The truth?You can't handle the truth!

Yesterday I was reading a socialist book that I received some time ago from the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Thinking about the Sixties by Hardial Baines. I was reading in the introduction about the Kruschevite slander of Joseph Stalin after his death.

I have been hearing this allegation from various members of the Anti-Revisionist camp for as long as I have been a communist, but I have never really given it a second thought.

Lately however, I have been having doubts.

I was reminded of when we learned about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Grade eight
social studies. I remember that even then, my social teachers tried very hard to beat it into my head that Kruschev was one of the greatest leaders of the USSR. Very suspicious, now that I think about it. This was in 2000/2001, long after the Soviet Union had collapsed. Why were they still promoting Kruschev so hard?

It is even more strange when I think about how they portrayed all of the other leaders. Lenin was portrayed as "Misguided", Gorbachev was portrayed as " a patriotic reformer" who did "too little, too late," and Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko are barely mentioned. The only Soviet leader portrayed with as much fervor as Kruschev, is Stalin, although in a completely different light. Stalin is portrayed as an Orwellian "Big brother", a merciless mass murderer, even more so than Adolph Hitler in our Social Textbooks.

Why are Canadian Social Studies textbooks parroting the exact same allegations made by Kruschev after the death of Stalin? Especially now, decades after the deaths of Stalin, Kruschev and the Soviet Union.

Maybe it's me, but anytime a NATO country agrees with the leadership of the Soviet Union on anything, that probably isn't a good sign. NATO doesn't compromise, so anytime they tolerate the leader of a country formerly dubbed a "Dictatorship", let alone praise him, that can only mean that this change in leadership is guaranteeing the interests of the United States and it's allies. I have already witnessed this pattern in Iraq,Afghanistan, Haiti and even the former USSR in my own lifetime.

Comrade Baines goes even further, speculating that Joseph Stalin did not die of natural causes, but rather was murdered in conspiracy. The Anti-Stalinist measures adopted almost immediately after his death, by both NATO and the Socialist camp certainly are suspicious.

This is all a very large revelation for me. I was a fervent Anti-Stalinist in my early development as a communist, and I have preached against the Evils of Stalin on several occasions. But now, the more I think about it, the evidence does seem to favor Stalin. At the very least, if every other argument I have read can be explained away, there is still one nagging doubt: When have I ever learned anything in Social Studies that wasn't biased and twisted? Much of the official version of history I was taught has turned out to be a pack of lies. Why would they tell the truth about Stalin, but lie about everything else as far as the USSR and the socialist camp are concerned?

Very suspicious...

Ignorance is bliss.

I was reading an issue of an "independent" magazine called DOSE a few days ago, while I was waiting for the bus. I noticed an article in this so called "independent" Magazine about people who are "Making the world a better place". The particular story I focused on involved a young girl who learned about the holocaust against the Jewish people during the second world war. Apparently this event truly touched her, and inspired her to do her part to make sure that such a thing never happened again.

So what did she do in her own way to help prevent this fascist genocide from ever happening again? Did she join/form an anti-war group? No. Did she write critical letters to the American government, or any other government supplying military might to the war on terror? No. Did she picket against Canadian neo-Nazi organizations? No.

So what was her contribution to make the world a better place, and resisting fascism?

She wrote to Canadian troops occupying Afghanistan.

Wait a minute! What does the un-just invasion of Afghanistan have to do with the holocaust?
What do our forces stripping a sovereign nation of it's liberties have to do with millions being killed by a fascist government? What is the connection?

More importantly, why is a magazine reporting this story? Especially an "independent" Magazine.

A few days later, I was reading a copy of the Edmonton SUN . Someone wrote the following article to the editorials section:

"Could all of the anti-war protesters try protesting in Iraq or Afghanistan where the war is actually going on? Or are you all too comfortable in your homes that were won through the hard work and effort of Canadian, American and British troops?- Al Boschman"
Edmonton Sun, March 23, 2006

What exactly does the unprovoked Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with Canadians living in warm homes? In what war were these homes won, exactly? Certainly not Iraq and Afghanistan. Does this loud individual really believe that our troops are defending Canada by invading sovereign countries? Does he honestly believe that Afghanistan posed a military threat to Canada, or that Iraq posed a military threat to America?

These are the typical Braying Jack-Ass, pro war opinions I encounter all the time, especially now after the recent protests against wars of Imperialist aggression. Now I certainly understand how the mainstream population of so many nations could be duped into going to war in the first place. I also understand why our "impartial" media , including our "independent" media sources, are publishing these opinions. They are spreading these ideas, spreading these notions in a very subversive way.

As I have said before, the political right-wing are masters of the art of propaganda. Granted that with a marginallized population who has no idea what is going on the world, and usually doesn't care, it isn't very hard to propagate the official line. Still, their excuses and justifications for imperialist war are so ridiculous and easily disproven, and yet overwhelmingly accepted by the general population. In this war of aggression in Afghanistan that Canada is caught up in, now our Canadian media is publishing articles trying to provide a basis for our occupation. I found the personal anecdote of the naive little girl that draws an absurd connection between the people of Afghanistan and the Nazi party of the third Reich to be incredibly idiotic, and yet frustratingly acceptable to a population that believes in the principal of "peace keeping".

When people are un-informed and mis-informed, it provides a spawning ground in the mind for ignorant opinions, like the one expressed by the man in the Edmonton Sun.

I am reminded of a quote from George Orwells 1984:
"They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was expected of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening"

Information and the truth are the keys to revolution. When the veil is finally lifted from the eyes of the sleeping masses, they will inevitably react with anger. At this time, a new society will be born. And so I publish my journal online with some regularity, hoping that these dissident thoughts of mine will fall upon receptive ears....

Living the Revolution, Comrades!

March 18th-20th mark the international days of action against imperialist war, specifically conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti. It is in this spirit of international solidarity and global defiance of Imperialisms agenda, that I encourage all Comrades around the world to make our voices heard.

Do not misunderstand me, Comrades. I am not generally opposing all armed conflict in a social-democratic, reformist fashion. I am a Marxist, and still a firm believer in Peoples War and revolutionary armed struggle. I make the clear distinction of opposing only Imperialist war. Imperialist war is any conflict that advances the aims of the bourgeoisie and violates the peoples of the world of their sovereignty and freedom,while a peoples war is conducted by the people in the name of national liberation, freedom and democracy.

All over the world the people struggle against fascist occupation, Imperialist aggression and all of the worst aspects of Capitalist global hegemony: The people of Iraq continue to resist the occupation forces of the United States of America in the third year since the invasion. Afghanistan and Haiti both are also rising up against the "Peace Keepers" and other occupation forces imposed on their respective countries. Palestine continues to brave fascist Israeli rule, Cuba continues to brave the fascist American embargo, and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea asserts their right to sovereignty in the face of joint military exercises by South Korea
and the United States. Many other peoples struggles against Imperialism are erupting all over the world, and are only made more pronounced on this day of action.

Unfortunately, I think that many of the global demonstrations to mark this occasion, especially in North America, will become quite Social-Democratic and ceremonial in practice. I recognize the significance of these dates to the global struggle, but I do not quite fall in with the idea of defying Imperialism only on special occasions. A dedicated Marxist must live the Revolution, defying capitalism at every turn in any way possible.

Still, it is nice to see the peoples of the world rise up and shake up the system with the rumblings of social change.

Live the Revolution always, Comrades.

Unions- Keeping socialism at bay for seventy years

I was reading my copy of Workers Forum, monthly magazine of the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), and I was reading about the various developments in the Canadian labour sector. Workers Forum, like other Canadian socialist papers, reports mostly on the union/labour movement in Canada. In fact, I would say that workers Forum reports almost completely on the Canadian labour movement, with very little analysis of the Canadian/global political situations. While other publications such as Peoples Voice and FightBack are more balanced in this regard, ultimately all major socialist publications in Canada seem to come back to the labour movement.

It was then that I really started thinking of the Marxist connection with the organized labour movement. On what grounds are they our "Comrades"?

Are modern day Canadian unions really our friends?

Somehow, whenever I am working with union folk to show solidarity, I always get the feeling that I am a barely tolerated annoyance from the union workers. They rarely acknowledge me or my comrades, are continually on our case about our politics, and do not seem to share any goals with our organization.

In the fall of 2005, we even marched a parade in the "make poverty history" campaign right past a group of striking Telus workers in Edmonton, Alberta. We waved to our union "Comrades". Our union "Comrades" gaped at us as though they had no idea what was going on. Not one smile, not one wave. So much for Solidarity.

Speaking of Solidarity, if I remember my history right, there was a group in Poland calling themselves "Solidarity", comprised of trade union members from all over the country. How did these unionized Solidarity comrades get along with their socialist government? They overthrew them. In at least one country, it was the trade unions that were instrumental in crushing socialism underneath their jack boots.

So out of curiosity, why do we still think the trade unions are our friends?

The conclusion that I have come to is very simple: Modern trade unions are not only anti-socialist, they are anti-worker. The Canadian labour movement in the twenty first century is overall opposed to the needs of the people, and the building of a new society.

Yes, I said it. Unions are no friends of the people, let alone socialism. This may sound like blasphemy coming from the mouth of a Marxist, but it is true. This is a different time, Comrades. It isn't the forties or the fifties anymore, no one is being shot or arrested for striking, and unions are no longer striking for the workers rights on the job sites.
Most labour unions are archaic institutions, behind the times and devoid of any progressive
elements. They exist now, only to make profits. They share a small percentage of these profits with their members occasionally, so that they can keep raking in union dues. The whole concept of the modern trade union is social-democratic and reformist. Unions have become just another
social-democratic institution of the capitalist welfare state, existing only to make capitalism more tolerable.

I think that the time is now for the Canadian socialist groups to stop supporting the union movement in Canada, and instead present the workers with a true alternative, a true workers organization, in the form of the Communist party.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (?)

I've been trying to keep up with recent developments on so called "Sectarian" conflicts in American occupied Iraq.

Apparently the Shiite and Sunni Islamic factions in Iraq are on the brink of civil war, having been offset by the bombing of a Shiite mosque, one of the holiest of the Shia faith, in Samarra.

Since the bombing, Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq have turned on one another, and violence and hostilities have erupted among the two groups.

The Iraqi "Government" have blamed "anti-democratic"forces within Iraq for the bombing , saying that these anti-democratic forces are trying to destabilize Iraq and start a civil war.

To be honest, I agree completely. The forces that committed the bombing are anti-democratic
and trying to plunge Iraq into civil war.

I call these anti-democratic forces the United States of America.

When I first heard about the mosque bombing, the perpetrators were described as being dressed in camouflauged Uniforms. I noticed that this part of the story seemed to disappear rather quickly in the international press soon afterwards.

The American government is the most logical suspect for the bombings. The bombings benefit their Iraqi regime by dividing the forces that were resisting their occupation, and by providing the Americans with a reason to stay in Iraq, even after "Democracy" has prevailed.

Of course, I can only speculate. But even so, even if America was in no way involved in the bombing and the ensuing divisions, it is irrelevant. The US is still ultimately to blame for the
sectarian conflict in Iraq. The United States forces have been trying to encourage sectarian splits in the Iraqi people since the beginning of the occupation in many ways. The new "democratic" puppet government set up by America in Iraq included the Kurds and Sunnis, but excluded the Shiites. What exactly is so democratic about excluding 50% of the population from having even a marginal say in the "democratic" government? Then there is the matter of the Iraqi police. The Iraqi police remind me very much of the Jewish police force established by the fascists in the Warsaw ghetto during the second world war. In both cases a fascist foreign occupier established a police force for their conquered population, comprised of individuals who would turn on their own people for a pat on the head from their oppressors. Is this act not an attempt to divide the populace? Does this not incite civil war?

I wonder how long these sectarian tensions will last. I seriously doubt they will endure for long.
Eventually the common enemy will emerge to the people of Iraq in the form of the "Democratic"
Iraqi puppet government and the American occupiers, and a true peoples front will be realized by by all Iraqi factions.