Saturday, December 20, 2014

Nepal: Biplab’s rupture from status quo, a dissection by Comrade Basanta


PBM, the CPN-Maoist


A group of comrades led by Biplab declared their dissociation from the party by submitting an undated divorce-letter to the party headquarters on November 24, 2014.

The centre led by Biplab has been named as the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist. This short article has been penned to acquaint readers with the key events of anti-party factional activities in the chronological order and dissect in brief the ideological and political positions Biplab has put forward in his document entitled: “Rupture from status quo, an inevitable necessity of history”.

The two-line struggle is a motive force, which drives the communist party forward. It incessantly goes on in a communist party, sometimes high and sometimes low. In fact it is a struggle between correct and wrong ideological and political lines. But, the two-line struggle we experienced after the formation of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist has been a little odd. From the very beginning it did not remain within the confine of two-lines based on the ideological and political questions.

Though it had ideological and political roots behind it, it erupted from the organisational issues. Right in the first convention that had formed the CPN-Maoist the question of leadership was placed at the fore. It was being whispered by some of the delegates that the convention should elect comrade Badal as Chairman and comrade Biplab as General Secretary of the party Central Committee, while comrade Kiran was trusted to provide with the charge of party custodianship. It was indeed a reflection of individual careerism deep-rooted in comrade Biplab.

When Biplab showed extreme careerism through the speech he delivered comrade Badal had right then countered that it epitomised counter-revolution on the question of leadership. His assessment has now been proved correct.

For about two long years since then, there was an unusual situation in the party. There was no registered line difference as such on the ideological and political questions in the Party Headquarters, Politburo and even in the Central Committee nevertheless there were diverse opinions floating up in the lower ranks.

This leadership is not dynamic and charismatic, it cannot lead revolution, this leadership is working hard to handover this party to Prachanda, it is not people’s insurrection but the people’s war that is applicable in Nepal etc. were the dissenting views that floated up in the lower level committees, hither and thither. By placing sentimental questions at the fore, the whole thrust was laid at acquiring majority and capturing leadership in the committees resulting in organisational anarchism all through the party.

When the need to enrich party’s military line adopted by the Seventh National Congress was felt in the party, the Central Committee meeting decided to call a National Conference to discuss it. In parallel to the document presented by comrade Kiran, comrade Biplab produced yet another document which in fact contradicted with the military line adopted by the Congress.

When the Congress line was put in question by comrade Biplab producing a contradictory line, the CC meeting unanimously decided to organise, not a conference, but a Special Congress to discuss the documents within a year. Both the documents were handed out below for the lower level committees to study and the plan of street struggles were set with no dissenting position at the CC meeting.

But in contradiction of this decision at the centre, factionalism in the party did not stop. Comrade Biplab, on the one hand, did not participate in the HQ, PB and even CC meetings and on the other extensively intensified factional and cliquey meetings under his leadership.

They used to say, “One, this leadership is inept and so cannot lead revolution, two, we are committed to going ahead to armed struggle, three, we cannot wait anymore, four, board in quickly otherwise the plane will take off soon etc. etc.

In this backdrop, when he was asked to put his opinion in the party meetings by stopping such factional activities he said that he would not take part in any meetings except the plenum.
Factional activities were nonstop.

A ‘national convention’ of Biplab-led faction was being clandestinely organised inside the jungle in Kapilvastu district. The CC meeting held right at that time called on them to stop that ‘convention’ and then participate in the plenum scheduled to organise on November 22, 2014. In spite of this, they not only denied it but also organised a press conference in Butwal to ‘publicise’ the decisions taken by the ‘convention’.

It was the very date in which the fifth plenum was scheduled to organise. When they did not show up in the plenum venue, comrade Kiran asked them again whether or not they would turn up. They replied that they were holding a meeting to discuss the issue and said they might participate in the day next.

Given this situation, the plenum was deferred till the early next day, the 23rd November 2014. The next day, Biplab along with his admirers showed up in the plenum venue. Though late by one hour, the plenum commenced. After the usual proceedings were over, comrade Kiran and comrade Biplab both elaborated their documents and placed their say about the party situation. With this, the meeting was put off till the day next.

On the next day, however, he did not show up with his admirers but with a divorce-letter addressed to chairman comrade Kiran. Even after Biplab handed over the letter, comrade Kiran with a sense of high responsibility towards party unity showed maximum flexibility and requested comrade Biplab and his teammates to participate in the plenum and speak of whatever they think necessary to speak before the plenum delegates.

Turning down this request by comrade Kiran they fled away the scene to organise a press meet, where they publicly announced their dissociation from the party.

Two questions, one, what made him reluctant to wage two-line struggle in the party and, two, what made him so enthusiastic to split party when it was in middle of the plenum to discuss the questions of line and a Special Congress was in the pipeline scheduled to be organised within five months. History will definitely provide answer to these questions.

The two-line struggle that had started smouldering right after the formation of our party, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, has in the due course resulted in the formation of a new Maoist centre in Nepal. Comrade Biplab, one of the erstwhile two secretaries of our party, has become the ‘pioneering’ leader to bring up this result to surface.

Surprisingly, he declared separation from the party right on the early next day he had placed his dissenting opinion in the fifth Plenum, which was organised to carry out debate on the very documents presented by comrade Kiran and himself.

This plenum was being held in his repeated insistence but he did not dare it to happen when the delegates were fully preparing to take part in the hot debate.

“Rupture from status quo”, has been a catchphrase in this document. There is a kind of attraction towards this tag among the revolutionary Nepalese youths. For they want the new democratic revolution in Nepal to regain momentum by rupturing from the widespread reactionary political disorder existing now. It is natural and just as well.

On the contrary, Biplab has tried to use this catchphrase to amass people’s revolutionary sentiment in his favour and then misguide the revolutionary cadres and the masses towards erroneous ideology and politics. This document will in no case be instrumental to cause a rupture towards the revolutionary change from the prevailing political chaos in Nepal but will indeed make an ideological and political rupture from the revolutionary position the international and the Nepalese communist movement have been taking till the date.

Here are a few questions in which Biplab has ruptured from the basic ideological and political positions adopted since long by Nepalese and the international communist movement as well.
One, Biplab has started writing his document by placing a slogan to begin with. It reads: “Let’s struggle against the comprador bourgeois state!

Let’s go along the direction of building a democratic state!” Noteworthy here is that from the very date of its formation the Communist Party of Nepal had regarded the socio-economic condition of Nepal to be in semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition.

The Seventh National Congress of our party organised two years before reached to a conclusion that Nepal is a semi-feudal and neo-colonial country and thus decided to change the previous formulation. In his slogan, Biplab has introduced two new political terms by removing those the Communist Party of Nepal had been using ever since its formation in 2006.

But, as regards the socio-economic condition of Nepal, Biplab has introduced a new terminology, Comprador Bourgeois State, with no satisfactory and equitable account to justify it. Nowhere in his 24-page long document, is the socio-economic condition of Nepal written to be semi-feudal and semi/neo-colonial one.

In addition to this, he has replaced the terminology of New Democratic Revolution simply by democratic revolution. By so doing, he has ruptured firstly from the position of socio-economic condition the communist movement in Nepal has been maintaining till now and secondly from the Maoist principle of the New Democratic Revolution to be accomplished in the underdeveloped countries oppressed by imperialism.

Two, in accordance with the political report adopted in the Seventh National Congress of our party, “The contradiction between comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the feudal class directed and conducted by Indian expansionism and the broad Nepalese masses is the principal contradiction” of the Nepalese society.

 But as opposed to this, the document presented by Biplab writes, “The contradiction between feudalism and Nepalese people that remained in the principal position since long has undergone a change, the first time in history.

The contradiction between comprador bourgeois state and the Nepalese people has taken its place.” By way of this formulation he has ruptured from party position on principal contradiction adopted by the Seventh National Congress of our party.

Three, ever since the so-called liberation of India in 1947 the Indian ruling classes have been pursuing the British colonialists’ path of expansion and control all across the South Asian sub-continent. Not only the communist parties but also the entire national liberation movements in this region have characterized this hegemonic act of the Indian ruling classes as Indian expansionism. But Biplab prefers to use different terminology in its place.

He writes, “All the political, economic, military, administrative and cultural sectors are under the control of India. None of the sectors is away from Indian will. Although some of the analysts and politicians compare it with Sikkimese, Bhutanese and Fijian version of subjugation, but it is necessary to have a separate analysis other than this. In our sense, it can be termed as Nepalese dimension of Indian intervention.”

By saying so, Biplab has made a rupture from the terminology that the communist and the national liberation movements mainly in the Indian sub-continent have been using till date. Why a new terminology in place of well-established one without any sufficient analysis to justify the change in it? Bluntly speaking, it can be a makeshift terminology that stands between Indian expansionism and a friendly neighbour India as the then Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) had during the mid-eighties used the interim terminology, the Indian chauvinism, in place of Indian expansionism.

Four, in the recent years, all of the basic contradictions at the world level have been sharpening. In spite of this, the principal contradiction in the world level has not changed so far. The contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and people is the principal contradiction and revolution is the main trend today. Biplab in his document has not mentioned anything about these questions but has raised these issues in a different way.

In his document he writes, “The US-led unipolar world, which was dominant from 1990s to the end of the 20th century, has been destroyed. New imperialist powers have come up. The inter-imperialist contradiction has reached to the level of war.” The last sentence in this quote implies that the inter-imperialist contradiction is principal at present and the world war is the main trend today. This is another rupture that Biplab has made from the hitherto adopted position on the international principal contradiction and the main trend of the world asserted by Mao.

Five, present era is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution as defined by Lenin. The driving force of this era is the contradiction between the world imperialism at one pole and the international proletariat at the other. In this backdrop, Biplab has proposed his clique’s international line in three categories.

He writes, “From the standpoint of international relations our policy should be of 1) building fraternal relation with the communist parties 2) maintaining balanced relation with the communist governments and 3) taking up a policy of struggle and balance with the capitalist countries.” As regards Biplab’s international line, the first one can be assumed to be acceptable although the expression, the communist parties, is vague. The second one is unacceptable; because there is no any genuine communist party as such that holds revolutionary power in any country at present.

The third one is completely wrong, because it urges to maintain balance between imperialist powers and the proletariat. What kind of new democratic revolution will Biplab make by having compromise between the proletariat and imperialism, the main enemy of the proletarian revolution? Noteworthy here is that he has deliberately used capitalist countries to mean the imperialist ones. In this way Biplab has made another rupture, a rupture from the Leninist doctrine of imperialism and proletarian revolution.

Six, the imperialism and domestic reaction are two obstacles the communist revolutionaries must remove to accomplish New Democratic Revolution in the semi-feudal and semi/neo-colonial countries. These two reactions are intertwined and so they are inseparable. But, Biplab does not go along with this.

On this, his document writes, “It can be understood that the world is reaching towards equilibrium as a result of actions, reactions and the imperialist disputes seen in the events of South Asia and Middle East.” The document again writes, “A possibility is being witnessed that the internal contradiction and strength of the concerned country, not of the external one, can now have decisive role for any revolutionary movement to triumph.” These two quotations clearly reveal how he is deliberately seeking excuses to escape from the struggle against imperialism, the main enemy of this era.

 In fact, by so doing Biplab has made yet another rupture from the Maoist doctrine of the New Democratic Revolution in which two obstacles, the domestic reaction and imperialism, are to be removed simultaneously.

Seven, armed people’s insurrection and the protracted people’s war have been developed as two paths of proletarian revolution in the international communist movement. The first model was developed in Russia, a capitalist country and the second model was developed in a semi-feudal and semi/neo-colonial country, China. These two models were developed in countries that had qualitatively different socio-economic conditions and the balance of revolutionary strength was different.

But Biplab looks at this issue in a different way and does not find difference in their content. On this, his document writes, “The people’s insurrection too can be termed as people’s war. In the final analysis, every revolution is made by the people. It is not wrong to say that a war made by the people is people’s war”.

Why does he bring in this generalization which blurs the essential difference between these terminologies and makes people’s grasp loose towards the path of revolution? This is another rupture he has made from the hitherto agreed position on the contents of two models of proletarian revolution.

Eight, it is true no revolution can be a replica of other. But it does not mean that it must necessarily be free from any traces of either model. Rather, the fact is that the path of revolution in a country resembles more with one of these models and so it should be regarded as the base. Then again Biplab differs on this.

He writes, “The rule that it must necessarily be linked either with insurrection or people’s war does not apply, when we talk of Nepalese originality”. He further adds, “For this, it should take up a policy of building people’s power from the urban and rural areas with a goal of central power”. How can he build people’s power both in the rural and urban areas simultaneously?

One should be principal at a time. In fact, it is eclecticism and ultimately will lead him to build up people’s power nowhere. So it is another rupture from the Leninist and Maoist path of seizing power.

Nine, the state power is a means of dictatorship of one class upon another. There can be no any state power that works for both of the classes, the oppressor and the oppressed. This is the basic concept of Marxism. As opposed to this, Biplab has coined a new word ‘power-sharing’.

He argues that Prachanda’s failure lies in his inability to struggle for ‘power-sharing’ with the reactionary parties at the time of peace process.

 With this concept in mind, they have been propagating that they will raise arms if the reactionary power does not agree for “power-sharing” with them. Why is it to raise arms? It is not to seize the state power but to force the enemy for power-sharing? It is in fact nothing other than a total rupture from the Marxist concept of state power and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Ten, till now there have been three kinds of social revolutions in the history of mankind. The first one is the bourgeois democratic revolution led by the bourgeoisie against feudalism, in the pre-capitalist era. The second one is the Socialist Revolution led by the proletariat against bourgeoisie, in the imperialist era. These two kinds of revolutions were accomplished by organising armed people’s insurrection in the cities followed by civil war in the countryside. And third one was the New Democratic Revolution led by the proletariat against feudalism and imperialism. It followed the path of encircling the cities from the countryside.

But Biplab argues that none of the two models practiced in the past nor the present military line of our party, people’s insurrection upon the foundation of people’s war, is applicable in Nepal. He has coined a new model which is termed as “The theory of unified revolution”. In the document he writes, “The line of unified revolution is the unique line of Nepalese revolution. It relates to Nepalese uniqueness and particularity.

The uniqueness does not necessarily mean to represent a particular theory but it means a new theory and line developed from both of them. The rule that it necessarily should link up with either insurrection or people’s war does not apply here. Rather it is different from these two models and contains the Nepalese originality and the universal characteristics of both. Its essence is newer than theirs”.

 But the document is silent on how this new line will be applied in revolutionary practice in Nepal. Biplab has directed a target in the vacuum. Thus, it is a rupture from the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist base and hence it is merely an imagination of building a castle in the air.

The points placed before in brief give a preliminary idea where the two-line struggle in our party was focused on the ideological and political arena. These are the basic ideological and political questions not in respect of the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal only but the world proletarian revolution as well. He claims all this is a development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. But, how can he develop MLM when he does not base on and makes no defence of MLM itself?

In fact, in the pretext of its development, he has been drowned in the quagmire of empiricism by rupturing from the fundamental tenets of MLM. Finally, the fifth plenum from which Biplab and his admirers fled away has adopted a document entitled: Special Political Report. After the thorough analysis of the anarchism and two-line struggle erupted in the party the plenum has synthesised the trend deep-rooted in Biplab.

On this, the plenum document writes, “Thus, these activities are based: organisationally on anarchist individualism, philosophically on negative dialectics and empiricism and politically on the regressive strategy of power-sharing. In the dissenting document of Biplab, the military line which has been presented as a theory of unified revolution by negating people’s war, people’s insurrection and people’s insurrection upon the base of people’s war is very much unclear, confusing, contentless and mysterious. Also, in his document there is a soft attitude towards the Indian expansionism and so has lagged behind on the question of national independence. In conclusion, the main trend manifested in his activities and dissenting opinion is right opportunism in essence and left in form.”

December 19, 2014

Source: http://www.signalfire.org/2014/12/20/biplabs-rupture-from-status-quo-a-dissection/

Santa Claus is a Communist



 
Democracy and Class Struggle reveal this long hidden fact that parents keep from their children.

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Formation of Russia and the Soviet Union by Samir Amin




Democracy and Class Struggle publish some controversial thoughts from Samir Amin about the formation of Russia and Soviet Union for discussion and debate.
 
The media discourse on Greater Russia—the former Russian Empire of the Tsars and also the Soviet Union—takes on a completely different tone. In this case, we are told that we must come to a different conclusion: the differences are such that there was no other solution than to break up the formerly unified entity into distinct and independent states. But let us look a little more closely.

The development of Greater Russia within the framework of the Tsarist Empire, followed by its profound transformation during the construction of the Soviet Union, was, as we are supposed to understand it, a black history, governed by the continual exercise of extreme violence alone.

I would like to challenge this view.

The unification of three Slavic peoples (Great Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian) by the Tsars of Moscow, followed by Russian expansion to the Baltic in the west and to Siberia, the Transcaucasus, and Central Asia to the east and south, was no more violent and less respectful of the identity of the peoples affected than was the development of historical capitalism in the Atlantic West (and, within this context, of British capitalism) and its colonial expansion.

The comparison even favors Russia. I am going to give a few examples.

The reader will find more analyses in my other writings.

(1) The unification of the three “Russian” peoples (Great Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian) was certainly made through military conquest by the Tsars, as was the construction of France or Great Britain through military conquest by their kings.

This political unification was the vector through which the Russian language was imposed—“naturally”—on local dialects.

The latter were, moreover, considerably closer to one another than were, for example, the “langue d’Oil” and the “langue d’Oc” in France, English and the Celtic languages, or the Italian dialects in Sicily and Venice.

To present linguistic Russification as a horror imposed by violence alone, as opposed to a supposedly tranquil expansion of French, English, or Italian, is to ignore historical reality.

Again, I have no intention of evaluating here the nature of these linguistic expansions, whether it was long-term enrichment or cultural impoverishment. The point is that all of these linguistic expansions are historical facts of the same kind.

The Russians did not eliminate the Ukrainian and Belorussian (“feudal”) landowners; they were integrated into the same system that dominated Great Russia. The serfs and (after 1865) the free peasants of Ukraine and Belorussia were not treated differently than those of Great Russia; just as poorly, if you prefer.

The Bolsheviks’ communist ideology painted the history of Tsarism in shades of black, for good class reasons. Consequently, the Soviet Union recognized the differences (denied in the “civilized” West) and created distinct republics.

What is more, to fight the danger of being accused of Great Russian chauvinism, the Soviets gave these republics boundaries that largely exceeded those that would have been drawn by a strict ethnolinguistic definition.

One territory, such as Russian Crimea, could be transferred to another republic (in this case to Ukraine) without a problem. Novorossiya (“New Russia”—the Donetsk region), distinct from Malaia Rossiia (“Small Russia”—Ukraine), could be entrusted to Kiev’s administration rather than Moscow’s without causing any problems.

The Bolsheviks had not imagined that these boundaries would become the borders of independent states.

(2) The Russians conquered the Baltic countries during the same time period the English settled Ulster. The Russians did not commit any horrors comparable to those of the English.

They respected the rights of the local landowning elites (in this case, Baltic barons of German origin) and did not discriminate against the local subjects of the Tsar, who were certainly poorly treated, just like the serfs of Great Russia.

The Russian Baltic countries certainly experienced nothing comparable to the savage dispossession of the Irish people in Northern Ireland, chased out by the invasion of the “Orangemen.”

Later, the Soviets restored the fundamental rights of the Baltic republics—the use of their own languages and the promotion of their own cultures.

(3) The expansion of the Tsarist Empire beyond the Slavic regions is not comparable to the colonial conquest by the countries of Western capitalism.

The violence carried out by the “civilized” countries in their colonies is unparalleled. It amounted to accumulation by dispossession of entire peoples, with no hesitation about resorting to straightforward extermination, i.e., genocide, if necessary (the North American Indians and the Australian Aborigines, exterminated by the English), or, alternatively, brutal control by a colonial government (India, Africa, Southeast Asia).

The Tsars, precisely because their system was not yet a capitalist one, conquered territories without dispossessing the inhabitants.

Some of the conquered peoples were integrated into the Empire and were Russified to varying degrees, notably through using the Russian language and often forgetting their own.

This was the case with many of the Turco-Mongolian minorities, though they retained their religion, be it Muslim, Buddhist, or Shamanist. Others preserved their national and linguistic identity—the Transcaucasus and Central Asia south of Kazakhstan.

None of these peoples were exterminated like the North American Indians or Australian Aborigines.

The brutal autocratic administration of the conquered territories and Russian arrogance prevent us from painting this history in shades of rose.

But it remains less black than was the behavior of the English in Ireland (not in Scotland), India, North America, or the French in Algeria. The Bolsheviks painted this history in shades of black, and always for the same good reasons of class.

The Soviet system brought changes for the better. It gave these republics, regions, and autonomous districts, established over huge territories, the right to their cultural and linguistic expression, which had been despised by the Tsarist government.

The United States, Canada, and Australia never did this with their indigenous peoples and are certainly not ready to do so now. The Soviet government did much more: it established a system to transfer capital from the rich regions of the Union (western Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, later the Baltic countries) to the developing regions of the east and south.

It standardized the wage system and social rights throughout the entire territory of the Union, something the Western powers never did with their colonies, of course. In other words, the Soviets invented an authentic development assistance, which presents a stark contrast with the false development assistance of the so-called donor countries of today.

There was no inherent reason that this system, with an economy that was completely integrated at the level of the Union, had to disintegrate.

There was no objective necessity that had to lead to the breakup of the Union into independent states, sometimes even in conflict with one another.

Western media chatter about the “necessary end of empires” does not hold water.

Yet, the USSR indeed broke apart, which needs to be explained.

Source: http://monthlyreview.org/2014/12/01/saving-the-unity-of-great-britain-breaking-the-unity-of-greater-russia/

Nepal : Next Front denounces Biplav has Focoist and propagator of the "Cuban Revolution"


Democracy and Class Struggle will intensify its study of the new Nepalese Maoist Party to see whether this criticism has any validity.


These days Nepalese Maoist Movement is facing some unexpected obstacles. Prachanda-Baburam have abandoned the path of New Democratic Revolution and they are exercising ”peaceful transformation”. Netra Bikram Chanda ‘Biplav’, with his band, has left the CPN-Maoist, and has formed another party.

He is pleading the ”Theory of Unified Revolution”. He has abandoned the path of New Democratic Revolution and has taken the path of Che and Debray that is Focoism.

He use to take the name of armed struggle, but not the Maoist People’s War.

He has lost his faith in Proletarian class and pleads —that the role of urban Middle Class will be vital for the Nepalese revolution.

In fact, Biplav has abandoned the Maoist Road and has taken the road to ”Cuban Revolution”.

Now he is bargaining for the power sharing in the reactionary government.

No matter, in the name of the revolution, Biplav band has taken the road to Armed Revisionism.

We urge our well wishers and Fraternal Party and Organisations to study the role and activities of Biplav minutely…

Morocco : Hunger Strikes in jails of the Moroccan reactionary State : Solidarity actions needed NOW !

 

Democracy and Class Struggle calls for solidarity actions with our Moroccan Comrades - our brothers and sisters in struggle.

Protest to your Moroccan Embassy on behalf of our brave comrades in Moroccan prisons.

The fate of the comrades in Morocco is also our fate - we are one struggle for Marxism Leninism Maoism and they are our proletarian family - protest now - free our comrades.

Long Live Marxism Leninism Maoism


The communist movement in  Morocco, undergoes, for several decades, the blows of reaction

The Moroccan State  carries out  either abductions, night of murders or imprisonment  repetitively, almost daily militants of revolutionary left who are fighting for the popular democratic revolution. 

It is in this context for the arrest of a group of fellow Marxists - Leninist - Maoists - comrades who now constitute a real danger against the reactionary class in power.

By the struggles that they are involved with the masses, with the masses students and with all Proletarians.

This danger to the power also comes from the fact that these comrades defend and apply the ideology of the proletariat developed at its highest level: Namely, Marxism - Leninism - Maoism.

Some of these fellow inmates ( 4 of the 6 still in detention ) commence regular hunger strikes as a weapon inside the  prisons, to turn these into a bastion of fighting  against the reaction.
 

These strikes are mainly conducted to denounce the conditions of detention of comrades and to secure their rights violated.

Who are these comrades?

Aziz Elkhalfaoui was arrested on 04.09.2014. his case is still in progress: No sentence was pronounced against to this day. This is a pure political trial.


This comrade  was the head of the mass movement of the 20 february and the masses of student Marrakech.

This is a an authentic communist and has been one of the leaders of the student movement Moroccan Marxist - Leninist - Maoism

He leads a hunger strike since 03.12.2014 in the prison in Marrakech.

Rédouane el Aadimi was arrested too on 04.09.2014. his case is still in progress:


No sentence was pronounced and is one of the activists of the trend students of the democratic path basiste maoist of Marrakech.

He has actively participated in the reconstruction of this trend ideological, political, and organizational.

That this person have received a blow in the year 2008. these two comrades are waging a Hunger strike for several reasons:

* to lift the isolation in which they find themselves.
* to restore the right to visit their families.
* for the acceleration of their trial.
* to wrest the authorization to pursue their studies.
* so that they can benefit from the library of the prison.
* to denounce daily harassment of prison guards.
* to denounce the ban their is made for the use of phones in the prison In order to be able to communicate with their families.


The health of these comrades is worsening day by day.


Comrade Elkhalfaoui was taken last monday in a hospital, outside of the prison, While he was in a coma. It is suffering, in addition, acute pain in the stomach -  accompanied by diarrhoea and blood loss. In addition, it is no longer able to speak or to move. Finally, it should be noted that the comrade has asthma.

Rédouane el Aadimi, too, began a hunger strike since 03.12.2014., he Suffers from acute pain in the head and can no longer either move or speak . finally, it should be noted that these two mates are threatened to be thrown to the cachot s ' They are toiling in their hunger strike. After several days of hunger strike, two other comrades imprisoned in the prison of Tiznit, South of Morocco, have joined them in this hunger strike:


Aziz Elbour is one of them. This comrade has - as for him - was arrested on 15.02.2014 and sentenced to 3 Years imprisonment. He was also activist in the trend student democratic path basiste maoist of Marrakech.


He began a hunger strike open since the 10.12.2014 in solidarity with his comrades of Marrakech and also to claim his right to continue his studies. This comrade had already begun with his comrades Emouden, Elmskini, Talhaoui, several hunger strikes:

One in solidarity with Georges Ibrahim Abdallah ; another in solidarity with the uprising of the people in Turkey last year ; another still in solidarity with the people's movement and the political prisoners in Morocco.

Because of these hunger strikes repeated, his state of health is becoming catastrophic, and it has already been transferred to the hospital several times.

Mohamed Elmouden was arrested on 15.02.2013 ; he was sentenced to 3 years prison  It is one of the leaders of the trend students of democratic path basiste maoist of Marrakech.


This is the second time he gets arrested because of his activism.

It will start a new hunger strike on friday 19.12.2014 in solidarity with the comrades of Marrakech.

He also has already commenced a number of hunger strikes with his group of 10.

These comrades will constitute the  solid core as a rock of the reactionary regime could not break. These are militants Marxist - Leninist - Maoists.


Their only purpose is to advance the revolutionary process at the highest point in order to solve the contradictions. The difficulty that exists between the alliance révolutionary against the alliance of dominant classes.

The activists are among the best communist activists in Morocco.

This is why it is the duty of each and all of the support by all means.

Solidarity is our weapon. It should be in used


Long live the proletarian solidarity!


Long live the international  and Moroccan revolution !


Long Live Marxism Leninism Maoism !

Thursday, December 18, 2014

US Imperialism and Venezuela and Cuba : The Dangerous Game





Democracy and Class Struggle while welcoming prisoner exchanges between Cuba and the US is concerned at the normalisation of US/Cuba Diplomatic relations.

Our concerns were heightened when we read a report in the pro imperialist NSC/CIA linked STRATFOR organisation.

The following report below about potential changes in the Cuba/Venezuela relationship arising from Cuba's new relationship with the United States.


"A more immediate question is how the budding rapprochement between the United States and Cuba will affect the behavior of Venezuela, Cuba's most important ally in Latin America. Cuba shares intelligence with Venezuela, enabling Caracas to detect threats from within the country — though at the cost of fomenting discontent within the Venezuelan armed forces.

While Cuba's rapprochement with the United States may not immediately change Caracas' relationship with Havana, Venezuela's mounting economic distress and potential for unrest may make it see Cuba's improved ties with the United States as a potential threat in the long run."
Source: http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/united-states-and-cuba-begin-restoring-relations#axzz3MAquwobP

Democracy and Class Struggle  says it appears that the US is on a strategic path to bring conflict between the interests of Venezuela and Cuba and it is important for the survival of both Venezuela and Cuba they have a anti imperialist counter strategy for dealing with their perfidious northern neighbour.

We also anticipate increased pressure on Venezuela by US both covertly and overtly as a result of improved US/Cuba ties.

The evidence the new US Sanctions on Venezuela

We agree with Andrew Korybko's analysis  in an article called  Cuba Better Be Careful What It Wishes For

Overt hostility hasn’t worked in the past against Cuba, and it likely won’t work in the future.

Plus, there’s been a general trend in recent years for the US to pursue its objectives through covert and indirect means.

This is where Cuba is most vulnerable in the recent ‘thaw’ in relations.

The American economy doesn’t need Cuba at all, really, and Washington’s opening to Havana is a convenient cover to catch Cuba in its social and economic snare to more directly control the inevitable leadership transition process that will occur with Fidel’s passing.

It already tried and failed to use USAID to create a ‘revolutionary Twitter’ on the island, as well as its embarrassing follies with anti-government Cuban rappers, to name but the few most recent regime change scandals there.

And it must be kept in mind that Mr. Gross was working for the Agency when he was arrested in 2011 for trying to, as Cuban authorities described it, to “promote destabilizing activities and subvert constitutional order” to foster a “Cuban Spring.”

Cuba is also vulnerable to reverse migration, in that dissident and possibly extremist Cuban-Americans may return to the island in order to build a future Colour Revolution’s social infrastructure to deploy when the time is right (likely in the aftermath of Fidel’s death).

American businesses can fill a valuable development and investment gap on the island, in exchange for making Cuba ever more dependent on the U.S.

This would give the U.S. another lever of influence over the island’s affairs, which could be activated in unison with a Colour Revolution to create maximum disorder. 

Source: http://us.sputniknews.com/opinion/20141217/1013336990.html







Wednesday, December 17, 2014

American is not a country, its a business - summarising the USA at end of 2014



Democracy and Class Struggle has been publishing information on Slavery in US and the US Constitution and comparing the American Revolution with the Haitian Revolution.

We greatly admire the Haitian Revolution against Slavery and the  Haitian Declaration of Independence and the Democracy and Class Struggle view on the US Constitution and Jefferson could not be more eloquently spoken than in the words of Brad Pitt above.

The reality of the hypocrisy of Jefferson's words are being played out on the streets of the USA in 2014 has people increasingly recognise the "New Jim Crow" of mass incarceration.


 



Tuesday, December 16, 2014

OTPOR/CANVAS : The Business of Countering Real Revolutionary Change and overthrowing Governments unfriendly to USA :



Democracy and Class Struggle says OTPOR CANVAS has been part of the Balkanising of the Middle East with Syria has an example.

Undoing the damage done by US imperialism and Israel in Middle East will take decades if not centuries and all this done in name of pseudo capitalist democracy propagated by OTPOR CANVAS.

We are living through it consequences now.

Study the following articles to make yourself aware of their activities in your country.

PS: Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another.[1] It is considered pejorative by some

See also:

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/who-is-gene-sharp-by-ernesto-mireles.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/fakeing-revolution-otpor-promoting.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/wikileaks-info-on-canvas-otpor-from.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/wikileaks-otpor-canvas-collaboration.html

http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/01/14/breaking-desperate-for-destabilization-in-venezuela-us-funded-otpor-rears-its-ugly-head/

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/nabil-naeem-jihadist-groups-part-of.html



Monday, December 15, 2014

Brazil: The uninterrupted democratic revolution to socialism by Movimento Estudantil Popular Revolucionário


 
Democracy and Class Struggle publishes this document of the MEPR for a deeper understanding of the Land Struggle in Brazil


The revolution is an objective process, built by daily practice and not a spontaneous event.

Building it means solving the real problems that the class struggle has, to see the revolution within the current state of the world and the correlation of forces. In preparing for a process that will inevitably be long and full of adventures, because due to the size and economic importance and Brazil's policy, it is certain that US imperialism directly intervene to try to stop our liberation process.

We must also think of the revolution as a living process, which occurs in practice, not in our heads, in books, or in the proposed models. Lenin, quoting Goethe, said that "the theory is gray, green is the tree of life."

You must find which path of socialism in our country, and just have "eyes to see" and a scientific spirit to complete the revolution in Brazil is impossible without the participation of this powerful force that it is the poor peasants.

A historical error of the revolutionary vanguard was not to have understood the true role and weight of the peasants in our revolutionary process.

In a country of continental dimensions, with a late bureaucratic capitalism, dominated by imperialism and one of the largest land concentrations in the world, the agrarian question and peasant are not a mere detail.

What historical experience has proven, and recent years confirms, is that it is precisely in the field the sharpest contradiction of our society.
 
The numbers are indisputable: the last 20 years in 1500 peasants were killed in clashes over land, last year alone 73 peasants were killed, hundreds of leaders were arrested and many remain in detention to this day, hundreds of thousands of masses have mobilized to take the land of latifundia, is constantly growing armed clashes between peasants and the forces of the landlords, the struggle for land becomes ever more massive and radicalized, there are over 190,000 families camped and more than 4 million waiting for a piece of earth.
 
What we live in Brazil is a real war for land, are 40 million poor peasants and landless peasants against the landed oligarchy of just over 20,000 owners, holding more than 50% of arable land. And this war has a name: it is called Agrarian Revolution, a revolution that is already under way and think only is not more developed because it has prevailed in the direction reformist peasant movement. It is for real revolutionaries understand the contradictions that drive these millions of peasants to fight, even in finding a time of decline of the mass movement in general and the height of the counter-revolutionary offensive of imperialism. To study this process to interfere with it and develop it, fulfilling the urgent task of boosting the Agrarian Revolution in our country.
 

1) Brief history of economic and social formation of Brazil

 
Since the first struggles in the territory, where today is whether Brazil, the land problem was present. The Portuguese invasion started in 1500 with the arrival of the caravels of Pedro Alvares Cabral, transported to our land the feudal ruling system in Portugal. The feudalism was expressed in hereditary captaincies, long territorial extensions which were in force the model of suzerainty and European vassalage. So our land was soon divided into 15 major "fiefdoms". The Indians were initially used as a labor force in the extraction of natural resources, particularly Brazil wood, thus the relationship of the invaders with the natives atritou increasingly. Great connoisseur of the territory they were not to be enslaved and took refuge in the jungles and hinterlands of our land. With the expansion of Portuguese rule the conflicts have become more acute and bloody. The Indians realized, before the fury of the invaders, only with an open struggle for territory, for their land, could survive. The attack of the natives was strong and brave. But due to the delay of the development of its productive forces, and therefore of their weapons, and also to the high dispersion of the local population, it was impossible to stop the attacker Indians. The most organized resistance, and therefore the most important, was the Confederation of Tamoios, led by Aimberê who achieved the feat of unifying most Indian nations against the Portuguese invaders.
 
With the inability to rely on the Indian workforce, who resisted the invasion and took refuge in the hinterlands, the Portuguese enslaved Africans and brought them here. With the black labor force, it was possible the kingdom of Portugal colonize our territory. The Brazil was no longer a supplier of spices, to provide agricultural products to the metropolis. This agricultural production was based on slave labor, in large rural expanses and monoculture. As our production was geared to meet the needs of cities the local economy teetered short periods of prosperity with long periods of crisis. We had the cycles of cane sugar, and its decay; gold, and its decay; rubber, and its decay; cocoa, and its decay; coffee, and its decay; etc. What was constant in all these cycles were: 1) the colonial character of their production, our country belonged to the kingdom of Portugal; and 2) the brutal exploitation of slave labor of black.
 
Unlike the Indians, black Africans did not know the territory, that facilitated the beginning their enslavement by the Portuguese. But as it was adapting, that black generations already born in Brazil to their struggle gained great force. The classic form of black resistance was similar to the Indians, they also huddled indoors and in the mountains, and there built fortifications which developed its culture and ensured their freedom. Were the Quilombo. The most famous was the Quilombo dos Palmares Quilombo, built in the early sixteenth century and had as main leaders Ganga Zumba and Zombie. This Quilombo resisted over a hundred years and stood where today is the city of União dos Palmares, in Alagoas. The lives of the Maroons, as they were known, was not isolation, and resist the bush captains of the attacks sent by landlords, black raided the farms to release other companions and Justicar slave.
 
Straws Underneath the slave exploitation of black labor force, growing a mass of peasants violently exploited by the feudal latifundia. It was their work that supported the domestic economy with the beef and the supplies needed to put the monoculture and the mining operation. This servile exploitation, the largest pool of private masses of the law of the land, is not counted by the official history. But they were millions cowboys and small producers who produce for were forced to work in the landed estates and leave them, who did nothing, more than half of its production. This feudal oppression is brilliantly reported by Euclides da Cunha, on "The Barrens". He relates the behavior of a cowboy when he met a cow lost in the bush, first tried to find the owner; not succeeding took care of the animal as well as his own, but not used for any traction or work led him to be sold at the fair; when the cow gave the first creates the peasant repeated this with the same treatment, as well as the second creates; only the third creates the peasant took possession, it was the third. What Euclides da Cunha describes as honesty and dignity of the peasant, is more deeply existing feudal relations, which were reproduced spontaneously by Cowboy with an invisible landlord.
 
The struggle of the people was the struggle for land and the consequent destruction of these servile relations. It was against this mass of peasants and also against the Indians and blacks, that the monarchy in 1850, decreed the first Land Law of Brazil, it was established that the land in the country could only be acquired through the purchase. But how could buy a piece of land that mass of starving peasants, of blacks who had only the clothes on, or caught up Indians in the woods? It was clear the purpose of this law: to ensure the monopoly of land in the hands ruling classes. Note that this law was enacted 33 years before the abolition of slavery in Brazil. Thus, denied by law the right to land to former slaves 'liberation' represented: wage exploitation in the city, or the semi-feudal oppression in the field.
 
Bureaucratic capitalism
 
Capitalism in Brazil was implemented in a completely different way, both economically and politically, the countries of Europe and North America. In these countries the bourgeoisie came to power carrying the bourgeois revolution, defeating feudalism, beheading kings, promoting bloody wars of unification and national liberation. Economically these bourgeoisies, have enjoyed a long period of primitive accumulation for the formation of their capital, were the times of the great voyages of commercialism and colonial exploitation. In Brazil, the revolutionary processes of national liberation and the establishment of a bourgeois republic were all defeated, leaving mere rearrangements and restructuring of the ruling classes, as in our "independence", declared by Dom Pedro I, the son of the king of Portugal. Capitalism will emerge in Brazil, then, not as a result of the political struggle of the local bourgeoisie in training but need imperialism
 
The capitalist economy will emerge more strongly in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth with a timid industrialization in the Southeast. Who funded this industrialization? what was the primitive accumulation for this? It was England, the same as in the early nineteenth century prohibited the formation of a national industry. This turn in your policy is due to the profound economic changes occurring in capitalist countries between the years 1899 and 1903. It is the establishment of a new phase of capitalism, ie, imperialism. Imperialism is capitalism in its monopoly and parasitic phase, where the center of the economy of the imperialist powers is no longer solely the export of goods to be the export of capital to the semi colonial countries. The English capital abroad, this was the original capital of capitalist development in Brazil. Therefore capitalism in our country is a bureaucratic capitalism, as born dependent and tied to the imperialist powers. The bureaucratic capitalism does not destroy the feudal relations in the countryside, as occurred in all revolutionary processes led by the bourgeoisie until the nineteenth century, by contrast, is based on large estates to consolidate.
 

2) History of struggle for land and the peasant movement in Brazil

 
It will therefore, the mass fusion blacks, Indians and peasants within these European immigrants, which will form the Brazilian people. These quotas will form the working class and peasantry in modern Brazil. In the late nineteenth century until today, the main event in the field shall be clearly the struggle for land. The Straws War represented epic way this conflict. The village of Belo Monte, a city founded by Antonio Advisor in 1893, had over 30 thousand people. To destroy it the army organized four major expeditions, and the fourth had two huge columns. The peasants led by Pajeú and John Abbot fought heroically that terrible war machine. Killed with a shot in the belly the infamous Colonel Moreira Cesar, who became known as "cut heads" in the Paraguayan war. What drove that mass to fight so vigorously? The Director of religion could be the ideological expression, but the economic base that moved those people was the desire to have a piece of land to live free from the semi-feudal exploitation of large estates. Belo Monte was attacked so viciously by the genocidal state because the number of bodies attracted by Councillor proposal was so great that endangered the archaic structure of the field in Brazil.
 
contested All the struggles that followed in the field have, ultimately, this same content. So it was in Cauldron in Ceará, of Blessed Laurence, who came to be bombed by airplanes at the behest of the government of Getulio. The same happened in Pau-de-spoon in the city of Casa Nova in Bahia; Contested in Santa Catarina, fight directed by the monk John Mary; and all other farmers riots. Thus, the struggle for land has been developing and taking ever greater proportions. When the peasants joined the working class their struggle became even stronger and then became definitely revolutionary. The first major peasant struggle led by the Communist Party of Brazil happened in the cities of Trunks and Formoso (north of Brazil) and was led by the historic communist leader Jose Porfirio. Guerrilla Porphyry, as it became known, took place in the 50s and had great support of the peasants, who even managed to organize embryos of a popular government. But due to the opportunism of the leadership of the Party, which took effect from 55 resulting in a policy of alliances with Juscelino, the fight was stopped. Yet the mass was organized and was only decommissioned in 1964 after the coup the military. In 1957, the Communist Party leads the struggle of Porecatu of peasants in the state of Paraná.
 
The more massive experience and combative of the peasant struggle in our history happened in the 60s in the Northeast, with the Peasant Leagues. Leagues began to be organized in the Zona da Mata, initially in the city of Vitória de Santo Antão, where peasants waged a struggle for possession of Galilee ingenuity. The fight had great national impact and had the support of a lawyer and deputy Francisco Julian. With the victory the movement takes great strength and various alloys are based around the northeast, especially in Pernambuco and Paraíba. Had great role in organizing the leagues the peasant leader Pedro Teixeira, who was murdered in 1961 by large landowners. Even without a communist direction, the leagues have adopted a revolutionary program, which proposed the armed struggle for the realization of a radical agrarian reform. In the first Peasant Congress, held in Belo Horizonte, organized by the reformists of the PCB and the organizations of the Catholic Church, the revolutionary position of the leagues was victorious, showing that there is a large identity of all the peasant masses of Brazil with the revolutionary program. With the military coup the Peasant Leagues were disorganized.
 
juazeiro Another peasant struggle led by the Communist Party was the historic Araguaia guerrilla movement, organized in the early 70s in the South region of Pará. This guerrilla was part of the strategy to start a people's war in Brazil to defeat the military dictatorship and imperialism. It was attended by dozens of communist militants, most of them young people from the student movement. The reactionary army discovered the guerrilla movement and set up an operating that got the surprise of fighters because they were still in the initial period of preparation. Even so the fight was very hard, the milicos organized three campaigns, mobilizing more than 20,000 effective to face 69 guerrillas and some peasants who had joined the fight. The guerrillas resisted until 1974, when the last fighters were arrested and killed by the army. Despite his heroism, there were strategic character of errors in the definition and direction of the guerrilla. The site itself chosen to unleash it was not set because the southern Pará was then quite depopulated and with a mass of peasants with little experience of struggle, the opposite of northeastern Brazil.
 
During the military regime greatly increased land concentration in Brazil. The expansion of the agricultural frontier promoted in the 70s by the government, with the colonization of the Amazon, not democratized access to land. Hundreds of thousands of peasants from all regions of the country, moved mainly in the states of Rondônia, Pará and Mato Grosso in search of a better life. Contracted malaria, faced animals, tamed the bush, only to lose their small lumps to the large estates. Peasants and Indians who lived for years in their sites and villages were expelled by landowners linked to the military, which presented false deeds counting on the full connivance of the "authorities". This will result in several squatter clashes with the large estates in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, as it was in Cachoeirinha (MG), Maraba and Sao Geraldo do Araguaia (PA) and in many other regions.
 
We arrived in the late 80's with a higher penetration of capitalism in the field and the even more aggravated contradictions. With the defeat of the armed resistance and the disorganization of the communist movement, the peasant movement will be without proletarian leadership throughout the 80s and early 90s Thus, the direction that prevailed in the peasant movement in this period was the direction small- bourgeois linked to the Catholic Church: CPT and MST. This greatly limited the peasant struggle because their opportunist leadership tried at all costs lead it to pacifism and electioneering. Even so, the peasant movement, pushed by the oppressive poverty, maintained a great massiveness and radicalism. The struggles of larger peasant movement in the last decade were the Corumbiara-RO (1995) and Eldorado dos Carajás, PA (1996). The Battle of Santa Elina, as it became known to fight Corumbiará, was an armed confrontation than 600 peasant families against the gunmen and the repressive apparatus of the rotten state, despite the savagery of landlordism there were more deaths on the side of the landlords than the peasants . This battle will mark the beginning of a turn in the peasant movement, because it established in practice the revolutionary line of struggle for land.

Opportunism and the peasant movement in revisionismo¹
 
 
Due to the predominance of the revisionist and opportunist conceptions of right in the direction of the Communist Party of Brazil, throughout its history, the participation of the Communists in the peasant struggles was very small. The contempt for the peasantry and the misunderstanding of its important role in the Brazilian revolution represented mistakes that hurt, by far, the revolutionary process in our country. This gap allowed the rise of petty bourgeois leaderships. The Communists took very little to intervene in massive and militant struggles as the Peasant Leagues in the Northeast. Who saw more precisely the role of the peasantry in the Brazilian revolution was the great communist Alagoas Manoel Lisboa, founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Manoel in his "Letter of 12 points" defined very precisely the character of the Brazilian revolution, as a democratic revolution, and the way this as the protracted people's war through the siege of the city by the field.
 
Over the last 20 years as well as in the mass movement in general, has predominated one electioneering opportunist leadership in the peasant movement. The direction of the MST, despite expressing a mouth radicalism, always had a behavior to stop the radicalization of the peasant struggle and lead it to the electoral strategy. In the period of FHC management, maintaining a line of "bites and blows", oscillating a seemingly combative practice that actually served as a bargain for audiences with the president and ministers. The MST direction of the line of action is to make land reform within the law, do not organize resistance and mass feeding on the illusion that the Incra will resolve the issue. This practice results in numerous camps in the roadside, where the masses are for years waiting for the decision of government agencies. By the radical discourse is being abandoned when they resort this talk is the concern not to lose the mass of peasants from their bases, that aims increasingly a revolutionary leadership. With its ruling position, the direction of the MST has increasingly lost influence in the direction of the peasant movement, which has provided clear evidence of the emergence of a huge number of peasant organizations, many vents at the bottom of this organization. The trend is that this process of cracks continue for a while yet, until the triumph of the revolutionary position in the peasant movement.
 
 

3) The concentration of land and the landowner system

 
 
Brazil has one of the largest land concentration in the world. The approximately 25,000 existing landowners (owners of 55,000 properties), hold nearly 50% of agricultural land (almost 200 million acres), which means almost 25% of the entire national territory in the estate in the claws. Small farmers, a mass of 5.2 million workers, have only 21% of arable land. The industrialization of the country and the advance of capitalism in the countryside not solved the problem of concentration of land, on the contrary, it has increased over the last decades. So much so that only the last ten years, as were settled about 400 thousand families, disappeared 1 million small farms, increasing the concentration of land and strengthening the landowner system.
 
It is a great illusion find that the predominant relations in the Brazilian countryside are capitalists. Our interior is not that appear on the network world, soybeans for export and the country party. The interior of Brazil is the semi-feudal exploitation, oppression horrendous Laird system on a huge mass of poor peasants. And this exploitation has enormous economic weight, virtually all the internal market is supplied by the poor and middle peasants. Are the properties up to 100 acres leaving rice, beans, onion, tomato, corn and cassava consumed in the city. And has anyone ever heard of the use of high technology for the production of corn or rice in our country? Obviously not, because the small and medium producers continue pulling a hoe for land wealth. The mechanization and technology in the field are only for export agriculture, for soybeans and orange for juice, plus a little large middle agrarian bourgeoisie.
 
The production of soybeans and other agrobusines force the capitalist relations of production (wage) for the production of food for domestic market dominated by semi-feudal relations half, Tuesday and the peasant economy "family farms", where the patriarch plays with her children the same relationships that hangs with the latifundia. Even the penetration of rural capitalism has reduced the number of employees, not only for the use of high technology, but by the adoption, in agricultural industry and pre-capitalist relations. The peasant who does not have land and want to work, can not simply grow on parade ground in front of his house, because that land has an owner. To plant there, the farmer will have to deliver half or one third of its production to the owner without it contributed nothing like planting. This relationship is very similar to servitude of feudalism, differing only in the fact that the ties that bind the peasant to the landowner are not as strong as before. The half relations and Tuesday are not capitalist relations, are semi-feudal relations. The poor peasants with little land and the middle peasants also hinder this type of relationship with the landowner, to increase its production are required to lease the land stops landlordism and it does not pay a fixed rent, but an income that is half or one third of the produced, which differs from the capitalist land rent.
 
Corumbiará The poor peasants, landless peasants and middle peasants are oppressed in a thousand ways by the landowner semi-feudal system. This system is not only the monopoly of land, but also on the credit monopoly, trade and technology. The farmers can not freely flow production to the consumer markets, first because usually lack the means, ie, transportation and warehouse for this. And secondly the supply centers of the cities are true mafias controlled by big capitalists, who set the price of each product. This trade monopoly imposes very low prices for products of the peasants, the so-called middlemen even pay only 2 reais at the box 20 kg of silver banana in North Mine and 6 by real bag of 20 kg of onion in the Northeast.
 
The credit monopoly makes up a key part of the semi-feudal system. There are almost no resources for small production and are released when the interest paid by farmers is generally very high. In addition, from the credit standardization of production is made, since the money is only released by the bank through the presentation of projects. This results in the creation of centers of agricultural crops in Rondônia rice, inside the northeast corn, in the center of Bahia beans, around the city of São Paulo vegetables, etc. This control of what is produced by the peasants, made from banks, it is essential to reduce prices, since there is just too much of a product located offering. Moreover, by giving the credit the bank requires the farmer to buy the inputs, tools, etc. in specific vendors, thus closing the monopolistic control over their production.
 
Since they have no equity and your credit is small, the mechanization of small and average production is very low. In addition to result in lower productivity, lack of technology impose serious damage to farmers. In Rondônia, for example, to polish their rice the farmer has to give half to the owner of the machine, in Ceará to grind their cane sugar farmers deliver half the brown sugar produced by the mill owner. All this monopoly system about the poor and middle peasants everywhere and does not allow its economy to develop, since the result from the sale of production is almost the same amount invested. Thus the semi-feudal relations have played over the years and it is untrue to say that agribusiness is destroying these relations, unlike it feeds them to develop. The agribusiness, as well as the platantion, is still compatible with parallel peasant economy.
 
The great Brazilian bourgeoisie developed based on large estates, expanded capitalist relations keeping underlying semi-feudal relations. And this, because the landowner system is extremely profitable for the capitalists. Even with the much less productive peasant work than mechanized agriculture, thanks to oppression monopolies system, it has a lower cost. Being small and average production for the Internal food supply system landowner allows cheapening the price of these products. This ratio favors the big bourgeoisie, to the extent that allows the reduction of the amount of wages in the cities, since the salary corresponds to the replacement of the workforce, which is basically the cost of food. Not coincidentally, the minimum wage in Brazil is one of the lowest in Latin America, because the food here, due to the high concentration of land and the landowner system is comparatively cheaper than in neighboring countries.
 
The detailed analysis of the reality of the field in our country shows that the Brazilian agrarian structure has remained largely intact in these 500 years, and particularly in the last century. Despite significant changes in the economy and higher population density in urban centers, the economic relations that predominate in the field are pretty much the same from the late nineteenth century. The rural population in Brazil revolves around the home of 40 million, and mostly consists of small and medium producers and poor peasants with no or little land. These people, as we saw earlier, has fought bravely for land rights. This war that even more acute because the peasant population has a high rate of growth, is another proof of semifeudalidade in our field. It is patent proof that the agrarian problem was never resolved. If there was a predominance of capitalism in the battlefield within our country would be the fight for better wages and better working conditions. But this does not exist. What there are five million families struggling to have a piece of land and it is up to the revolutionaries to show off the revolutionary path no revolution to the field and the nation.
 

4) Land reform and agrarian revolution?

 
In studying the history of the struggle for land in our country, we saw that it came radicalized over the years, and that the conflicts in field grown, not diminished. This reality expressed, that all these years the reigning State was unable to even soften the agrarian problem, let alone fix it. The large estate was the main ruling class until the nineteenth century, then became the main ally of the great bourgeoisie lackey of imperialism. There was not a moment in our history that the large estates have been left out of state power. Even in the coup given by Vargas in 30, which contradicted the interests of the coffee barons and Northeast colonels, the large estates did not leave the power. Soon after consolidating his government, Getulio reconciled with the coffee barons and the colonels, for the first bought all the coffee harvest and played at sea to ensure the price, and others followed with the systematic policy of mass repression in struggle.
 
The military regime the power of large estates increased, figures such as José Sarney, ACM and Marco Maciel had great role in sustaining the regime. In the "democratization" Sarney was president of the republic, elected as vice Tancredo in the Electoral College; his successor was Collor de Melo, a member of one of the most archaic and corrupt oligarchies of sugar mills in the state of Alagoas. The FHC mandate was, almost all, supported by the alliance with ACM. Even today, the call caucus has a third of the seats of the House, and as many in the Senate. The Minister of Agriculture of the Lula government, Roberto Rodrigues, is a large landowner in São Paulo and therefore representative of landlordism. All these facts show that the latifundia actively participates in state power and that is the main political base of the big bourgeoisie power and, consequently, of imperialist domination over our country. Surely no interest in anything, a state sustained by large landowners, do any kind of democratization of access to land. 
 peasants
 
The "new" land law of the 1988 Constitution provides that only the unproductive lands are intended for land reform, and yet, these lands are purchased landlordism and must be paid by the peasants. What this land reform process has represented is a capitalization of landlordism, which is strengthened by the towering received government compensation. The advocates of land reform not propose the destruction of landlordism argue that the country is so large that it can contain different "models" of land ownership. What are defending is the possibility of peaceful coexistence of large farms with small production of small and medium farmers. João Pedro Stedile, MST leader, recently stated that "most of the landlords are good people." Ensuring that the peasant stay with their land is the destruction of large estates, destruction of all its monopoly system. The sale of unproductive land to the peasants, without the destruction of the landlord system, it's just bullshit.
The agrarian revolution is the destruction of the landlord system and the release of large productive forces in our country. This is the only way capable of leading the peasants to the release of the semi-feudal oppression. But the destruction of landlordism is also the destruction of the power of the big bourgeoisie and the imperialist domination, because as we have seen the large estates is the basis on which it is based, politically and economically, the power of the old state. The struggle for land is therefore the fight against these state and will not be with a renovation but with revolution that will overthrow him.
 

5) The Agrarian Program and Defence of People's Rights

 
The Brazilian revolution is a democratic revolution of a new type, uninterrupted socialism. Your task is the destruction of the three big mountains looming over our people and on our nation: imperialism, the landlord system and bureaucratic capitalism. The most acute contradiction in our country and, therefore, the main is now opposing landowner system versus poor peasants, and can only be resolved through an agrarian revolution, the first stage of the democratic revolution. The Agrarian Program and Defence of People's Rights, is the agrarian revolution program. Its result is the destruction of landlordism, your semi-feudal system of oppression and meet the most pressing demands of the masses of the city. This program can only be achieved through the practice of a revolutionary popular movement. There along with the Agrarian programs a Defense Program of People's Rights, to weld the strategic working and peasant alliance, the basis of United Front of interested classes in the democratic revolution, and that includes most of the population. Only the struggle of the people can achieve it, it means that through elections we will never reach it, because your application is already the very destruction of the bourgeois-landlord State and the construction of the State of workers and peasants. 
 bv
The agrarian revolution is the immediate implementation of its program, is destruction, step by step, landlordism. The PADDP has three pillars, which are being implemented as the fight develops, they are: 1) take all the lands of large estates and immediately deliver them to the poor peasants; 2) release of the productive forces in the field developing new relations of production starting from the self-help groups for cooperative and collective forms of production, combining the use of more developed means and instruments of production; 3) expel the forces of the state and establish the political power of organized masses, organizing all his political and social life, building public schools, popular health service, transport system and broadcast media and strengthening the culture of our people.
 
This program is already being applied by the revolutionary peasant movement, which is strengthened throughout the country. Its application is the mass organization for decision-ground, preparing the resistance and not accepting the ado of government agencies, as Incra, Funai and Ibama. Because what guarantees the ownership of land is the fight. After winning the first moment of landlordism enclosure is immediate transfer of the land to the peasants in struggle. The immediate cut of the earth, independent of government authorization, permits faster, that the mass to stand on their own work.
 
After the cut is necessary to develop new relations of production, surpassing the delay of family farming, it is the second pillar of Agrarian Program. The idea of ​​individual and family work is deeply rooted among the peasants, but this is a later viewing fruit of these little experience with cooperative and collective work. To organize mutual aid are organized groups of families who start working in a cooperative way. This form of organization also facilitates increased production with modern techniques and instruments such as purchase of tractors, processing machines, etc. In this process are organized economic plans in the areas that prioritize the planting of subsistence and the production of other items that generate foreign exchange to buy what can not be produced, thus ensuring the economic independence of the peasants. Only the cooperative production can win the siege of landlordism monopolies, only with the cooperation is possible to keep the land to the peasants. Cooperation develops from lower to higher forms, developing new relationships and boosting the productive forces, sitting basis for collectivization and socialist relations in the field.
 
The third pillar, the expulsion of large estates, is the most advanced step of the agrarian program. This pillar is the harassment, economic and political, landlordism, imposing these great losses so that the revolutionary areas in the field remain free of this pest. The expulsion of landlordism is to create the empty power, ie areas where the reactionary state no longer exercises its domination, this is a fundamental condition for the construction and establishment of people's power and development of the democratic revolution. The new power begins also step by step, and will of the simplest forms to the most complex. One of the first popular instruments of power are the Popular Schools, schools of new type, which broadcast the ideology and revolutionary consciousness and therefore serve the thrust of the agrarian revolution and construction of popular power embryos. These schools take care of the children initially education, adult literacy, technical training and, in their development, are helping in the development of economic plans. The Popular Schools are independent of the old state and its direction is in the hands of the masses and not in the bourgeois and bureaucratic agencies of duty governments.
 
With the development of the struggle and the implementation of the agrarian program will consolidate the revolutionary areas, controlled by the masses and where there is increasingly popular power. The expansion of these areas inside our country is the siege of the city in the countryside road of revolution in Brazil. With the development of the agrarian revolution inevitably Yankee imperialism will intervene to try to stop it, the invasion of foreign troops transform the contradiction imperialism versus oppressed nations in the main contradiction of our society. The solution of this contradiction will be given by the national liberation revolution that will fulfill the second phase of the democratic revolution of a new type, sweeping over this mountain that hangs over our people. Along with imperialism also defeat their local managers, the big bourgeoisie and bureaucratic capitalism.
 
All revolutionary fighters and students should be clear that the agrarian revolution is not an exclusive task of the peasant movement. It is the way to get to socialism. Among the three pillars that support the current system (landlordism, imperialism and big bourgeoisie) the landlords represent the weakest class, because it is the most anachronistic and backward, it is against it that we can recruit more forces in society. We students can not be content to support the agrarian revolution, we must actively participate in it, driving it with the support of the intelligentsia, but mostly moving in to the field for helping in this difficult undertaking construction of popular power embryos.
 
The agrarian revolution is the first step for the expulsion of imperialism and the construction of socialism. Destroying the latifundia, ended up with the main shackle that holds the development of productive forces in our country, and so release large forces for the building of a new economy. The estate in defeat is a defeat of imperialism. Ending the latifundia, we, too, with the main ally internal, political and economic, of the big bourgeoisie. The agrarian revolution is a stage of democratic revolution that will solve the agrarian question and peasant and the national question. To the extent that triumphs democratic revolution starts immediately the socialist revolution. But even before the democratic revolution already plays an important part of the socialist program, for the destruction of three mountains represent the nationalization of all foreign capital, the large local capital, the confiscation of all the lands of large estates and the nationalization of agro-industries.
 
The struggle for land in Brazil is a heroic trajectory of the mass of poor peasants. Its violence demonstrates how this contradiction is acute in our country; that this is a problem that must be solved by the Brazilian revolution. Without a proletarian leadership which implements the worker-peasant alliance, the struggle for land can not emerge victorious. Only a new power of workers and peasants, can ensure the land to those who work it. It is the task of all revolutionaries boost the struggle for land, because all the peasant revolt, overwhelmed by secular large estates, is a great transforming power, without which there will be no revolution in our country, without which we can not expel imperialism of our lands , defeat and confiscate the bourgeoisie and build socialism.