory of the American merchants and peasants over the King. Paine was certainly correct about Democracy spreading and toppling Monarchy; the European reforms and the French Revolution were certainly a carryover of the Revolutionary American experience. Thomas Paine in Common Sense wrote to each common American, and explained the very heart of the problem of colonial tyranny. Hundreds of thousands of copies were read in coffee houses and taverns all over American, spreading the Democratic ideal to everyone and instigating a popular movement to establish a nation-wide consciousness and reveal to the people the real nature of the King and his parliament. Paine enticed the American population to take up arms and to use the power of the majority to move the hand of tyranny off their edge of the map. Marx and Engels said that the American Revolution had “initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class” and considered the American Civil War to be the continuation of the Democratic revolution of 1776. If Thomas Paine’s recommendations for a policy of human welfare and equal right had been implemented, and the Democratic revolution be felt by every citizen, maybe the contradictions between human rights and capital in the American Civil War would not have existed, and the USA could have progressed without the violent breaking point that cost so many millions of American and immigrant lives. This is all hindsight of course, but Tom Paine, long forgotten and not considered believed the American revolution had objectives and a positive responsibility to create Democratic-Republicanism in real, palpable way without the influence of Primogeniture and profit motive.
Thomas Paine then went to take on the slave-owners as a radical and claimed the issue should appeal to Justice and Humanity:
That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications.
Thomas Paine interestingly enough precluded the ideas of the Great French Revolution and was even its root. He defended in his Rights of Man the radical idea that human rights are inalienable and that a sovereign has no right to dictate the amount nor degree of their realization; realization stemming from the collective power of people’s government. Paine even goes on to refute Hereditary rule by stating, much like Marx would, that the State apparatus is created by human beings and can bend to their liking, and fit into the most efficient manner so far as the collective had the knowledge of how to do it. Paine argued that humankind began without security but to assure individual power, formed into governments for the sole purpose of preserving humanity and justice. The idealistic opinions of Paine, nonetheless grew into more concrete policy recommendations. He went as far as to recommend subsidized schooling for the nation’s poor, a guaranteed welfare standard, maternity leave for mothers and the burden of taxation be shifted onto the capable backs of America’s merchants and land owners.
Thomas Paine also was a man of virtue and a steadfast revolutionary and American patriot. With echoes of Comrade Mao’s infamous statement “It is right to rebel”, Paine asserts the natural reaction of alienation and detachment from civil rights and welfare by saying
It is possible to exclude men from the right of voting, but it impossible to exclude them from the right of rebelling against that exclusion; and when other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect.
Paine throughout his life was an oppositional force. Even though Paine was an honorary French citizen and was presented symbolically with the Key to the prison Bastille; he served prison time in France for opposing the faction that executed the King of France and for denouncing the “reign of terror” on pacifist grounds. But even before that, in his early life, Paine began organizing a labor union in England and was eventually dismissed form his government position as tax collector for spreading and writing literature advocating better wages and conditions for his coworkers.
Thomas Paine is infamously called the Father of the American Revolution but he is peculiarly left out of the group of founders of the United States. The reason is obvious. In Thomas Paine’s day his radical ideas got overridden by the powerful bourgeois, moderate liberalism that dominated the politics of the early US period. His ideas were the very wind blowing into the forge of revolution, growing the fire and its violence and passion. He spoke the words the common American could not and this popular outcry against the King and his rich loyalists was convenient for the American Bourgeoisie who also allied against the King. But, as soon as Great Britain was driven from these colonies the interests of the rich took hold of the reins of government and established one in their own image. Paine’s ideas
were forgotten and the evils of slavery and patriarchy, the hegemony of the rich over the poor, the Anglos over the natives began, and this nation’s fathers stopped the momentum of the American revolution. Thomas Paine said fight till welfare and justice are won for every citizen regardless of race or gender. Until the Democratic ideal is realized in the lives of every person; when the Republic exists on peaceful terms internally and will work as a collective to prop up each other and progress the rights of humankind. Only till then can there be a proper government and only then will the revolution be finished.
Thomas Paine will leave us today with a reminder and insight into the nature of the State and what we know about governments. He said:
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Engels said very much the same thing:
The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another – no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.
Once contradictions are resolved, and the antagonism and exploitation is abolished in the minds and the mechanisms of human kind, government will be relegated to the junkyard of history and Communism will be realized. The idealism of Thomas Paine still gives us hope as Americans and reminds us of the following:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
It seems increasingly clear that a new government must be instituted and we evoke this sacred American document as its defense. Fight for a government that secures for each a job, an income, a home, insurance, food, water and all things essential to the flourishing of a just and dignified society. For Socialism and the finalization of the Democratic-American revolution!

The Characteristics of a Revolutionary


By Charles O'Connell
League of Young Communists USA

When we talk about a revolutionary, we mean the scientific socialist and communist revolutionary, those who are guided by theory and fight for progress. Not counter-revolutionaries or bourgeoisie revolutionaries, who are focused on taking the establishment toward a reactionary and/or regressive government.
The character of a revolutionary can be defined in a few ways. It must, at first, start with the revolutionization of oneself that creates the will to act. What this means is to understand the current power structure and how it maintains its monopoly of violence in the interests of a specific class, but also, of course, to purge from their own upbringing all reactionary behavior that such an oppressive structure has forced upon them. Then, and only then can a revolutionary be dedicated to the advance of society and advance the new revolutionary culture, to crush the reactionary culture, and build a vanguard to fight the oppressive capitalist state currently in place.
Molding of Oneself as a Revolutionary:
Why is it important for a revolutionary to purge reactionary behavior from themselves, in a process of revolutionization within their own personalities, to become a revolutionary? The answer is relatively simple to understand. For only those who can change themselves from years of reactionary influence dumped upon them by the oppressors, can fight for the new society they envision. They will not side with their enemies in reactionary influence or let it slow down their ability to proceed forward towards progress.
As Marx said:
“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”
–        Karl Marx, German Ideology
Marx, detailing in clear English, shows the need for a change of consciousness for a new society to arise. It is clear to see the importance of this change of consciousness for a revolutionary, who leads the masses, to go through this revolutionization of oneself to make themselves a properly prepared fighter for this new society. But not only should the revolutionary purge reactionary muck from his own thinking and personality, but he must build the movement to do the same. And this is where the rise of a new culture comes to wage a war against the reactionary culture.
Waging a Revolutionary Cultural War:
Culture is war, a battle of ideas where revolutionary culture and reactionary culture each fight to dominate the other; a struggle to change the thought process of the masses: to lead them to progress or hold them back. The end goal is to win this war for the revolutionary culture, led by the Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries. The revolutionary, who is truly devoted to the progress of society, must take charge in helping this revolutionary culture develop and advance to victory.
What is this revolutionary culture and how can the revolutionary push it forward?
This culture is one that challenges everything reactionary and toxic of the already established culture, and promotes a culture of people's power, equality of all workers, justice by the demands of the people, respect of all oppressed people's, and so on. The revolutionary can only push this culture forward by understanding it, first and foremost, and then find the effective ways to push this way of thinking, along with rally the rest of society to support it. But how, in the most effective way, can this culture advance forward? The answer is simple; with the leadership of the communist vanguard pushing it forward.
The Will to Act:
What makes the revolutionary act? What drives them? As Che Guevara said:
“The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love”
 
What does he mean by this? This love that guided the revolutionary is a love for humanity, a love for those who are oppressed and exploited. This will to act is the burning fire inside all those who refuse to sit by as their capitalist oppressors continue to abuse and kill us with ease. A burning rage of acknowledging the crimes of the oppressors, a burning rage turned in to revolutionary anger, which extends in to real life action.
In short, the revolutionary's will to act, is a love of the oppressed, and burning anger against the oppressors.
Difference Between the Revolutionary and the Martyr:
What makes a revolutionary different from a martyr? And vice versa? While they share similarities, the two are opposites when it comes to the motivation for each.
The martyr, guided by the same passion as a revolutionary, will die for their cause like a revolutionary. The revolutionary, knowing violence is the final means to end oppression, is a principled fighter for his movements during times of peace and violence, when the time calls for one or the other. A revolutionary has the wisdom to know this important distinction. A martyr sees violence as the only means to their end, and they act upon this fatalistic world view at times that call for peace and legal activity.
The martyr unlike the revolutionary, is not guided by scientific study of revolutionary strategy and tactics. Of course, there are exceptions to this general description of martyrdom. Assassination is one such case. Comrade Chris Hani, the great South African revolutionary, was assassinated at a very early age by a racist, pro-Apartheid sympathizer. This means that he is both a revolutionary and a martyr throughout the entire world. It is not the job of Communists to glorify and romanticize violence and death. Unfortunately, given the nature of our class enemies who are fueled by hatred and capitalist barbarity, there are times when we must defend ourselves and the working class we represent.
With that said, it is unavoidable to acknowledge that the conditions of capitalism, and the conditions of revolution, breeds both martyrs and revolutionaries. However, it is the revolutionaries who brought the people to revolution, while the traditional martyr takes the chance of revolution to fulfill their wants of fighting, to be remembered for fighting, not for organizing the people and bringing them to the fight. Martyrdom is not the end to strive for. The communist revolutionary ideal is.
The Endless Goal of a Revolutionary:
The goal of the true revolutionary is to continue fighting till either they meet their death, or the oppression of our class has come to its end. That’s why, to be a revolutionary, you must acknowledge that you are hated by the bourgeoisie, and that as an individual you are the target of our oppressors. The revolutionary must let this knowledge not breed defeatism, but instead be fuel for the burning fire inside themselves that makes them act for the people. Let the awareness of the hate that the capitalist oppressors have for you fuel the revolutionary fire inside of you.
The character of a revolutionary can be defined in a few ways. It must, at first, start with the revolutionization of oneself that creates the will to act. What this means is to understand the current power structure and how it maintains its monopoly of violence in the interests of a specific class, but also, of course, to purge from their own upbringing all reactionary behavior that such an oppressive structure has forced upon them. Then, and only then can a revolutionary be dedicated to the advance of society and advance the new revolutionary culture, to crush the reactionary culture, and build a vanguard to fight the oppressive capitalist state currently in place.
Molding of Oneself as a Revolutionary:
Why is it important for a revolutionary to purge reactionary behavior from themselves, in a process of revolutionization within their own personalities, to become a revolutionary? The answer is relatively simple to understand. For only those who can change themselves from years of reactionary influence dumped upon them by the oppressors, can fight for the new society they envision. They will not side with their enemies in reactionary influence or let it slow down their ability to proceed forward towards progress.
As Marx said:
“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”
–        Karl Marx, German Ideology
Marx, detailing in clear English, shows the need for a change of consciousness for a new society to arise. It is clear to see the importance of this change of consciousness for a revolutionary, who leads the masses, to go through this revolutionization of oneself to make themselves a properly prepared fighter for this new society. But not only should the revolutionary purge reactionary muck from his own thinking and personality, but he must build the movement to do the same. And this is where the rise of a new culture comes to wage a war against the reactionary culture.
Waging a Revolutionary Cultural War:
Culture is war, a battle of ideas where revolutionary culture and reactionary culture each fight to dominate the other; a struggle to change the thought process of the masses: to lead them to progress or hold them back. The end goal is to win this war for the revolutionary culture, led by the Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries. The revolutionary, who is truly devoted to the progress of society, must take charge in helping this revolutionary culture develop and advance to victory.
What is this revolutionary culture and how can the revolutionary push it forward?
This culture is one that challenges everything reactionary and toxic of the already established culture, and promotes a culture of people's power, equality of all workers, justice by the demands of the people, respect of all oppressed people's, and so on. The revolutionary can only push this culture forward by understanding it, first and foremost, and then find the effective ways to push this way of thinking, along with rally the rest of society to support it. But how, in the most effective way, can this culture advance forward? The answer is simple; with the leadership of the communist vanguard pushing it forward.
The Will to Act:
What makes the revolutionary act? What drives them? As Che Guevara said:
“The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love”
 
What does he mean by this? This love that guided the revolutionary is a love for humanity, a love for those who are oppressed and exploited. This will to act is the burning fire inside all those who refuse to sit by as their capitalist oppressors continue to abuse and kill us with ease. A burning rage of acknowledging the crimes of the oppressors, a burning rage turned in to revolutionary anger, which extends in to real life action.
In short, the revolutionary's will to act, is a love of the oppressed, and burning anger against the oppressors.
Difference Between the Revolutionary and the Martyr:
What makes a revolutionary different from a martyr? And vice versa? While they share similarities, the two are opposites when it comes to the motivation for each.
The martyr, guided by the same passion as a revolutionary, will die for their cause like a revolutionary. The revolutionary, knowing violence is the final means to end oppression, is a principled fighter for his movements during times of peace and violence, when the time calls for one or the other. A revolutionary has the wisdom to know this important distinction. A martyr sees violence as the only means to their end, and they act upon this fatalistic world view at times that call for peace and legal activity.
The martyr unlike the revolutionary, is not guided by scientific study of revolutionary strategy and tactics. Of course, there are exceptions to this general description of martyrdom. Assassination is one such case. Comrade Chris Hani, the great South African revolutionary, was assassinated at a very early age by a racist, pro-Apartheid sympathizer. This means that he is both a revolutionary and a martyr throughout the entire world. It is not the job of Communists to glorify and romanticize violence and death. Unfortunately, given the nature of our class enemies who are fueled by hatred and capitalist barbarity, there are times when we must defend ourselves and the working class we represent.
With that said, it is unavoidable to acknowledge that the conditions of capitalism, and the conditions of revolution, breeds both martyrs and revolutionaries. However, it is the revolutionaries who brought the people to revolution, while the traditional martyr takes the chance of revolution to fulfill their wants of fighting, to be remembered for fighting, not for organizing the people and bringing them to the fight. Martyrdom is not the end to strive for. The communist revolutionary ideal is.
The Endless Goal of a Revolutionary:
The goal of the true revolutionary is to continue fighting till either they meet their death, or the oppression of our class has come to its end. That’s why, to be a revolutionary, you must acknowledge that you are hated by the bourgeoisie, and that as an individual you are the target of our oppressors. The revolutionary must let this knowledge not breed defeatism, but instead be fuel for the burning fire inside themselves that makes them act for the people. Let the awareness of the hate that the capitalist oppressors have for you fuel the revolutionary fire inside of you.

Experience and hardships as a Trans-Woman in the United States of America

Gender is a ubiquitous social construct that wields power over every individual in our society. The traditional dichotomous gender paradigm is oppressive, especially for trans-gendered people whose sense of themselves as gendered people is incongruent with the gender they were assigned at birth. Trans-gendered individuals are targeted for mistreatment when others attempt to enforce conventional gender boundaries. This article discusses gender-based oppression and the resulting psycho-social difficulties experienced by many trans-gendered individuals. The discussion advances a critical analysis of the dominant gender paradigm using two alternative theoretical perspectives on gender—queer theory and social constructionism. The article argues that the transgender community is an at-risk population and that empowering practice with this population calls on social workers to target society's traditional gender dichotomy for change. An overview of practice implications and research needs is provided. https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/52/3/243/1855506
basically what I seen and experience is, as it says in the text above. As to being a Trans-person, especially a unemployed Trans-person who is also homeless have seen gender oppression in places of not only business but also in shelters. Since Homeless shelters are strong with religious doctrine, it makes it hard for Trans-people to live in areas designed for their gender preference.  If you're a transgender woman and you walk into a homeless shelter and they treat you like a man, it's traumatizing," he added. "These people are already vulnerable, they're homeless, they don't have a job. To face discrimination the entire time they're there is a real problem. http://thehill.com/regulation/pending-regs/291522-transgender-rules-for-homeless-shelters-spark-firestorm
Discrimination also exist in our own community as well. The Gay men and women don't like Trans-people even Trans-people discriminating against their own over looks and or appearance.
there is no Articles on this subject but I have witnessed and experienced it myself to know it exists. This discrimination dwells deep in separation of the LGBTQ+ communities.
Gat men and Women would tell us we shouldn't be in the "LGB" community, We are ruining it, or We are not real Men or women just confused people; and or other hurtful things directed to us Trans-people.
Trans-people discrimination against other Trans-people results in "if you had surgery or not." This means that in order to be a Trans-Woman you must have surgery of sex reassignment. This is pretty much self-Explanatory!
This has made it hard for us Trans-people because discrimination in shelters has Trans-people either roaming the streets (I'm which are more vulnerable to Rape and Murder), or forced to stay with friends who may or may not be discriminators towards their friends, I.E; make fun of. Most of us turn to prostitution to help either Pay rent and or pay for our transformation since jobs hold the most discrimination against Trans-people. this article also explains workplace discrimination against Trans-people:
The death statistics proves even more that the United States is not safe for Trans-people. the link also explains(it's hard for me to tackle this section because it's very sensitive):
this is the problems Trans-people face in the United States of America. Granted some Trans-people are privileged than others but we all know it's because of the term used here in the United States: "It's not what you know it's who you know."
My conclusion since the Law won't do anything and make up excuses for the murder statistics with Rape, we should start arming all Trans-people against the system of oppression. I realize that only trough Socialism can we achieve the equality we so desire. Capitalism is Hell for trans-people and it doesn't and never Will help not just the LGBTQ but all of the oppressed people. This Article is also is to be used to spread around.
This Article was done and made by Amy k. Sorel who is Trans and loves her life as a woman and recognizes and deals with the very hardships against Transpeople daily.

On the Question of Authoritarianism


By Charles O'Connell
League of Young Communists USA

The term “authoritarian” is a word often utilized in slander campaigns against socialist states like the former USSR, the current DPRK, and Cuba. The term itself is often utilized in capitalist propaganda to oppose any move towards socialism in the name of glorifying liberal pacifism. In this same regard it is to no surprise the “Anti-Authoritarian” anarchists and left-communists have sided with the capitalists in their arguments of slandering socialist states for authoritarianism.
As Engels once said:
“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case, they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.”
The workers realize that this authoritarian demand for revolution is a direct result of suppression by the capitalists. The capitalists, suppressing the democratic demands of the workers, who collectively call for socialism, will learn that, if democracy of the people is suppressed, then that democracy must be forced by authoritarian measures if needed. It is the workers who, out of this radical democratic consideration, have called for blood of those who suppressed and abused them.
As Lenin said:
“Revolutions are festivals of the oppressed and exploited”
The anti-authoritarians, these opportunists who understand not the reality of the people, but instead stick to slandering the will of the people who built their ideal socialist state against all odds and aggression of their enemies.
Reformists, often the most loudest anti-authoritarians and biggest bootlickers of the capitalist system, participate alongside the anarchists and left-communists in the slander of the workers who united and partook in the destruction of the capitalist state and brought from its ashes their own state. The anti-authoritarians with their arguments of “But what about the dictatorship” or “The bureaucracy” or “Gulags and executions”are the same people who would in turn lick the boots of the capitalist bureaucracy / dictatorship; or build a bureaucracy of their own and would put in place gulags of their own vision and execute those who stood in their way. The socialist revolution and building of the socialist state stems from its very root the subject of democracy, for it was a collective majority of working people who demanded socialism, just to be suppressed by the capitalists, and in turn from that democratic demand, revolted to protect their demand.
The fact is, authoritarianism is nothing more than a slur by our enemies, who seek to distract the workers with mindless rhetoric, to keep them questioning the call of radical democracy; for socialism. With the understanding of authoritarianism, there can be no peaceful road to the socialist goal, for the enemies of socialism will deploy all extremes to crush it, thus, the extreme to enforce the will of the people, the socialist goal, must be taken; this extreme is revolution and the suppression of capitalist bootlickers and foot soldiers.