I’m currently writing an article for a newspaper and one of the subsections revolves around a societal responsibility towards propaganda; especially racial or ideologically Nazi propaganda as in the example of Jud Suß.

For this, I wanted to discuss the Soviet reaction to Protocols as the book was a product of the Russian Empire and served as a driving justification for Nazi racial propaganda, making the Soviet reaction towards the book potentially very useful to my article.

I’ve found very little information regarding this, and thought it would makes sense to ask if anyone here has any sources as to the Soviet reaction to the book or if it was banned? English or Russian would do as I can read both.

I'm looking for a good book on Chinese civics. I know the very basics of how the government's structured, but I want to go more in-depth.

So far I've found ebooks for The Government of China (Yu Bin), Chinese Politics and Government (Sujian Guo), and Understanding Chinese Politics (Neil Collins). I'm also looking to find a copy of Modern Chinese Government (Qianyou Zhang) but I'm not optimistic.

Is anyone familiar with any of these? Any recommendations?

You can read the text here. This week, we're covering everything up to but not including "War and politics". Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space.

A short set of rules that lays down in a pretty clear fashion some fundamentals of democratic centralism.

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

A review of Banerjee's "Fighting Imperialism and Authoritarian Regimes: Between the Devil and the Deep Sea" (2003) and Salamey's "Hezbollah, Communitarianism, and Anti-Imperialism" (2019).

Highly recommend reading this one as it addresses a ton of bad faith arguments we still see to this day when it comes to actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Basically a takedown of the western pseudo-left "anti-authoritarian" argument that leftists shouldn't stand in solidarity with global south anti-imperialist forces because they are insufficiently morally pure in some way or another. They do this same shtick when it comes to Russia, Iran, DPRK, and to a certain extent China as well, always conveniently finding some leftist sounding reason to demonize precisely those forces which happen to be the Empire's greatest foes, whether it's that they're insufficiently advanced in social justice causes, or insufficiently secular, or whatever else they need to say to get naive baby leftists to align themselves with the CIA and the State Department. This "compatible left" is and has been for a long time the greatest obstacle to real revolutionary movements in the West. So long as this chauvinism and this tailing of liberal Empire propaganda infects it, the western left will continue to be, by and large, little more than larpy liberals.

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

On the Choice of Edition

This is the first time that the second German edition of Capital volume 1 has been translated into English. The second edition of 1872 was the last authorized text of volume 1 published in the original German, in the sense that it is the last one that Marx revised himself and approved for publication.

• Anna’s Archive
• Paul Reitter, Ohio State U. Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures

A very important debunking of a pernicious anti-communist myth. However with a warning that this content creator is apparently kind of a creep, or at least said some really fucked up things at one point. This has no bearing on the validity of the points made in the video but i'm just adding this so that people are aware that some dissociation of the author from their work might be necessary here.

The Socialist market economy is a brand new form of modern market economy

As is well known, the emergence of a market economy is related to the establishment of a capitalist mode of production. In today's world, almost all countries practicing a market economy are based on private ownership of the means of production. Although there are many differences between the two models, they share a common characteristic— they both belong to a capitalist market economy based on the private ownership of means of production.

A liberal market economy is a typical economic system based on private ownership. The United States constitution clearly stipulates that private property is sacred and inviolable. It has two obvious characteristics. The first is the dominance of the private sector in the U.S. economy with the state-owned economy making up only a small proportion. According to statistics, the private sector accounts for more than three-quarters of U.S. GDP. The second is the high concentration of private capital. Although there was a trend of decentralization of equity shares and a common phenomenon of stock-holding after World War II, the control of enterprises remained in the hands of a few big shareholders and senior executives.

Although emphasizing the decentralization of property rights and social balance and advocating the economic system with the coexistence of various forms of ownership, the social market economy belongs to a system based on private ownership. Advocates of a social market system believe that "private ownership of the means of production is one prerequisite of the competition system". It is true that through a social market economy that values social fairness and implements welfare policies, many countries have, to a certain extent, narrowed the gap between rich and poor, met the needs of the people for a better life, and mitigated social contradictions. In essence, however, a social market economy is only an improvement on a capitalist market economy because it touches only the area of distribution rather than private ownership and its political structure. Therefore, it is impossible for such an improved capitalism to address the root causes of its polarization. Even worse, it is bound to hinder economic and social development because more and more revenue and capital will be spent on social welfare. At present, the high-welfare and high-subsidy welfare policy pursued by social market economies has sparked many negative effects, especially in the era of economic globalization when a large number of jobs will be cut and the welfare policy sinks into the inextricable mire and faces serious crisis.

It is also known that socialist countries pursuing public ownership of the means of production chose a highly centralized planned economy at the primary stage. As a result, over a long period of time, many people tend to define a planned economy as a basic characteristic of socialism and the market as a patent of capitalist private ownership, thus regarding a market economy and socialism as incompatible as water and fire. Naturally, whether and how socialism can be integrated with a market economy has become a major problem in socialist economic theory and practice. For nearly 100 years, foreign scholars have made an arduous exploration into this difficult global historical problem. A variety of theoretical models of market socialism have been produced or even put into practice. All, however, ended up in failure or fantasy due to the fact that they were divorced from reality.

In China, reform of the economic system is a process of expanding the role of the market mechanism. Since market-oriented reform was officially launched in 1978, after decades of debates on and exploration into theory and practice, and after paying heavy historical costs, China finally realized the positive role of the market on economic development, and the CPC set a goal of establishing a socialist market economy in the process of reforming China's economic system. As is pointed out in the Report to the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China:

Numerous facts show that the market is an effective way to allocate resources and provide incentives, and to bring pressure and power to an enterprise. Moreover, the market response to various signals is also sensitive and rapid. Because of these advantages, more and more people in socialist countries have realized the positive role of the market for economic development. The one-sided understanding of and bias against the market in the past are being abandoned.

The socialist market economy proposed and established in China is a shining example for the world in combining, in a scientific way, socialism with a market economy. In this sense, we can say proudly that the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China held in October 1992 opened up a new era in Chinese history.

The Report to the 15th CPC National Congress clearly pointed out that "it is a great pioneering undertaking to combine socialism with a market economy". Making public ownership of the means of production the mainstay is the basic feature for such a combination, the essential difference between a socialist market economy and a "liberal market economy" and is the root cause for it to become a brand new form of modern market economy.

An interesting interview because so much of what he said back then is applicable to today. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce." It's fascinating how clearly Stalin saw through the machinations of the imperialists and their plans:

The English race theory leads Mr Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only superior nations, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world. Actually, Mr Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present to the non-English-speaking nations something in the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well; otherwise war is inevitable.”

Not much has changed. The Anglos are still trying to impose their hegemony over the rest of the world, only thing that's different today is that Britain is even more of a joke than it was then.

The Germans made their invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Germans were able to make their invasion through these countries because, at the time, governments hostile to the Soviet Union existed in these countries.

And now there are hostile governments again in all of these countries (minus perhaps Hungary who are trying to play both sides) threatening Russia. They have already managed to take over and occupy parts of the Soviet Union like Ukraine and the Baltics.

This circumstance enabled statesmen like Mr Churchill to play on these antagonisms, to get control over Poland on the pretext of protecting her from the Russians, to try to scare Russia with the spectre of war between her and Poland, and retain the position of arbiter for themselves.

And now we have the same situation again with Poland that Stalin describes here. Once again the Anglo imperialists are playing up this irrational hostility against Russia to control the countries of Eastern Europe.

[Socialist states] are administered by blocs of several parties – from four to six parties – and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is secured the right of participation in the government.

That Mr Churchill describes as totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule. Why? On what grounds? Don’t expect a reply from Mr Churchill. Mr Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself by his outcry about “totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule”.

And now the West is spouting the exact same nonsense about China as they did then about the European socialist governments. Nearly a hundred years later and they still have the same propaganda playbook.

I don’t know whether Mr Churchill and his friends will succeed in organising a new armed campaign against eastern Europe after the second world war; but if they do succeed – which is not very probable because millions of ‘plain people’ stand guard over the cause of peace – it may confidently be said that they will be thrashed, just as they were thrashed once before, 26 years ago.

Stalin being prophetic here as just that has come to pass. The imperialists have succeeded in organizing a new war in Eastern Europe, again using fascists to do their dirty work, and again Russia is thrashing them.

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

What is this?

This is a transcript I have from a lecture given at Tsinghua University by Li Bangxi on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The titles are something I added because this lecture was not originally written down (no one really titles portions of their lectures haha). I would love if we started a discussion in the comments because this is, to my knowledge, the first time this lecture is reaching the west.

The audience he was addressing was a mix of Chinese and Non-Chinese (mostly Americans).

Li also sometimes gets into specifics. I have cut out the most of the portions where he simply stated numbers from charts he had of economic indicators since those are publicly available and I don't know what his sources were.

The lecture:

CHINESE ECONOMIC POLICY

THE STATE AND BUSINESS

The basis for all government intervention in business in China is to be found in the Socialist conception of the relation between business and the State. According to the Socialist theory business is subordinated to the State. Formerly, it was believed that the fate of the State and of the nation lay in business, for it was said that business was of such great importance and so powerful that it controlled the State and determined State policies.

In the Socialist State the relation between business and State is just the contrary. Today the State or State policy controls or rules business.

I must emphasize that in Socialist eyes the State incorporates in itself no absolute value as is the case, for instance, in an absolute monarchy. The supreme value is the community of the nation. The State is only the form of organization and the manifestation of the people.

This means that the State is not concerned with economic conditions as long as they do not conflict with the welfare of the nation. The principle of private initiative has been maintained. However, where it seems necessary to bring business into line with the welfare of the nation, the State will not hesitate to intervene and direct business into the desired channels. In China, contrary to the usual belief, we have no “planned economy”, but rather a “directed” economy if I may use such an expression.

THE AIMS

The aims of the present regulation of production can be summarized in a few words. First, the securing of supplies of raw materials for industry. All measures serving this aim are included in the Five-Year-Plan the aim of which is to make China as independent as possible of imports by increasing domestic production.

Second, an increase in domestic agricultural production with the aim of making China, as far as possible, self-sufficient in the field of foodstuffs.

China has only a few raw materials and has always been faced with the necessity of importing the greater part of her raw material requirements. But as you realize, imports can only be paid for out of export proceeds or other credit items in the balance of payments such as shipping, insurance, or proceeds from capital investments abroad.

INDIRECT AND DIRECT REGULATION OF PRODUCTION

The Chinese government follows no definite theory in establishing the methods by which intervention in the field of production is to be accomplished. This is one of the most characteristic traits of Socialist economic policy. In combatting unemployment, the government did not follow one theory such as the theory of direct public works or the theory of the stimulation of private initiative, but followed both theories impartially according as to which seemed best at the time. The same is true of the regulation of production.

The various measures may be classified as: 1. indirect and 2. direct.

The State undertakes indirect measures when it intervenes not in production and capital investment themselves but in conditions which govern them.

There are four special groups of indirect measures:

1. Regulation of taxes, especially reduction of taxes. For example, in order to revive automobile production, which was at an extremely low level, and thus to stimulate motorization in China, which had lagged far behind the level of motorization in other countries. In the last five years, these measures together with the economic upswing have brought about a great advance in automobile sales and a great improvement in Chinese motorization.

A further example of regulation of production by means of tax reductions was the exemption of short-term capital goods from income tax. The value of these goods could be deducted from taxable income of the individual and from the taxable profits of an enterprise.
This stimulated the purchase of such goods and was a means of increasing the low activity of the capital goods industry. The elasticity of the Socialist economic policy can be seen in the fact that this measure was repealed as soon as the capital goods industry was fully employed.

2. The second means of indirect regulation of production is price policy. This can take place in two ways: by a reduction in costs and by an increase in, or guarantee of, sales prices. These methods have been chiefly used in the field of agriculture, where production reacts quickly to price changes. An example of this reduction may be seen in the prices for artificial fertilizer, farm machinery and agricultural implements. On the other hand, by a scaling of farm prices it has been possible to increase considerably the acreage given over to winter barley, the production of fiber plants and oil fruits, and the number of sheep.

3. Closely related to this price policy is tariff policy, the utilization of which is necessary where domestic goods compete with foreign products. This is particularly important in the case of agricultural products, the prices of which are considerably lower on the world market than in China. Special boards have been set up in order to compensate for these differences in prices, and are empowered to regulate imports.

4. The last method of indirect regulation of production is the prohibition of new private issues on the capital market. Since new issues are permitted only for special purposes all those branches of trade and industry which are shut off from the capital market are thus limited in their capital investment possibilities. They can only extend their plants, etc., to the degree that their own funds allow. A special board was set up under the control of the People's Bank of China, to which application must be made before new issues are floated. Permission is only granted for private issues in the case of companies which serve the ends of the Five-Year-Plan, where, moreover, no other possibility of financing their work exists.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT POLICY

Among the large number of methods of directly influencing production, I have to mention first the government orders which predominate in some economic branches.

Apart from this a good deal of direct regulation of production by the Government consists of the regulation of capital investment activity.

Thus, the regulation of capital investment activity really means a planned direction of capital investment. This was proved especially necessary when work was started on the Five-Year-Plan. In a certain sense capital investments were scaled according to urgency, the Five-Year-Plan, rearmament and exports are the most important.

A number of measures have been introduced in this connection. They may be classified as follows: There are capital investment prohibitions, the purpose of which is to prevent industries whose capacity is sufficient to cover demand, from extending their plants. This prevents needless using up of the limited capital and material available, and avoids overproduction and consequent disturbances of the market. We have such capital investment prohibitions, for instance, in the paper industry, in the glass industry, in part of the textile industry, and in part of the chemical industry.

In the second place the regulation of capital investments and production by profits and sales guarantees given by the government. I have already emphasized that Socialism adheres to the principle of private initiative. However, this does not prevent the State, if it seems necessary, from relieving private business of some of the risk it runs in undertaking certain projects. These profits and sales guarantees given by the State are especially important in the production of staple fiber, motor spirit and synthetic rubber. The companies engaged in such production in China are private firms; their profits however, have, been guaranteed by the State to a certain extent, since their products are of great importance for the economic policy of the State.

In some fields the State itself has gone into production, and has for this purpose made capital investments. The principle that business is to be left as far as possible to private initiative does not mean that the State cannot engage in economic activity in certain fields of production and under certain specific conditions. This is the case, for example, in the field of iron ore production.

After the loss of territory in the War, only a small part of China’s iron ore requirements could be covered by domestic production. In view of the fixed costs and prices prevailing and under the usual methods of exploitation only part of China’s iron ore deposits could be mined with profit. The dependence on imports in the case of such an important field as iron ore had to be eliminated. But the conditions and problems in this type of production were so peculiar and so extensive that the State correctly assumed the initiative itself.

The Government, founded a company, the business of which is the mining of the low content iron ores which abound in China.

SUBSIDIES

One of the oldest and best-known methods of State intervention both here and abroad is the granting of subsidies by the State. Outside China, especially in the United States, subsidies are well-known, above all in the shipping industry. Here too private business is not in a position itself to operate an economic branch in the way the State considers desirable. The same thing holds in China for some spheres of production. For example, certain building projects, such as the building of dwellings for agricultural workers or the erection of settlements for industrial workers, are carried out either directly with the help of contributions from the State, or indirectly with the aid of loans granted by the State on extremely favorable terms. Furthermore, the production of nonferrous metals has been supported by State subsidies for many years.

REGULATION OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION

The third group of measures of government production regulation concern raw material consumption. Almost the whole of Chinese industry is subjected to the system of raw material quotas. The essence of quota-fixing lies in the control of imports, which was introduced as part of the New Plan for Chinese Foreign Trade. The control is carried out by 27 control boards, one of which has been set up for each branch of industry. Factories which use imported raw materials are only allowed to purchase a certain volume of raw materials abroad. Normally, the basis of the quota-fixing is the consumption of a certain month. But the importance of the orders which the company has to fill, is also taken into account, export orders being given special consideration.

Apart from this system of import regulation there exist a number of decrees dealing with the use of raw materials. For instance, as a result of the scarcity of wool and cotton it has been decreed that all wool and cotton cloth manufactured in China for the domestic market must contain a certain percentage of staple fiber. Certain products, for example doorknobs, may no longer be made of brass. In private residential buildings only a certain amount of construction iron may be used. This system of regulation has been carefully worked out and is not too strictly bureaucratic in its application. In many cases the usual raw materials must be replaced by new synthetic raw materials which can be produced without any import. The use of these new synthetic raw materials does not mean a lowering of the quality of the finished product. On the contrary, the shortage of raw materials leads to new inventions and improvements and even brings about as in the case of synthetic rubber a technical progress which otherwise would not have occurred.

INCREASE OF PRODUCTION

If you were to ask me what success has been achieved in the sphere of production regulation, I could not do better than to give you a few figures which will show you the extent of the increase of production in China. The production of capital goods has risen much more strongly than has the production of consumption goods.

Progress in the field of domestic raw material production has been even greater. Iron ore production has risen from an average of 843,000 metric tons for the first 3 months of the year to 1,226,000 metric tons in the first three months of the year. This means an increase of 45%. Furthermore, there has been great progress in domestic oil production.

CONSUMPTION POLICY

A number of measures of production regulations, namely all those which affect production of consumption goods, also influence consumption. When, for example, in the interest of a sufficient bread supply it is decreed that all bread should contain a certain amount of maize flour, this is felt by each individual consumer. (Incidentally, in view of the good harvest, this particular measure was abolished) The same is true of the changes in the textile field and in other fields where the new synthetic materials are gaining a foothold.

The idea of “consumption regulation” is undoubtedly something completely new to you. In the economic textbooks and handbooks nothing will be found on this subject. Of course, the fact that — contrary to general belief — man cannot consume what he desires, is as old as the hills. And even today in the modern economic systems the individual is subjected to many restrictions in his consumption.

In the Middle Ages there were strict provisions as to the clothing worn by the various classes. The Mercantile countries, that is, the countries of the 17th and 18th centuries, restricted consumption for economic reasons, mainly in order to stimulate home industry and to cut down imports. And if you consider your own position, you will find none or only a few restrictions in your consumption as the result of State action (you will remember of course the days of prohibition!), but you will probably find great restrictions in consumption as the result of custom, fashion, habit, social viewpoint and, last but not least, industrial production.

It would probably be very hard for you to secure outside the six to eight different forms of straw hats to be found in almost every shop, one which was especially light and comfortable and in a form designed by yourself. This is nowhere manufactured and it would be hard for you to find someone to make you a straw hat according to your own design and measure. Industrial hat production, which is rationally based on machine production of hats, will certainly not do it. While on the subject of hats, it would be impossible for you to walk around in America, in a round plate-like felt hat, instead of the usual form of felt hat, without being laughed off the street, for that would be contrary to American custom and habit. And finally the fact that each family must spend a certain part of its income on food, the amount being in inverse proportion to the income, is most certainly a restriction of freedom of consumption which weighs quite heavily on the individual.

The aim of consumption policy in China is to increase consumption and thus raise the standard of living of the entire nation — especially that of the working class — to adjust consumption to production and to regulate consumption along Socialist lines. The aims of consumption regulation are partly of a political nature and partly determined by the economic situation.

It is far harder to regulate consumption than it is to regulate anything else in economy. For every measure of consumption policy affects the largest unit, the entire population. A decree concerning the iron ore producing industry affects only a few hundred firms. However, an appeal to the consumer affects over 1 billion people. This fact alone makes special methods necessary for regulation of consumption.

I have hinted at these methods in telling you about the bread supply and textile production. Of a similar nature are certain limitations imposed upon trade, whereby only a fixed amount is allowed to each customer, as for example m the case of fats in months when there is a shortage.

The most important means of regulating consumption is publicity. Of course, this method does not guarantee as sure a success as do legal measures. But it has the great advantage that it gives the consumer the feeling that he is doing something of his own free will and that the only pressure exerted upon him is that which is exerted by his conscience.

NUTRITION

China is in the unfortunate position that there is a limit to which those foodstuffs the consumption of which increases with a rise in income, such as fats, butter, eggs, etc., can be produced or imported. Thus, the aim has been to influence the consumer to use as much as possible those foodstuffs which are abundant in China and to use to a less degree those which are not so plentiful or which have to be imported. At the same time, there was a possibility of directing nutrition in the best ways from the point of view of health. For instance, everything possible was done to convince people that for a great part of the population, for example those who do not do hard physical labor, a diet too rich in fats is not especially healthy. Along the same ideas, great success has been achieved in increasing the consumption of fish. Today China consumes 26-9 lbs. per head per annum, as compared with 18-7 lbs. five years ago. A summary of everything desired in the field of consumption regulation may be found in the food list which the Chinese Institute for Business Research has worked out. The Institute classified the foodstuffs into three groups, those whose consumption should be increased, those whose level of consumption should be maintained, and those whose consumption should be restricted.

In China we do not have a regular supply of all foodstuffs throughout the year as you do in America. The Institute therefore drew up a list of those foodstuffs which are to be especially pushed in certain months. As an example, I shall quote two months: January: pork, geese, fish, cabbage, root vegetables, fruit and vegetable conserves. September: mutton, poultry, mushrooms, pickles, tomatoes, beans, salad, spinach, plums, pears and apples. However, I would like to emphasize that these are not the only goods which may be consumed, but the public is to be educated to adjust its diet to conform more or less with the fluctuations in the supply of certain foodstuffs. Publicity to this end is not carried out by the Institute for Business Research or by the Government direct but by organizations and private companies.

Another measure serving the same purpose is the Anti-Waste Campaign. The purpose of this is clearly to be seen in its name.

ORGANIZED CONSUMPTION

A special field in consumption regulation is the organization of consumption which is carried out by the large political units. Here political and social aims correspond to economic aims. Everything is being done to influence the worker to spend his income as much as possible for such things as mean a substantial rise in his standard of living and as little as possible for such things as burden the Chinese foreign exchange balance. Through organization it is possible to effect price reductions, and these price reductions are to make it possible for the worker to do those things which formerly only the better-situated classes were able to afford.

This is an excerpt from a chapter in Losurdo's - War and Revolution - Rethinking the 20th century.

---

The Third Reich and the Natives

With the unleashing of the war in the East, Hitler set about constructing the 'German Indies', as they were sometimes called, or conquering a Lebensraum similar to the Far West. The First World War and the British naval blockade had demonstrated the geopolitical vulnerability of Germany's previous colonial expansion. Assessing this negative experience, Mein Kampf stressed that 'the New Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old', in order to build a robust continental empire.^104^ This involved exploiting the disintegration of Czarist Russia, avoiding a 'fratricidal' conflict with the Anglo-Saxon powers, and preserving Germanic or Aryan solidarity intact. In this optic, the war with the 'natives' of Eastern Europe was equated with the 'war against the Indians', with 'the struggle in North America against the Red Indians'. In both cases, 'victory will go to the strong',^105^ and be secured by the methods appropriate to colonial war: 'in the history of the expansion of the power of great peoples, the most radical methods have always been applied with success'.^106^

It might be said that Hitler sought his Far West in the East and identified the Untermenschen of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union as 'Indians' to be chased ever further beyond the Urals in the name of the march of civilization. This was not a fleeting suggestion, but a long-premeditated programme spelt out in detail. Furet aptly draws attention to the fact that Hitler compared []the great spaces he readied himself to conquer to a 'desert'.^107^ But he does not breathe a word about the history behind this metaphor, which pertained to the history of colonialism and, above all, the expansion of the continental empires. In the mid-nineteenth century, Mexico seemed like a set of 'desert wastes ... untrodden save by the savage and the beast' to chauvinistic circles in the USA, who aspired to conquer it, at least in part.^108^ Going further back, here is how Tocqueville described the immense territories of North America on the eve of the Europeans' arrival:

Although the vast country that I have been describing was inhabited by many indigenous tribes, it may justly be said, at the time of its discovery by Europeans, to have formed one great desert. The Indians occupied it without possessing it. It is by agricultural labour that man appropriates the soil, and the early inhabitants of North America lived by the produce of the chase. Their implacable prejudices, their uncontrolled passions, their vices, and still more perhaps, their savage virtues consigned them to inevitable destruction. The ruin of these tribes began from the day when Europeans landed on their shores; it has proceeded ever since, and we are now witnessing its completion.

In a way, the genocide that was in the process of being completed formed part of a divine plan -- what, around a decade later, would be called the Manifest Destiny with which the white colonizers were invested:

They [the indigenous tribes] seem to have been placed by Providence amid the riches of the New World only to enjoy them for a season; they were there merely to wait till others came. Those coasts, so admirably adapted for commerce and industry; those wide and deep rivers; that inexhaustible valley of the Mississippi; the whole continent, in short, seemed prepared to be the abode of a great nation yet unborn.^109^

The advance of the American white, engaged in his lone 'struggle against the obstacles that nature opposes to him', against 'the wilderness and savage life', was unstoppable and beneficial.^110^ Indeed, the native 'has nothing to []oppose to our perfection in the arts but the resources of the wilderness'.^111^ There is an especially significant expression: 'the Indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds whence they have since been expelled'.^112^ The desert becomes genuinely inhabited only with the entry of the Europeans and the flight or deportation of the natives.

This was the colonial tradition that lies behind Hitler, who was likewise concerned to populate the 'desert' of Eastern Europe: 'In a hundred years' time there will be millions of German peasants living here.' The settlement of civilians went together with measures to contain and deport the barbarians:

Given the proliferation of the natives, we must regard it as a blessing that women and girls practise abortion on a vast scale ... we must take all the measures necessary to ensure that the non-German population does not increase at an excessive rate. In these circumstances, it would be sheer folly to place at their disposal a health service such as we know it in Germany; and so -- no inoculations and other preventative measures for the natives! We must even try to stifle any desire for such things, by persuading them that vaccination and the like are really most dangerous!

Even traffic accidents or similar kinds of incident could prove useful: 'Jodl is quite right when he says that notices in the Ukrainian language "Beware of the Trains" are superfluous; what on earth does it matter if one or two more locals get run over by the trains?' For the processes of racial de-specification to proceed unhindered, 'to avoid all danger of our own people becoming too soft-hearted and too humane towards them, we must keep the German colonies strictly separated from the local inhabitants'.^113^

As the conquest proceeded, it was necessary to push the Untermenschen or 'Indians' of Eastern Europe back ever further, possibly beyond the Urals, so as to create space for Germanic elements and civilization. On the other hand, the objective situation dictated rapid colonization of the conquered territories and their endowment with a new ethnic identity. This entailed massive 'tasks of population policy' (volkspolitische Aufhaben). The process that had taken centuries in the Far West or other colonies had to be completed []or configured in its essentials in the space of a few years and in conditions of total war. The 'mass catastrophe' (_Volkskatastrophe*) of the subjugated peoples and the death of 'tens of millions of men' was inevitable.^114^ The decimation of the indigenous populations could not be entrusted to the long-term effects of rum, or infectious diseases, or the destruction of bison. Where starvation and the brutality of deportation proved insufficient, bombers could be called upon to raze Leningrad and Moscow to the ground (according to Hitler's plan in July 1941), as could execution squads charged with thinning out populations 'of primarily Asiatic composition' and 'Asiatics of poor quality'.^115^

The natives had hitherto been assimilated to the Native Americans, who could be unceremoniously depleted. In another respect, they ended up being represented as work tools, 'slaves in the service of our civilization',^116^ and hence as blacks. The new continental empire had to seize land from the 'Indians' (therewith condemned to deportation and decimation), and procure work tools -- the slaves who could not be imported from Africa, and who were all the more imperative because of the war's economic and military requirements.

From the outset, the Third Reich's colonial policy suffered from this contradiction or tension: in the new territories, it was necessary both to conquer the Far West and Africa, deporting and decimating savages, and to utilize sufficient servile or semi-servile manpower. Resolving this problem -- reducing the residual 'native' population to a simple pool of slaves for the master race -- was not easy. As with the slaves in the southern USA referred to by Tocqueville, they were certainly to be deprived of education in the interim. Hitler explained: 'I am in favour of teaching a little German in the schools simply because this will facilitate our administration. Otherwise every time some German instruction is disobeyed, the local inhabitant will come along with the excuse that he "didn't understand".'^117^ But Eastern Europe was not the America conquered by whites; nor was it the Africa of the golden age of the slave trade. Here the 'Indian savage' and black slave did not exist in a natural state: they had to be created by erasing centuries of history and artifice (from the standpoint of Nazi Social Darwinism), []restoring the laws and aristocracy of nature. The attempt to revive the colonial tradition in twentieth-century Eastern Europe entailed a gigantic programme of dis-emancipation and a horrendous train of atrocities and barbarism. The death penalty with which, according to Tocqueville, the South threatened those who offered education to slaves, now had to target an entire social stratum. The Führer clearly explained the inexorable logic governing the construction of the new empire: 'For the Pole there must be _a single* master, and that is the German; ... therefore all the representatives of the Polish intelligentsia must be killed. This sounds cruel, but it is the law of life.' Hitler's order, formulated as early as the start of the campaign in Poland, was obsessively repeated by the Nazi ruling group. It was necessary 'to prevent the Polish intelligentsia structuring itself as a leading group'; it was necessary to systematically liquidate the clergy,^118^ the nobility, and social strata capable of preserving the national consciousness and historical continuity of the nation, so that the new colonies could supply the requisite slaves. As the blacks were destroyed by the slave (or semi-slave) labour they were forced to perform, they were transformed into 'redskins', dross that must somehow or other be disposed of, in accordance with the schemas of the colonial tradition, which now assumed its most sanguinary and repugnant aspect. The pressure of time and war dispelled any residual scruples.

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

"The third socialist movement began with the First World War. The mainstream socialist parties abandoned internationalism and lined up behind their respective capitalist classes in support of the inter-imperialist mass slaughter.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks broke completely from the main socialist trend, denounced the Second International as traitors to socialism, and founded a new Communist International known as the Comintern, headquartered in Moscow, in 1918.

Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology of the Soviet state founded by the Bolsheviks, expanded the appeal of Marxism to the non-European world. Lenin stated that capitalism would only be defeated if the working class of the West united with the national liberation struggles of the colonized masses of Asia and Africa.

The kind of socialism built in the Soviet Union consisted of top-to-bottom nationalization and complete state control of all economic life, led by a tightly disciplined Communist Party. In the course of the 20th century, this economic model first built in Russia was replicated in half of Europe and large parts of Asia, as well as some countries in Africa and Latin America. For much of the 20th century, one-third of the human race lived under Marxist-Leninist governments.

In the 1960s and 70s, this third socialist movement entered a serious crisis. The total command economy practiced in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and Mao-era China began to stagnate. Such a model was effective for industrializing semi-feudal agrarian societies, eliminating poverty, spurring urbanization, mobilizing for war, and large-scale scientific/technological projects. But they were terrible at effectively producing consumer goods and also suffered deficiencies in efficiency and innovation.

While this model lifted people out of destitution, their material existence was still humble compared to First World capitalist countries. Discontent grew among populations in the Communist bloc who wanted the comforts and consumer lifestyle enjoyed by the Western middle classes.

In addition, by the 1960s the global Communist movement split between the USSR and China, for reasons too complicated to get into here. Suffice it to say that an enormous amount of time, weaponry, and resources were wasted by Moscow and Beijing fighting and undermining each other, sapping their strength and contributing to the victory of US imperialism in the Cold War. The Marxist-Leninist movement fractured, split, and almost completely collapsed.

The fall of the USSR devastated and crippled the global movement. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the most reactionary, pro-free-market, and imperialist forces advanced nearly everywhere on Earth.

This brings us to the fourth global socialist movement that exists today. After the USSR fell, China begrudgingly had to shoulder the burden of leading what remained of the socialist and anti-imperialist camp.

Starting in the 1980s, China engaged in market reforms that allowed for private enterprise to grow, in order to build its productive forces through attracting foreign investment in a largely capitalist world. Vietnam, Cuba, and other countries followed suit.

The fourth global socialist movement, while emphasizing that the state should still dominate the economy, allows for markets and lower-level private enterprise. It does not discourage entrepreneurship as long as such endeavors do not harm the broader society.

The fourth socialist movement is more ideologically diverse than the third; while the Communist Party of China commands the single most powerful state, there are also non-Marxist socialist forces such as the Bolivarian movement in South America, and Islamic socialists in Iran in this broad alliance. Shared ideology is not as important as shared opposition to neoliberalism, imperialism, and financial parasitism.

The fourth global socialist movement does not exclusively appeal to the working class either. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is meant to attract professionals and middle-class forces in Global South nations of a progressive outlook. People who want their respective countries to develop their own manufacturing and infrastructure, so that the most promising minds of their nations won’t be lost to a brain drain towards the Western imperial core.

Like the utopian socialists, many of the anti-imperialist Muslims and Christians in the fourth socialist movement are motivated by a strong moral opposition to capitalism. Unlike secular Marxist-Leninists, they see the struggle against capitalism as a spiritual struggle and not exclusively a class one.

In conclusion, the task of communist and socialist parties in the 21st century is to make themselves relevant players in this new movement of history.

The fall of the USSR, the severing of communist/socialist parties from their working-class base (especially in the West), as well as the demoralization brought about by repeated defeats, disoriented many socialists. Many parties stubbornly clung to dogmas from the old Cold War that no longer made any sense, becoming stale relics from another time. Others have capitulated to liberalism, allowing alien postmodern ideas imported from the bourgeois academy to infest our movements.

Our organizations must return to our calling of representing the independent position of the working class, and not tail after ‘progressive’ liberals or the false populism of the right. Globalist finance capitalism leads in only one direction, no matter how one votes: war, fascism, genocide, and degrowth.

We must study the lessons of socialism with Chinese characteristics and creatively apply Marxism to our own societies and present-day circumstances. From there, we can build strategic alliances with all anti-imperialist and pro-development forces."

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

If so, where could one find a copy of it?

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space