‘The British rulers defended their own interests, not the Jews’ – The Militant

....Note that the declaration was issued in 1917. The capitalist rulers in the U.K. hoped the declaration would win Jews in Russia away from the Bolsheviks.

London feared a victorious socialist revolution and the example it would set for working people internationally — including in the U.K.

Winston Churchill spelled it out in his article “Zionism vs. Bolshevism.” The majority of Bolshevik leaders are Jews, Churchill wrote. From the days of “Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization … has been steadily growing.”

The British rulers acted accordingly, spearheading the 1918 military invasion by 14 capitalist powers against Soviet Russia, backing the royalist “White Armies.” That these counterrevolutionary forces massacred over 100,000 Jews never stood in the way.

But the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, acted decisively to draw the millions of workers and peasants to join the fight against Jew-hatred.

As the Bolsheviks led Russia’s workers and peasants, they promoted Jewish self-defense against attacks by the czarist police and reactionary Black Hundreds. They explained why the fight against Jew-hatred was in the interests of all the toilers. No nationality in Russia is so oppressed as the Jews, Lenin said. “It’s not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people — it’s the capitalists.”

Following the revolutionary victory, the Bolshevik-led government drew Jews into social life, encouraged a flowering of Jewish culture in Yiddish and appointed as the first head of the new state, Yakov Sverdlov — a Jew! They put an end to the pogroms.

So strong was Lenin’s leadership in combating Jew-hatred that, during the civil war, the counterrevolutionaries routinely referred to the Bolsheviks as the “Yid Party.” The Whites circulated an infamous poster depicting Red Army Commander Leon Trotsky as a Jewish devil.

After Lenin’s death, this Bolshevik continuity was defended by Trotsky in the face of the Stalin-led counterrevolution that revived antisemitic poison.

This history is recounted in Pathfinder’s The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch: Stakes for the International Working Class. Over the last couple of years this title has been a top seller as members of the Communist League take it and the Militant to discuss the key questions confronting the working class with their workmates, join picket lines, build social protests and go door to door in working-class neighborhoods.

Antisemitism need not be eternal. There is a course to eradicating Jew-hatred. Not by looking to the U.K. or any “democratic” imperialist power for a solution. Rather, by building proletarian parties to lead hundreds of millions to fight for workers power, uproot exploitation by capital, end all national oppression, and build a socialist world.

‘The British rulers defended their own interests, not the Jews’ – The Militant

Gov’t launches attack on Cuba supporters in US, political rights – The Militant

....As part of expanding its dragnet against Cuba and anti-communist smear campaign, the State Department released a 100-page report July 20 entitled, “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism.” It claims Cuba is “uniquely dangerous,” dedicated to “the violent export of communism abroad.”

The document stands reality on its head, alleging, “for nearly seven decades, the Cuban regime has waged a sustained campaign of subversion against the United States.”

In fact, it’s the U.S. rulers who have waged an unending political and economic war against the Cuban Revolution, including an invasion of Cuba by counterrevolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 and several failed attempts to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Today Washington is escalating this campaign, including military threats against the Cuban people.

....As far back as 1962 Fidel Castro answered “the accusation that Cuba wants to export its revolution.”

“Revolutions are not exported, they are made by the peoples,” he said. “What Cuba can give to the peoples, and has already given, is its example.” What the Cuban Revolution teaches, he said, is “that revolution is possible.”

Gov’t launches attack on Cuba supporters in US, political rights – The Militant

Amnesty to unite working class, not ‘ICE out’ – The Militant

Amnesty to unite working class, not ‘ICE out’ – The Militant

....The rulers’ goal is not to drive all undocumented workers out, but to terrorize them. To make them live and toil in constant fear of being locked up, deprived of the ability to provide for their families and then expelled from the U.S. The rulers hope this second-class status will make them less likely to have union protection, and force them to work longer, for less pay and in more dangerous conditions. And to use this to strengthen their attacks on all workers and the unions to boost their profits and their competitive position against rivals abroad.

....As long as the capitalist rulers hold power they will keep ICE, or some new and equally brutal immigration police force, with their detention centers, disdain for due process and their deportations. “ICE out” is an ultraleft, utopian demand that points workers away from confronting the real problem. No lasting protection can be won for undocumented workers, or unify the working class, without fighting and winning an amnesty. 

The capitalist class seeks to regulate the flow of immigrants to meet their dog-eat-dog needs for a supply of superexploitable labor. They use immigrant labor to intensify competition among workers, above all for jobs. They want native born workers to see immigrants as the enemy, not as who they actually are — fellow working people who share the same enemy.... 

What does today’s Mamdani hysteria mean for the working class? – The Militant

What does today’s Mamdani hysteria mean for the working class? – The Militant

Fight against Jew-hatred falls to working class – The Militant

Fight against Jew-hatred falls to working class – The Militant

Left backing for Luigi Mangione shows infatuation with thuggery – The Militant

Left backing for Luigi Mangione shows infatuation with thuggery – The Militant

Support Israel’s fight against Tehran, Hamas, Hezbollah – The Militant

Support Israel’s fight against Tehran, Hamas, Hezbollah – The Militant

Capitalism’s wars at home, abroad intertwined – The Militant

Capitalism’s wars at home, abroad intertwined – The Militant

Paul Ehrlich’s "population bomb" theories: the Marxist refutation

These two articles from The Militant provide a consistent Marxist critique of Paul Ehrlich's "population bomb" theories, framing them not as scientific inevitabilities but as ideological tools used by the capitalist class to shift blame for social crises away from the profit system.

https://themilitant.com/2022/11/26/are-there-too-many-babies-the-myth-of-overpopulation/#

https://themilitant.com/2023/01/28/paul-ehrlich-is-still-peddling-population-bomb-hysteria/

Based on the articles, here is a summary of the core arguments used to refute Ehrlich's Malthusianism:

1. Productivity vs. Distribution

The Marxist perspective argues that hunger and resource scarcity are not caused by an absolute lack of food or space, but by the social relations of production. As noted in the Brian Williams article, Frederick Engels pointed out as early as 1844 that capitalism creates "poverty amidst plenty." The problem is not that there are too many babies, but that food is produced for profit rather than human need, leading to artificial scarcity and waste.

2. The "Food Explosion" vs. the "Population Explosion"

The articles highlight that Ehrlich's predictions of mass starvation in the 1970s and 80s failed because he ignored the "food explosion." Scientific and industrial advances—the application of labor and technology to land—have allowed food production to grow far faster than population. The articles argue that human labor is a source of wealth and innovation, not just a "mouth to feed."

3. Malthusianism as a Political Weapon

The Marxist critique views Ehrlich's "hysteria" as a way to justify:

 * State Control and Coercion: The articles link population control theories to the history of forced sterilizations (noting that 33 U.S. states had eugenics boards) and the targeting of women in the semicolonial world (such as Puerto Rico).

 * Austerity and Rationing: By claiming the planet has reached "carrying capacity," liberal pundits and "experts" provide a pretext for rationing healthcare, nutrition, and resources for the elderly and the working class.

4. Human Beings as the Solution, Not the Problem

While Ehrlich views humans as "cancerous" or a burden on nature, these articles emphasize the socialist view that human beings are the most precious form of capital. They argue that under a planned economy—one run by the working class—society could effectively combine labor power and science to provide for 8 billion or 10 billion people without destroying the environment.

5. Legacy of Joseph Hansen

The articles reference Joseph Hansen's 1960 pamphlet, Too Many Babies?, which was written specifically to combat the early waves of this hysteria. Hansen's work serves as the foundational Marxist text for The Militant, asserting that "overpopulation" is a myth designed to mask the failures of the capitalist system.

In short, these refutations characterize Ehrlich's work as Neo-Malthusianism: a pessimistic, anti-working-class ideology that seeks to "check" the population rather than overthrow the capitalist system that fails to support it.

You have to learn what fascism is in order to fight it and win – The Militant

[F]ascism is not a way of organizing capitalism. Instead, it is a radical petty-bourgeois movement in the streets — the most horrible, malignant such movement in history. Banal, mediocre, figures — but ones adept at radical demagogy, nationalism, phrase-mongering, and organization — rise to leadership in these movements. Thugs rise among the cadres. The fascists ape much of the language of currents in the workers movement. “Nazi” was short for National Socialist German Workers Party.

These movements never begin with broad ruling-class support. At first, the rulers in their majority alternately scorn and fear this rowdy “rabble”; only handfuls of capitalists back them at the outset. But as the bourgeoisie become convinced they confront an irresolvable social crisis, and as the working class puts up an increasingly serious challenge to capitalist rule itself, growing layers of the exploiters start supporting, or tolerating, the fascists in order to try to smash the workers and their organizations. That is the job the fascists are finally enlisted to do by the bourgeoisie when the threat to capitalist rule reaches a certain threshold.

The fascists’ stock of “ideas,” encrusted with historical mystification, are borrowed from the sewers of the bourgeoisie’s own views, values, and attitudes. The things the capitalist rulers say privately among themselves, the subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry they promote, are taken up as the banners of a radical mass movement. The demagogues use these banners to mobilize and channel the energies of radicalized layers of the frightened, resentful, and ruined middle classes in bourgeois society.

The fascists initially rail against “high finance” and the bankers, lacing their nationalist demagogy with anticapitalist rhetoric. When they come to power with support from weighty sectors of finance capital, however, the anticapitalist rhetoric slacks off quickly. That is what happened in Italy under Benito Mussolini in the early 1920s after il duce also became premier. That is what happened in Germany under Adolf Hitler a decade later after the führer also became chancellor. Once these new regimes set about reviving industry, building roads, and preparing for war, radical diatribes against capital went into rapid decline.

SWP leader Joseph Hansen wrote quite a bit about the experience of the working class with fascist movements in this century. He pointed out that when a fascist movement conquers, its character rapidly changes. The new government demobilizes many of the most radical sectors on which the movement rose to power, bloodily suppressing some of its own cadres if need be, and begins functioning basically as a military-police dictatorship. In mid-1934, a year after he was appointed chancellor, for example, Hitler disbanded the Storm Troopers — the “Brownshirts” — that he had mobilized for more than a decade as the party’s radical, street-fighting squads against the workers movement. He summarily executed their chief, Ernst Röhm, and murdered dozens of other leaders of the Nazis’ longtime cadre.

The regimes that come to power on the back of fascist movements are capitalist governments. It is misleading to talk about “a fascist regime” for that reason. It is not something historically different in class terms from a capitalist regime. Once fascist movements come to power, they use the state and forms of capitalist economic planning to bolster the strongest components of the bourgeoisie against smaller rival capitalists and against the toilers. Historically, these governments are short-lived. They become more and more bureaucratized, corrupt, and brittle. But a horrible logic is played out — a drive toward war, a monstrously brutal crushing and atomization of the labor movement, a drastic reduction in the value of labor power, crimes such as the scapegoating and extermination of the Jews in Germany and others that challenge language to describe. This is how a declining capitalism, in an unplanned and pragmatic manner, attempts to restabilize itself. …

The workers vanguard must chart a course to mobilize and lead the working class and our allies to take power. Along the way, the labor movement will have to defend our organizations and those of other oppressed layers against fascist thuggery and murderous violence.

You have to learn what fascism is in order to fight it and win – The Militant

Israel fights a defensive war against Tehran rulers – The Militant

         Anti-Jewish propaganda machine

....To bolster Tehran’s goal of destroying Israel and eliminating the Jews there, an international propaganda machine — made up of a bloc of Islamist fundamentalists and middle-class leftists — promotes the narrative that Israel is a white supremacist “colonial-settler” state.

Its backers claim that Israel began as an imperialist colony whose goal was the “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” of Palestinians. This, they say, is why Israel’s destruction and a war against the Jews are necessary.

This “narrative” leaves out entirely the key reason millions of Jews fought to move to Palestine at the end of the Second World War: (1) The refusal of the Moscow-led Communist Party in Germany to join forces with the Social Democrats to lead a fight by the powerful working-class movement there to stop the Nazis. This allowed Adolf Hitler and his Nazis to take power and murder 40% of the world’s Jews in the Holocaust during the war; (2) The betrayal by the Stalinized Communist parties of revolutionary movements that could have brought the working class to power in Spain, Greece and other countries; and (3) The refusal of the imperialist rulers in the United States, Canada and Britain to let in Jews seeking to flee the Nazis, sending them back to their deaths.

Where were the Jews to go?

When the war ended, Jews, many who no longer had homes to go back to, were put in “displaced persons” camps in Germany, Austria and Italy, many of which had been concentration camps under Hitler.

Slaughtered by the Nazis, betrayed by the Stalinists and turned away by the U.S. and other capitalist powers, where were the Jews to go?

They fought to get to what would become Israel, against armed opposition by the British rulers who controlled Palestine.

When the newly created United Nations voted to approve the creation of the state of Israel, Jewish leaders agreed to its partition plan, with one section a majority Jewish state and the other majority Arab. But the semifeudal reactionary Arab leadership refused. Five Arab armies, along with irregular bands of the Arab Liberation Army, attacked the new state of Israel.

Amid heavy casualties on both sides, thousands of Arabs fled or were expelled from Israel, which emerged victorious. Thousands of Arabs remained within the new country. Today some 20% of the citizens of Israel are Arabs.

In the wake of the creation of Israel, Arab regimes across the Middle East brutally expelled their Jewish populations. Roughly half of the Jews in Israel are descendants of Jews from these Arab countries.

Rise in Jew-hatred

None of the key questions that gave rise to Jew-hatred leading up to, during, and after World War II have been resolved. In the imperialist epoch, as the crisis of the capitalist rulers and their system deepens, they turn to Jew-hatred. Their aim is to divide and demoralize the working class and to foster fascist gangs.

There is a new rise in violent acts of Jew-hatred around the world, tied to today’s deepening capitalist crisis. Until there is a revolutionary-led labor movement in the United States, France, Britain and elsewhere that views fighting Jew-hatred as a life-or-death question for the labor movement, thousands of Jews will continue to move to Israel every year because it is the only government in the world that defends Jews arms in hand.

Nearly half of all the Jews in the world live in Israel, a small country that is 260 miles long and 10 miles wide at its narrowest point, and 70 miles at its widest. One nuclear bomb from Iran would cause a new Holocaust.

That’s why Israel’s defensive war against Tehran is aimed at ensuring the bourgeois clerical regime there cannot develop nuclear weapons, nor long-range missiles capable of causing mass destruction.

Full:

Israel fights a defensive war against Tehran rulers – The Militant

‘There Is No Peace!’ — 1945 to world crises today: Socialist Workers Party points road forward – The Militant

‘There Is No Peace!’ — 1945 to world crises today: Socialist Workers Party points road forward – The Militant

Book review: 𝘓𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘞𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮: 𝘈𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 (1920) by V. I. Lenin⁣⁣

Some new recruits to the Comintern were said by Lenin and his comrades to be infantile: they rationalized as unnecessary each stage of advance won by the Bolsheviks in two decades of work in the labor movement and parliamentary organization.⁣

⁣

Infantile members of the Comintern did not want to hear about work in bourgeoisified/reactionary labor unions, or electoral openings for propaganda; they assumed that these were chapters in struggle they could dismiss as time-wasters. After all, Moscow looked like the millennium... Or a get rich quick scheme.⁣

⁣

Lenin:⁣

⁣

[….] Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.⁣

⁣

Lenin:⁣

⁣

[….] One must use one’s own brains and be able to find one’s bearings in each particular instance. It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire, through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all thinking representatives of a given class,32 the knowledge, experience and—in addition to knowledge and experience—the political flair necessary for the speedy and correct solution of complex political problems.⁣

⁣

Lenin:⁣

⁣

[….] for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old way and the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.⁣

⁣

❖ ❖ ❖⁣

⁣

𝐋𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬⁣

{Book of the Week column}⁣

 ⁣

Printed below is an excerpt from 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺--𝘉𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘔𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 1918-1922 by Farrell Dobbs. The author was a leader of the 1934 Teamster strikes, the national secretary of the Socialist Workers Party from 1953 to 1972, and the party's candidate for U.S. president in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960. ⁣

⁣

This excerpt, dealing with the political leadership played by V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the early years of the world communist movement, following the October 1917 Russian Revolution, can be found on pages 172-176 of the book. Copyright © 1983 by Pathfinder Press, reprinted by permission. Subheadings are by the Militant.⁣

 ⁣

BY FARRELL DOBBS ⁣

Along with guiding an intransigent fight against opportunism, the Russian leaders also had to cope with problems of ultraleftism inside the communist movement. Whereas the struggle against opportunism necessitated a break with bureaucratic and careerist individuals corrupted by their relatively privileged social position, the Bolsheviks hoped that the disease of ultraleftism could be cured and its proponents saved for the revolutionary workers' movement.⁣

⁣

The self-proclaimed "left" advocated policies marked by adaptation to syndicalist practices. Its views reflected several major weaknesses: inadequate knowledge of the historical experiences of the workers' movement; lack of experience in applying a Marxist program; sectarian excesses in trying to counter social reformism; no concept of the transitional method and program, or of necessary alliances; and efforts to bypass the initial stages through which the masses pass on their way to revolutionary consciousness.⁣

⁣

Ultraleftism, the Russians patiently explained, could only isolate the vanguard, instead of deepening its integration as a leading component of the working class. The communists had to learn how to function among large numbers of workers just awakening to political life. Their aim should be to lead them forward and help them make a transition to revolutionary perspectives. To accomplish that, however, the workers themselves had to go through political experiences. These experiences would have to be shared by the members of the Communist Party, who would only then be in a position to help the workers analyze the lessons of their ongoing struggles. Only in that way could the treacherous role of reformists and centrists in the labor movement be systematically exposed for all to see and the way opened for development of revolutionary leaderships in the mass organizations of the proletariat.⁣

⁣

Lenin took the initiative in spelling out the strategy and tactics required by communists in the revolutionary situation prevailing in Europe. His views were presented in "Left-Wing" Communism--An Infantile Disorder. This small book, published in June 1920, was distributed the following month to the delegates at the Comintern's second world congress. It dealt chiefly with the perspectives of ultraleft Communists in Germany, Great Britain, and Holland.⁣

⁣

"It is far more difficult--and far more precious--to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist," he wrote in the booklet, "to be able to champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda, agitation, and organisation) in non-revolutionary bodies, and quite often in downright reactionary bodies, in a non-revolutionary situation, among the masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary methods of action.⁣

⁣

"To be able to seek, find and correctly determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will lead the masses to real, decisive and finally revolutionary struggle--that is the main objective of communism in Western Europe and in America today."⁣

⁣

The massive postwar influx of radicalizing workers into the trade unions, Lenin said, confirmed "that class-consciousness and the desire for organisation are growing among the proletarian masses, among the rank and file, among the backward elements. Millions of workers in Great Britain, France and Germany are for the first time passing from a complete lack of organisation to the elementary, lowest, simplest and...most easily comprehensible form of organisation, namely, the trade unions."⁣

⁣

In that volatile situation, the main aim of the reformist hacks who dominated the trade union officialdom in the capitalist countries was to preserve their bureaucratic control over the workers in order to perpetuate class-collaborationist policies. Their central objectives were to confine union demands to limited economic and social improvements within the capitalist system; to maintain a formally "neutral" attitude on political questions that amounted to support for ruling-class policy; and to ensure that trade-union action did not move toward challenging bourgeois political power.⁣

⁣

The "leftists" were impervious to the growing opportunities for communists to take on these class-collaborationist perspectives in the unions and win workers to their views. They repudiated the established trade unions unconditionally, calling for new, revolutionary unions. ⁣

 ⁣

𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬⁣

Lenin quoted a pamphlet of the German "left-wing communists" on this question. "A Workers' Union, based on factory organizations, should be the rallying point for all revolutionary elements," the pamphlet said. "This should unite all workers who follow the slogan: 'Get out of the trade unions!' It is here that the militant proletariat musters its ranks for battle. Recognition of the class struggle, of the Soviet system and of the dictatorship should be sufficient for enrollment."⁣

⁣

Such a course, which puts an ultimatum to the masses of workers, could only lead to disaster, Lenin said.⁣

⁣

"This is so unpardonable a blunder," he wrote, "that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render the bourgeoisie....⁣

⁣

"To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats."⁣

⁣

"There can be no doubt," Lenin continued, that the union bureaucrats of all nations "are very grateful to those 'Left' revolutionaries who, like the German opposition 'on principle' (heaven preserve us from such 'principles'!), or like some of the revolutionaries in the American Industrial Workers of the World advocate quitting the reactionary trade unions and refusing to work in them."⁣

⁣

To the contrary, Lenin explained, "The task devolving on Communists is to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with artificial and childishly 'Left' slogans."⁣

⁣

To be effective, communist policy required that party cadres participate in the unions as they currently existed. Only in that way could they cooperate directly with the workers in their struggles and experiences, using that close relationship to guide them toward adoption of revolutionary perspectives. ⁣

 ⁣

Source:⁣

https://www.themilitant.com/2000/6433/643349.html⁣

⁣

⁣

⁣

⁣

A working-class campaign against war – The Militant

A working-class campaign against war – The Militant

Book Review: Not by Politics Alone ... – The Other Lenin (Verso 2024) edited and introduced by Tamara Deutscher

Not by Politics Alone beautifully captures the motivations and emotions of the most significant communist leader the working class movement has produced.

The book’s subtitle “The Other Lenin” strikes me as a publishing ploy, and a misnomer. Aside from Fidel Castro, I know of no other communist leader more forthright and militant in openly stating in print and in public exactly what his motives and his program were at every turning point of the class struggle. There was no secret or sub rosa Lenin.

Below are my synopses of the last three chapters of the collection, where the focus is on political questions concerning culture, party-building, women's rights, and the contradictions of the young Soviet republic.

IV. Revolution, Literature, and Art

This section illustrates Lenin’s pragmatism and his belief that culture should serve the revolutionary cause, while maintaining a deep respect for classical Russian literature.

“Literary Foundations and Tolstoy”: Lenin viewed literature as a mirror of social conditions. He analyzed Leo Tolstoy not just as a writer, but as a reflection of the "epoch of preparation for the revolution," noting the contradictions between Tolstoy’s "protest against social falsehood" and his "non-resistance to evil".

“What is to be Done?”: This text is a tribute to Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s 1863 novel of the same name, and its impact on an earlier generation seeking the revolutionary road.

“The Struggle with Futurism and Modernism”: Lenin was deeply skeptical of "Futurism" and experimental art, which he found incomprehensible to the average worker. He humbly and with patience criticized figures like Mayakovsky for their complexity, preferring art that was accessible and educational for the masses. But he still saw in Mayakovsky occasional real insights. For instance:

 “Public Education and Illiteracy”:

Lenin argues that a modern socialist state could not be built among an illiterate population, leading to his focus on public libraries and mass literacy campaigns.

 “Cinema and Propaganda”: Lenin identifies cinema as "the most important of all the arts" for the Soviet state because of its ability to reach and educate the vast, often illiterate, peasantry. He expresses real frustration that useful films take too long to gestate

“Monuments and Style”: He advocates for "monumental propaganda"—replacing Tsarist statues with monuments to revolutionary heroes to provide constant visual education to the public. These embitious plans, however, fell short due to scarce resources. Many collapsed in harsh weather, or were removed before they collapsed.

V. Women’s Rights

This section focuses on the emancipation of women as a prerequisite for a true socialist revolution.

 “Letters to Inessa Armand”: These reveal a more personal side of Lenin, discussing matters of revolutionary theory and personal discipline. Lenin points out that the social roots of prostitution, the whole system of compulsion, must be eliminated, and prostitutes returned to useful work. He vehemently opposes organizing prostitutes like other types of labor.

  “A Great Beginning”: Lenin emphasizes that real freedom for women requires more than just legal equality; it requires the socialization of domestic labor (communal kitchens, nurseries) to "liberate" women from "household bondage".

 “Soviet Power and Status”: Lenin highlights that Soviet power was the first to grant women full legal equality, but stresses that the "working women’s movement" must continue to fight the "petty-bourgeois" remnants of male chauvinism.

VI. Bureaucracy

In his final years, Lenin became increasingly preoccupied with the "distortions" of the Soviet state and the rise of a self-serving bureaucracy.

 “The Party Crisis and New Members”: Lenin grew concerned about the "dilution" of the party. He proposed stricter conditions for admitting new members to ensure the party remained a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries rather than careerists.

 “Struggle Against Great Russian Chauvinism”: In his final notes, Lenin expressed deep alarm over the mistreatment of non-Russian nationalities by Soviet officials (notably Stalin and Dzerzhinsky), arguing for "autonomisation" and respect for national identities to prevent "Great Russian" bullying.

 * Eleventh Congress of the R.C.P.(b): Lenin’s speeches here focused on the need for the party to learn how to manage the economy under the New Economic Policy (NEP) and to combat "bureaucratic routine".

10 Insights into Lenin as Leader and Party Builder

 * Lenin believed the party must be a disciplined, professional core of revolutionaries, rather than a loose organization, to effectively lead the masses.

 * For Lenin, art and literature were never "neutral." Their value was measured by how effectively they educated the proletariat and consolidated the revolution. At the same time, he opposed censorship of artists not collaborating with White forces.

 * Toward the end of his life, Lenin identified internal bureaucracy and "red tape" as a primary threat to the revolution, often more dangerous than external enemies.

 * Education as Power: He viewed literacy and cultural development not as luxuries, but as essential infrastructure for building a socialist state.

 * Rejection of Spontaneity: He maintained that left to their own devices, workers would only develop "trade union consciousness"; true revolutionary theory must be taught.

 * Subordination of the Personal: His letters and lifestyle reflect a leader who demanded the same total discipline from himself—regarding health, reading, and expenses—that he expected from the party.

 * Flexibility (The NEP): Lenin demonstrated an ability to retreat from strict "War Communism" to the market-oriented NEP when he realized the state was not yet ready for total socialization.

 * Internal Party Control: He advocated for strict "purges" of the party to remove careerists and "scoundrels" who joined only after the Bolsheviks took power.

 * The Nationality Question: He recognized that the success of the Soviet Union depended on the voluntary union of nations, requiring a constant fight— “to the death” —against Russian chauvinism.

The Jeffrey Epstein files and the pornographication of US politics – The Militant

....Conspiracy theories are based on rejecting any idea that the workings of society can be explained by unfolding the class interests involved, let alone that workers are capable of organizing to fight to change our conditions. The files’ dump also sets a dangerous precedent for document releases in criminal frame-ups in the years ahead, targeting trade unionists, communists and opponents of Washington’s wars.

The dangers of bourgeois scandalmongering for the working class are explained clearly in the article “Imperialism’s March Toward Fascism and War” by Jack Barnes, Socialist Workers Party national secretary, in New International no. 10.

“The greater vulnerability to scandals today,” Barnes writes, “is a reflection of the instability of the world imperialist order and the growing lack of confidence in this system and its leading personnel expressed both by its beneficiaries and by millions of others.”

“Scandalmongering is an effort,” he writes, “to exacerbate and profit from middle-class panic and to drag workers … into the pit of resentment and salacious envy.” Barnes aptly describes this as the “pornographication of politics.”

“What the working class needs is not exposés of bourgeois politicians,” Barnes says. “We need to be able to explain politically why the working class has no common interests with the class these bourgeois politicians speak for.”

Along this road, workers can take steps to build a party of our own. This course, not infatuation with allegations about the dissolute and corrupt behavior of capitalists and their politicians, is the road to workers developing confidence in our own capacities and advancing the struggle for our class’s emancipation.

Full:

The Jeffrey Epstein files and the pornographication of US politics – The Militant

Book review: Polemics in Marxist Philosophy by George Novack

Polemics in Marxist Philosophy by George Novack

Marxism and Existentialism

Novack explores the fundamental incompatibility between these two schools of thought. He argues that while Existentialism starts with the "isolated individual" and subjective experience, Marxism begins with social relations and the material conditions of existence. From the perspective of the Glossary, Existentialism is viewed as a form of Subjectivism, where the subject's consciousness is prioritized over objective reality. Novack contends that Existentialism's focus on "absolute freedom" is a middle-class illusion that ignores the Historical Materialism necessary to understand how social structures actually limit or enable human agency.

In Defense of Engels

This chapter refutes modern attempts to separate Engels from Marx, specifically the claim that Engels introduced a "vulgar" or "positivist" distortion into Marxism. Novack defends Engels's application of dialectics to the natural world. He emphasizes that Engels correctly identified the Laws of Dialectics (such as the transformation of quantity into quality) as objective laws of movement in both nature and history. To reject Engels is, for Novack, to reject the Materialist foundation of Marxism in favor of a narrow, human-centered "praxis" that lacks a scientific basis.

Georg Lukács as a Marxist Philosopher

Novack evaluates Lukács as a brilliant but flawed thinker. He acknowledges Lukács's contributions to understanding Alienation and Reification (the process where human relations take on the appearance of relations between things). However, Novack criticizes Lukács's early work, History and Class Consciousness, for its Hegelian tendencies and its initial rejection of the "dialectics of nature". He argues that Lukács's later political accommodations to Stalinism represented a retreat from the revolutionary essence of Marxism.

The Jesting Philosopher: The Case of Leszek Kolakowski

Novack analyzes Kolakowski's journey from orthodox Marxism to a complete rejection of it. He characterizes Kolakowski as an "apostate" who moved toward Skepticism and Idealism. Novack argues that Kolakowski's disillusionment with Stalinism led him to mistakenly blame the Marxist method itself, eventually adopting a "philosophy of the jester" that mocks the possibility of objective social truth or revolutionary progress.

Sebastiano Timpanaro's Defense of Materialism

Novack expresses qualified support for Timpanaro, who defended "vulgar" materialism against the "Western Marxism" of thinkers like Frankfurt School members. Timpanaro emphasized the biological and physical constraints on humanity—what the Glossary refers to as the Objectivity of the external world. Novack agrees with Timpanaro's insistence that nature exists independently of human consciousness, but cautions that Timpanaro sometimes leans too far into a "pessimistic" materialism that underestimates the power of revolutionary Praxis to transform conditions.

Back to Kant? The Retreat of Lucio Colletti

In this critique, Novack examines Colletti's attempt to excise Hegel from Marxism. Colletti argued that Marx's scientific method was closer to Kantian distinctions than Hegelian contradictions. Novack asserts that this is a "retreat" into Dualism (the separation of mind and matter). By discarding the Unity and Struggle of Opposites, Colletti loses the ability to explain the internal motor of social change, effectively stripping Marxism of its revolutionary dialectic.

Is Nature Dialectical?

This chapter serves as a pillar for Novack's Materialism. He argues against the "humanist" Marxists who claim dialectics only apply to human history. Using the Glossary's definition of Dialectics as the "science of the universal laws of motion," Novack argues that if nature were not dialectical, human society (which emerged from nature) could not be dialectical either. He points to modern science—evolution, physics, and chemistry—as evidence of the Negation of the Negation and other dialectical processes occurring in the non-human world.

Leon Trotsky on Dialectical Materialism

Novack concludes by presenting Trotsky as the premier practitioner of dialectical materialism in the 20th century. He highlights Trotsky's use of the Law of Uneven and Combined Development to explain the Russian Revolution. According to Novack, Trotsky maintained the essential link between scientific Theory and revolutionary Practice, demonstrating that a correct philosophical method is not an academic luxury but a vital tool for the working class to understand and change the world.

Key Glossary Terms Influencing These Synopses:

dialectical materialism—the philosophical world view of Marx and Engels, encompassing both nature and society. Materialist in that it postulates the existence of nature prior to humanity and views material conditions as the underlying cause and determinant of society and mind; dialectical in that it postulates the study of matter in motion and transformation by way of contradiction from one form or state to another. 

dialectics of nature—the position, held by classical Marxism, that evolutionary change through the process of internal contradiction is universal in inanimate and organic nature as well as in society and the human thought process. Hegel also believed in a dialectics of nature, but rooted it in a supposed teleological process in which nature was striving for self-consciousness through higher and higher levels of organization, leading to the realization of the Absolute Idea (see entry) in an omniscient and all-powerful subject. Hegelianizers of Marxism retain Hegel's belief that consciousness is required for the existence of contradiction and generally deny that nature apart from human activity is dialectical. Positivistic versions of Marxism reject the dialectics of nature for opposite reasons, maintaining that universal laws of change are incompatible with the findings of the specialized and compartmentalized sciences. 

materialism—philosophically, the view that all of reality is composed of matter in motion, including mind, which is the product of the physical brain in social life. Materialism rejects all supernatural explanations of phenomena. In contrast to vulgar materialism, Marxism does not reduce phenomena to mechanical motion, but postulates distinct sets of laws for nature, society, and thought. It holds, nevertheless, that nature and material conditions in general have causal priority in explaining the development of society and thought. 

praxis—in general the activity of people in pursuit of their aims. It is popularized by Hegelianizing Marxists to designate social action based on and integrated with theoretical understanding. As they use it, the term implies the ability of revolutionary will to substitute for a lack of propitious objective opportunities. 

alienation—literally, separation from, as in the selling of property or the loss of someone's affection. By extension, the loss of one's creations with a consequent sense of aloneness and powerlessness. This concept is central in twentieth-century existentialism, certain schools of socialist humanism, and various psychological interpretations of Marxism. At the same time, Althusser and the Maoists have tried to extirpate this concept from Marxism, leaving it only in the specific form of the alienation of the product of labor under capitalism. Alienation in the Marxist sense has a double origin, in the powerlessness of human beings to control nature, and, secondly, in class society, in the alienation of labor as well as its product. Marx distinguished here not only the physical appropriation of the products made by the exploited but also the feeling among workers that their laboring activity itself was alien to them and did not satisfy their needs. Additionally there is the sense of separation from humanity as a group, inevitable under class society, and the lack of solidarity with other' specific individuals one comes in contact with. Above all, alienation expresses the fact that the objective creations of labor come to dominate their creators so that the market in commodity production stands over them as an alien power. 

Purchase:

https://www.pathfinderpress.com/products/polemics-in-marxist-philosophy_by-george-novack

Origins of the myth of race by Doug Jenness

http://themilitant.com/1992/5607/MIL5607.pdf

Review: 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 & 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 (1973)

Reading any book by Novack is a breath of fresh air and diamond clarity.

In 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 & 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 (1973), George Novack provides a Marxist defense of humanism, arguing that true human fulfillment can only be realized through the socialist transformation of society. He traces the evolution of humanity from its biological origins to the potential for a future free from alienation.

𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝

Novack establishes that Marxism is not merely an economic theory but a comprehensive humanism. He argues against the "anti-humanist" interpretations of Marx, asserting that the liberation of the individual is the central goal of the socialist movement.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Marxism as Integrated Humanism: Marxism combines scientific social analysis with a commitment to human welfare. Ramification: Social change must be grounded in both objective reality and ethical goals.

 * Rejection of Abstract Humanism: Novack criticizes "liberal" humanism for ignoring the class structures that prevent human development. Ramification: Formal rights are insufficient without economic equality.

 * The Individual and Society: Individual potential is inextricably linked to the state of society. Ramification: One cannot "self-actualize" in isolation from social struggle.

 * Anti-Stalinism: He distinguishes between genuine socialist humanism and the bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet bloc. Ramification: Socialism requires democracy, not just state ownership.

 * Critique of Existentialism: While acknowledging existentialist concerns about "meaning," Novack argues they lack a materialist solution. Ramification: Philosophy must move from contemplating the world to changing it.

 * Science as a Tool: Scientific inquiry is essential for human liberation. Ramification: Rationality is a weapon against both superstition and capitalist chaos.

 * Historical Materialism: History is the record of humans creating themselves through labor. Ramification: Human nature is not fixed; it is historically evolved.

 * The Necessity of Revolution: Humanism cannot be fully realized under capitalism. Ramification: Reformism is a dead end for total human development.

 * The Role of the Intellectual: Intellectuals must align with the working class to be effective. Ramification: Theory and practice must be unified.

 * The Goal of Universalism: Socialism aims for the development of all humans, not just a privileged few. Ramification: The struggle is international and all-encompassing.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟏: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬

This chapter explores how labor transformed our ancestors into Homo sapiens. Novack argues that the use and manufacture of tools were the primary drivers of biological and social evolution.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Labor as the Creator of Man: Labor is the fundamental activity that distinguishes humans from animals. Ramification: Humans are self-made through their interaction with nature.

 * The Tool as an Extension of the Body: Tools allowed humans to transcend biological limitations. Ramification: Technology is a product of social labor, not just individual genius.

 * Social Cooperation: Tool use required and fostered collective effort. Ramification: Individualism is a late-stage social construct, not a natural state.

 * Bipedalism and the Hand: Walking upright freed the hands for labor. Ramification: Biological evolution and social activity are interconnected.

 * Environmental Adaptation: Humans adapt to the environment by changing it, rather than just being changed by it. Ramification: We are active agents in our own evolution.

 * Transition from All-Purpose to Special-Purpose Tools: The refinement of tools indicates growing cognitive complexity. Ramification: Material progress drives intellectual development.

 * Materialist Foundation: Human history begins with material production. Ramification: Any "spiritual" or "cultural" history is secondary to economic history.

 * Evolutionary Continuity: There is a bridge between the animal world and the human world through labor. Ramification: We must understand our biological roots to understand our social potential.

 * The Brain-Hand Connection: The hand's dexterity drove the expansion of the brain. Ramification: Intelligence is a result of physical interaction with the world.

 * Humanity as a Process: We are a "species-in-the-making" through our work. Ramification: Stagnation is contrary to human nature.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟐: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲, 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭

Novack discusses how the labor process necessitated communication, leading to the development of speech and abstract thought.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Speech as Social Necessity: Language arose from the need to coordinate collective labor. Ramification: Communication is fundamentally social, not private.

 * Thought and Action: Abstract thought is an internalized version of external labor. Ramification: Ideas have their roots in practical activity.

 * The Birth of Society: Social bonds were forged through shared production. Ramification: Society is the primary unit of human existence.

 * Language and Generalization: Words allow for the categorization and manipulation of the world. Ramification: Language is a tool for mastering reality.

 * Collective Memory: Speech allowed for the transmission of knowledge across generations. Ramification: Cultural evolution can outpace biological evolution.

 * Consciousness as a Social Product: Individual consciousness is a result of social interaction. Ramification: "The self" is constructed within a social framework.

 * The Division of Labor: Early divisions (like those between the sexes) began to shape social structures. Ramification: Social inequality has historical, not natural, origins.

 * Control over Nature: Thought and speech increased human dominion over the environment. Ramification: We are increasingly responsible for the state of the planet.

 * The Symbolic World: Humans live in a world of meanings created through speech. Ramification: Ideology is a powerful force in maintaining or changing social orders.

 * The Unified Human Experience: Biological, social, and mental evolution are one single process. Ramification: A holistic approach is needed to study humanity.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟑: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞

Novack argues that "praxis"—the unity of theory and practice—is the key to human creativity and freedom.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Praxis as Transformation: True knowledge comes from attempting to change the world. Ramification: Passive observation is a limited form of understanding.

 * Creative Labor vs. Alienated Labor: Under capitalism, labor is a burden; under socialism, it becomes creative expression. Ramification: The nature of work must be fundamentally changed.

 * The End of Specialization: Socialism aims to dissolve the rigid division of labor. Ramification: Individuals should be free to develop multiple talents.

 * Practice as the Test of Truth: Theories must be validated through social practice. Ramification: Ideologies must be judged by their real-world outcomes.

 * Subjectivity and Objectivity: Practice bridges the gap between the human subject and the objective world. Ramification: We learn about reality by acting upon it.

 * The Potential for All: Creativity is not a trait of the elite but a potential for all humans. Ramification: Democratic access to culture and education is a revolutionary demand.

 * Overcoming Alienation: Creative practice is the antidote to the feeling of being a "cog in the machine". Ramification: Meaningful work is a human right.

 * Innovation and Progress: Constant creative practice leads to technological and social breakthroughs. Ramification: Stagnant societies are those that stifle praxis.

 * The Future of Play: In a socialist society, the line between "work" and "play" blurs. Ramification: Leisure becomes an arena for development, not just recovery from toil.

 * Unrestricted Practice: The goal is a society where creativity has no economic or social barriers. Ramification: Total freedom requires the abolition of class.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟒: 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬: 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧?

Novack addresses skeptics of progress, arguing that while history is not a straight line, there is a discernible upward trend in human capacity.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Productive Forces as the Measure: Progress is measured by the ability to produce and sustain life. Ramification: Economic development is a prerequisite for social progress.

 * Collective Control over Nature: Progress is the increasing ability of humans to regulate their environment. Ramification: Environmental stewardship is a form of progress.

 * Control over Society: Progress is also the degree to which humans can consciously direct their own social relations. Ramification: The shift from "luck" to "planning" is progress.

 * Non-Linear Development: History involves regressions, "dark ages," and contradictions. Ramification: We cannot be complacent; progress must be fought for.

 * The Cost of Progress: Advances in one area (technology) often come at the expense of others (worker alienation) under capitalism. Ramification: Progress is contradictory in class societies.

 * The Dialectic of History: New stages of society grow out of the contradictions of the old ones. Ramification: Crises are often precursors to major advances.

 * Expansion of Human Needs: As we progress, our needs become more complex and sophisticated. Ramification: Socialism must provide more than just basic survival.

 * Increased Interdependence: Progress leads to a more globalized and interconnected world. Ramification: Problems like climate change require global, socialist solutions.

 * The Humanization of Nature: Progress involves making the world more hospitable to human needs. Ramification: The "natural" world is increasingly a social world.

 * The Role of Conscious Agency: Progress is not automatic; it requires the conscious intervention of the oppressed. Ramification: Social change requires political organization.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟓: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦

This chapter defines freedom not as the absence of restraint, but as the "recognition of necessity"—the ability to use the laws of nature and society to achieve human goals.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Freedom through Knowledge: We are free only when we understand the forces acting upon us. Ramification: Ignorance is the primary barrier to freedom.

 * Economic Freedom as the Base: True freedom is impossible while one is a slave to economic survival. Ramification: The "freedom" to starve is no freedom at all.

 * Collective Freedom: Individual freedom is achieved through collective liberation. Ramification: Rights must be viewed through a social lens.

 * Mastery of Social Laws: Just as we master physics, we must master the "laws" of economics and sociology. Ramification: A planned economy is the highest expression of freedom.

 * Abolition of Classes: Class society is a state of unfreedom for both the oppressor and the oppressed. Ramification: The elite are also "unfree" because they are slaves to the market.

 * Conscious Choice: Freedom is the ability to choose our future based on rational planning. Ramification: Capitalism's "invisible hand" is a form of enslavement to chance.

 * The "Leap" from Necessity: Socialism represents the move from the "realm of necessity" to the "realm of freedom". Ramification: Post-scarcity is the goal of human history.

 * Responsibility: With greater freedom comes greater responsibility for the state of society. Ramification: Humans must take full ownership of their destiny.

 * Freedom as Development: Freedom is the opportunity for every person to develop their full potential. Ramification: Education and health are foundational to freedom.

 * The Role of the State: In the transition to freedom, the state must be used to dismantle class privilege before "withering away". Ramification: Revolutionary power is a temporary necessity.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟔: 𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦

Novack surveys different types of humanism, from the Renaissance to the modern day, showing their limitations compared to socialist humanism.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Renaissance Humanism: It broke the chains of religious dogma but remained elitist. Ramification: Secularism was a step forward, but incomplete.

 * Enlightenment Humanism: It championed reason and rights but was tied to the rising bourgeoisie. Ramification: Liberalism's "rights of man" were often just "rights of property."

 * Religious Humanism: An attempt to find human value within faith, but ultimately limited by supernaturalism. Ramification: Moral values must be grounded in material life, not theology.

 * Existentialist Humanism: Correct in focusing on individual choice but fails to provide a social path to freedom. Ramification: Personal "authenticity" cannot replace social revolution.

 * Ethical Humanism: Focuses on moral improvement without addressing the economic roots of immorality. Ramification: You cannot "think" your way out of systemic oppression.

 * Pragmatic Humanism: Too focused on immediate results, lacking a long-term vision of human potential. Ramification: Short-term fixes often preserve the status quo.

 * Stalinist "Humanism": A deceptive use of the term to mask bureaucratic terror. Ramification: The label "humanist" can be co-opted by reactionary forces.

 * The Class Character of Humanism: Every form of humanism reflects the interests of a specific class. Ramification: We must always ask "Humanism for whom?"

 * Scientific Humanism: The belief that science alone can solve human problems, ignoring social power. Ramification: Technology in the hands of the ruling class can be anti-human.

 * Socialist Humanism as the Synthesis: It takes the best of previous humanisms and grounds them in the working-class struggle. Ramification: Socialism is the heir to all previous human progress.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟕: 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦

This chapter details the specific characteristics of the humanism championed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Proletarian Agency: The working class is the only force capable of realizing humanism. Ramification: Labor movements are the primary vehicles for human rights.

 * Abolition of Alienation: The core goal is to end the separation of the worker from their work, their product, and others. Ramification: Economic restructuring is a psychological and moral necessity.

 * Internationalism: Socialist humanism knows no borders. Ramification: Nationalistic "humanisms" are inherently limited and exclusionary.

 * Anti-Imperialism: The liberation of the "Third World" is central to human progress. Ramification: Global solidarity is a requirement for humanism.

 * Equality of the Sexes: True humanism is impossible without the liberation of women. Ramification: Feminism is an integral part of the socialist project.

 * The Ending of Racism: Racial divisions are products of capitalism that must be eradicated. Ramification: Anti-racism is a class issue.

 * Transition to Communism: The temporary "workers' state" is a means to a classless society. Ramification: Power is a tool for its own eventual abolition.

 * The New Man/Woman: Socialism will produce a new type of human with higher moral and intellectual qualities. Ramification: We are currently "pre-human" in our behavior.

 * The Centrality of Struggle: Humanism is achieved through conflict with the old order, not peaceful evolution. Ramification: Militancy is a humanist virtue in a cruel world.

 * Scientific Optimism: A belief that all human problems are ultimately solvable. Ramification: Despair is a luxury we cannot afford.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟖: 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞

In the final chapter, Novack tackles the "ultimate questions" usually reserved for religion or existentialism.

10 Key Insights & Ramifications:

 * Meaning is Created, Not Found: Life has no inherent meaning; we create it through our actions. Ramification: We are the authors of our own purpose.

 * Meaning in Contribution: A meaningful life is one that contributes to the advancement of humanity. Ramification: Selfishness is a form of meaninglessness.

 * The Denial of Immortality: We live on through our works and the memory of others, not in an afterlife. Ramification: We must focus on making this world better, as it is the only one we have.

 * Facing Mortality: A mature humanism accepts death as a natural part of life. Ramification: Rationality helps us overcome the fear of the unknown.

 * Happiness as a By-product: Happiness comes from purposeful activity, not the pursuit of pleasure. Ramification: Consumerism is a false path to fulfillment.

 * The End of Alienated Loneliness: Social bonds in a socialist world will end the "lonely crowd" phenomenon. Ramification: Community is essential for mental health.

 * The Aesthetics of Life: Living itself will become an art form when survival is guaranteed. Ramification: Art and life will merge.

 * Ethics without Gods: A moral life is possible and necessary without the threat of divine punishment. Ramification: Secular ethics are more robust because they are chosen, not coerced.

 * The Significance of the Individual: While emphasizing the collective, Novack argues that each individual life is a unique and precious event. Ramification: The collective exists to serve the individual, and vice versa.

 * The Endless Frontier: The "meaning of life" will continue to evolve as humanity reaches the stars and beyond. Ramification: Humanity is just at the beginning of its true history.

Purchase:

https://www.pathfinderpress.com/products/humanism-and-socialism_by-george-novack

Review: Israel, a Colonial-Settler State? by Maxime Rodinson

"Maxime Rodinson, a Jewish specialist on the history of the Mideast, argues that Israel was at its founding a colonial-settler state. But as he points out, such a state doesn't stay that forever, otherwise the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other states would still be colonial-settler states. And not all the Jews who moved to Palestine were Zionists (for the role of Zionism in Europe, see The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon. Jews went because both during and after the war there was no other place they could go. Few people know that once Israel was founded, almost all of the Mizrahi Jews (those who had already lived in the Middle East and North Africa, sometimes for centuries) were forced out of their homelands...."

Full:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5994174111?fbclid=IwdGRzaAQU-vZjbGNrBBT5G2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHlVER8PWuhkyvNoiZv77vraAMnuN1bu8tuhpXrLBG_8Y5EcmYMC5bOG59Kjn_aem_SSLa9bPKPwwt3IyD2eqxAA