Chinese President Xi Jinping: What Is His Background?

horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


China's President Xi Jinping

In a well-governed country, those who discuss policy must be in accordance with the law; those who carry out official matters must be regulated. Superiors evaluate actual performance; officials carry out their work efficiently. Words are not permitted to exceed reality. Actions are not permitted to overstep the law. In a disordered country, those who are praised by the multitudes are richly rewarded though devoid of accomplishments. Those who stick to their duties are punished, though free of guilt. The ruler is in the dark and does not understand. Worthies do not offer proposals. Officials form factions; persuasive talkers roam about; people embellish their actions. Those who are taken to be wise devote themselves to artifice and deceit; high officials usurp authority. Cliques and factions become widespread. The ruler is eager to carry out projects that are of no use, while the people look haggard and worn. Huainanzi, 221 BC.

n 1980 Deng Xiaoping set 2020 as the completion date for his Reform and Opening program–a 40-year overhaul of China’s economy.

On June 1, 2021 President Xi will announce that all Deng’s goals have been reached and a basic xiaokang society established: no one is poor and everyone receives an education, has paid employment, more than enough food and clothing, access to medical services, old-age support, a home and a comfortable life–a claim no other country can make.


Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore’s Prime Minister for 30 years, said the primary responsibility of a government leader to “Paint his vision of the future to his people, translate that vision into policies which he must convince the people are worth supporting and, finally, galvanize them to help him implement them,”

A month after becoming President, in 2012, Xi painted his vision for Two Centennials: to fix inequality (‘socialist modernization’) by 2012 and to transform China into ‘a great modern socialist country, prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful’ by 2049. American Nobelist Robert Fogel agrees that China will be prosperous: its economy will be twice the size of Europe’s and America’s combined in 2049.

Because he must paint China’s new vision, colleagues granted Xi  ‘core leader’ status in 2017 and amended the constitution in 2018 so he and PM can serve another term and make sure the new era gets off to a good start. Since he will be around until at least 2027, it may be a good idea to get to know him before our media intensify their attacks on him. Here’s a short bio.

People who have little experience with power–those who are far from it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level.–Xi Jinping⁠, President of China.

Though wages had been doubling each decade for a generation, by 2009 local corruption was impacting faith in the national government and the Party needed a Confucian junzi–a combination of Bill Gates and Nelson Mandela–to retain its Heavenly Mandate. Ever-vigilant, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was investigating a high born reformer who had triumphed over injustice yet remained compassionate, sincere, persistent and modest:

U.S. EMBASSY C O N F I D E N T I A L
SECTION 01 OF 06 BEIJING 003128
SIPDIS. 2009 November 16, 12:20 (Monday)
SUBJECT: PORTRAIT OF VICE PRESIDENT XI JINPING: ‘AMBITIOUS SURVIVOR’ OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION .

Unlike those in the social circles the professor ran in, Xi Jinping could not talk about women and movies and did not drink or do drugs. Xi was considered of only average intelligence, the professor said, and not as smart as the professor’s peer group. Women thought Xi was ‘boring’.

The professor never felt completely relaxed around Xi, who seemed extremely ‘driven’. Nevertheless, despite Xi’s lack of popularity in the conventional sense and his ‘cold and calculating’ demeanor in those early years, the professor said, Xi was ‘not cold-hearted’. He was still considered a ‘good guy’ in other ways. Xi was outwardly friendly, ‘always knew the answers’ to questions, and would ‘always take care of you’. The professor surmised that Xi’s newfound popularity today, which the professor found surprising, must stem in part from Xi’s being ‘generous and loyal’.

Xi also does not care at all about money and is not corrupt, the professor stated. Xi can afford to be incorruptible, the professor wryly noted, given that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. In the professor’s view, Xi Jinping is supremely pragmatic, a realist, driven not by ideology but by a combination of ambition and ‘self-protection’.

Xi knows how very corrupt China is and is repulsed by the all-encompassing commercialization of Chinese society, with its attendant nouveau riche, official corruption, loss of values, dignity, and self-respect, and such ‘moral evils’ as drugs and prostitution, the professor stated. The professor speculated that if Xi were to become the Party General Secretary, he would likely aggressively attempt to address these evils, perhaps at the expense of the new moneyed class.


President Xi's father, Xi Zhongxun. A rare photo. Ironic that men who transformed humanity for the better through enormous personal effort are barely known and leave behind few traces, while criminals, false leaders, cretins and celebrities in the west have literally millions of pictures, and other objects of adoration to remember them by.

Xi inherited his silver spoon from a remarkable man. When the Japanese invasion interrupted his father’s schooling in 1933, Xi Zhongxun established a rebel area, commanded its army, expanded its territory, became a general at nineteen, provincial governor at twenty-two, the new Republic’s youngest Vice-Premier and one of the Revolution’s Eight Immortals. After escaping imprisonment by the Nationalists, Zhongxun was sentenced to death by fellow Communists for his outspokenly liberal views when Mao, emerging at the end of the Long March, reached his redoubt in Shaanxi Province in 1936 and pardoned him. Zhongxun spent the next twelve years alternating between governing and rescuing beleaguered armies. A superb negotiator–whose conversion of a rebel leader Mao compared to a famous conciliation in The Romance of the Three Kingdoms–he was widely loved and admired for his competence, outspokenness and honesty.

American journalist Sidney Rittenberg, a friend in the 1940s, recalled, “Xi Zhongxun took me with him a number of times traveling in the countryside among the villages and he knew whose baby was sick and whose grandpa had rheumatism and so forth, and he would go to these homes and talk to them and they loved him. He was always getting into trouble because of his plebeian style and democratic way of thinking. He was a very good man in my opinion, probably the most democratic-minded member of the old Party leadership. I just hope that a lot of this rubbed off on the son”.

Zhongxun’s non-ideological, pragmatic outspokenness got him jailed again, for seven years, during the Cultural Revolution. Rehabilitated, he was assigned to govern destitute Guangdong Province and Deng Xiaoping joked at his farewell, “The Government has no funds but we can give you favorable policies”. Finding Guangdong’s government blocking residents’ flight to neighboring Hong Kong–where wages were a hundred times higher–he risked re-imprisonment by proposing a special economic zone for private enterprise. After furious debate, Beijing approved his plan and he stabilized Guangdong, stopped the exodus, liberalized the economy and built China’s first free enterprise zone which, today, attracts Hong Kong graduates seeking better pay. His first son, Jinping, was born in Shaanxi Province in 1953 and grew up listening to his famous father’s stories, “He talked about how he’d joined the revolution and he’d say, ‘You’ll certainly make revolution someday’. He’d explain what revolution is. We heard so much of this our ears grew calluses”. In a Confucian land, Jinping’s high birth brought high expectations: “The primary duty of a son is to live an upright life and to spread the doctrines of humanity in order to win good reputation after death and thus reflect great honor upon his parents” The Book of Filial Duty⁠.

Young Xi’s life in the public eye began inauspiciously. During the Cultural Revolution the twelve year old was paraded as an enemy of the people wearing a metal dunce cap and a placard around his neck before being sentenced to prison. But the juvenile detention center was full so he was sent to poverty-stricken Liangjiahe village as part of Mao’s “Up the Mountain and Down to the Countryside” campaign to educate privileged youth about rural life. When his tearful family farewelled him, “I told them if I didn’t go I wasn’t sure I’d survive”. His older sister stayed and, persecuted by radicals, committed suicide two years later.

He would spend seven years growing to manhood in Liangjiahe, sleeping on brick beds in flea-infested cave homes, enduring the peasants’ life of hunger and cold, ploughing, pulling grain carts and collecting manure. “Just after I arrived in the village beggars started appearing and, as soon as they turned up, the dogs would be set on them. Back then we students, sent down from the cities, believed beggars were bad elements and tramps. We didn’t know the saying, ‘in January there is still enough food, in February you will starve, and March and April you are half alive, half dead’. For six months every family lived only on bark and herbs. Women and children were sent out to beg so that the food could go to those who were doing the spring ploughing. You had to live in a village to understand it. When you think of the difference between what the central government in Beijing knew and what was actually happening in the countryside, you have to shake your head”.

Liangjiahe’s farmers rated the city boy six on a ten-point scale, “Not even as high as the women,” he said. “I was very young when I was sent to the countryside, it was something I was forced to do. At the time I didn’t think far ahead and gave no thought to the importance of cooperation. While the villagers went up the slopes and worked every day, I did as I chose and people got a poor impression of me so, after a few months, they sent me back to Beijing and I was placed in a study group. When I was released six months later I thought hard about returning to the village and talked to my uncle who had been active in revolutionary work in the 1940s. My uncle told me about his work back then and about how important it is to cooperate with the people you live with and that settled it. I went back to the village, got down to work and learned to cooperate. Within a year I was doing the same work as people in the village, living as they lived and working hard. The hardship of working shocked me, though eventually I could carry a shoulder pole weighing more than a hundred pounds up a mountain road. People saw that I had changed”. The only reliable light was provided by old kerosene lamps and the village had neither running water nor electricity. There was no school but he was ‘always reading books as thick as bricks,’ villagers recall. He began to lead small projects like reinforcing riverbanks and organizing a blacksmiths’ cooperative and constructed the first sewage system in the county, “The pipe from the pond was blocked and I unblocked it. Excrement and urine flew all over my face”. From plans sent by his mother he built a methane digester that gave Liangjiahe reliable light at night and eventually the county named him ‘a model educated youth’–a prerequisite for admission to university during the Cultural Revolution–and awarded him a motorcycle which he exchanged for a two-wheeled tractor, a rice mill and a submersible pump.

After repeated rejections because of his father’s imprisonment he was admitted to the Communist Party in 1974, the village elected him Village Party Secretary and, at twenty-two, his political career was launched. The following year he was accepted by Tsinghua University and a dozen villagers walked the twenty miles with him to the railhead, “It was the second time I cried there. The first time was when I got the letter saying that my big sister had died”. “Experiencing such an abrupt change from Beijing to a place so destitute affected me profoundly,” he later recalled.

He returned to Beijing to greet a father who, released after seven years in solitary confinement, was unable to recognize his grown sons and recited a familiar Tang poem: Returning to my home village after years of absence, My brows have grayed though my accent is unchanged. Children who meet me don’t recognize me. Laughing, they ask, what village do you come from? After graduation from Tsinghua his father’s old comrade-in-arms, Geng Biao, made him Personal Secretary to the Minister of National Defense and the twenty-four-year-old spent three years in uniform, studying the vast military he was destined to command.

His father urged him to enter government while friends and classmates were going into business or studying abroad so he left Beijing to begin a twenty-five year apprenticeship administering villages, townships, cities, counties and provinces across the country. Along the way, he picked up a PhD for a dissertation on rural marketization. Like his father, he was effective, diligent and versatile and left a trail of prosperity behind him as he rose through the ranks. Posted to backward Zhengding County, Hebei Province in 1982, he demonstrated the paternal flair for economic development: learning that a TV production of The Dream of Red Mansions was scouting locations, he persuaded the county to employ local craftsmen to build real mansions instead of temporary sets. Fees from the production company paid most of the construction cost and, as soon as shooting ended, he turned the set into a tourist attraction that still hosts a million paying visitors each year and has been the backdrop of hundreds of productions.

Promoted to the governorship of Fujian Province, he upgraded its Internet, networked the provincial hospitals’ medical records and made government transactions accessible on line. He sent officials to work in villages throughout the province and set up citizens’ committees of to supervise village Party Committees–an innovation Beijing legislated nationally as The Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees. He was the first governor to crack down on food contamination and created the first provincial environmental monitoring system. Today, Fujian’s pristine environment attracts high tech startups. Appointed Zhejiang Provincial Party Secretary in 2002, he fundraised fifty percent of the five hundred million dollar cost of the twenty-two mile Hangzhou Bay Bridge, the world’s longest, from local businesses. “Private funds have infiltrated all walks of life here,” he told a visitor, echoing his father.

Earnest, blunt to the point of rudeness and a workaholic, his track record ranked high in Beijing’s annual surveys. He was, in the words of U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen, “The kind of guy who knows how to get things over the goal line”. Like his father, he possessed immense energy for work, as Taiwanese businessman Li Shih-Wei, who saw him regularly, told The Washington Post, “When we discussed my problems he would listen closely, track the issue and try to find solutions. His working efficiency was pretty high–quite rare among the officials we encountered there. Meetings were usually in the government cafeteria, not the fancy restaurants most officials chose. His lifestyle wasn’t luxurious”. Xi encouraged initiative with policies like ‘special procedures for special cases’, and ‘do things now,’ urged officials to meet people face to face and set an example by meeting seven hundred petitioners in forty-eight hours.

A regular at farmers’ markets, on fishing boats and down coal mines, he became a local celebrity for being the first local Party Secretary to visit all the villages in Zhengding County, a performance he repeated everywhere he governed and, after becoming President, visited all of China’s 33 provinces, regions and municipalities. His only recorded outbursts were over corruption. According to one Zhejiang official, Xi ‘kept his reputation wholesome and untainted by allegations of corruption’ and, under a pen name, contributed hundreds of earnest opinion pieces to local dailies: “If we remain aloof from ordinary people we will be like a tree cut off from its roots. Officials at all levels must change their style, get close to ordinary people, try their best to do good things for them, put aside the haughty manner of feudalism and set a good example”. In an essay on graft he said, “Transparency is the best anti-corrosive and as long as we embrace democracy, go through a proper procedures and avoid ‘black’ case work, fighting corruption won’t be just empty words”. “How important the people are in the minds of an official will determine how important officials are in the minds of the people. Officials should love the people in the way they love their parents, work for their benefit and lead them to prosperity”.

He waited twenty years to give his first public interview, and his advice⁠ was prosaic, “Politics is risky. Lots of people who’ve experienced failures reproach themselves: ‘I’ve helped so many people, I’ve done so much and all I get is ingratitude. People don’t understand me. Why must it be this way?’ Some colleagues who started when I did gave up their jobs for such reasons. But if you have a position somewhere, if you stick to it and continue your work then, in the end, it will produce results. The essence of success is to fasten onto your assignment and continue working. I’ve come across many difficulties and obstacles. That’s inevitable. Going into politics is like crossing a river. No matter how many obstacles you meet there is only one direction, and that’s forward”.

In 2007, after Shanghai officials looted its pension fund, he was assigned to clean up the giant city, a sinkhole of iniquity for centuries. He turned the governor’s mansion into a veterans’ home, promoted green, sustainable development and pushed Shanghai to become a leading financial center–drawing a relieved headline⁠4 in the People’s Daily: ‘Glad to Hear Some Good News from Shanghai at Last’. Today, Shanghai’s pension fund is in surplus, its police are noted for their honesty, its courts a preferred international forum and its education system the best in the world. In 2008 Xi produced a flawless Beijing Olympic Games, on time, on budget and without a hint of corruption–while coordinating the military, police, bureaucracy, localities, diplomacy, security, logistics, media and the environment–a feat that made him a leading contender for the presidency.

In a patriarchal society, fond memories of his father could only help.

Though our media refer to Xi as ‘President’ (President Trump called him ‘the King of China’), China has no such office and no Chinese official resembles an American President, about whom Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, observed, “We elect a king for four years and give him absolute power within certain limits which, after all, he can interpret for himself”. While American Presidents hire and fire their administrative teams, make war, pardon, imprison or assassinate enemies Chinese leaders, even Mao, are board chairmen only. They can set agenda and direct discussion but, ultimately, must follow to the votes of the seven-man Steering Committee, none of whom they chose or can dismiss–and virtually all Steering Committee decisions are unanimous.

Xi’s primary leadership responsibilities were spelled out in the Twelfth Five Year Plan which, as a member of the Politburo Standing Committee for the previous five years, he helped draft: double national wages and pensions during his tenure, clean up corruption, reform the military, pass a stalled Social Security bill and, by December, 2020, deliver the Party’s xiaokang promise: ‘a society in which no one is poor and everyone receives an education, has paid employment, more than enough food and clothing, access to medical services, old-age support, a home and a comfortable life’.

Xi’s style fits the Chinese mold: his speeches are businesslike, soft-spoken, non-confrontational and his first presidential address was retail politics, “People expect better wages, higher quality medical care, more comfortable homes and a more beautiful environment”. He invited the Carter Center to help expand democratic participation in policy-making, called for a greater role for the constitution in state affairs, strengthened Congressional participation in interpreting the constitution and generating citizens’ involvement in the legislative process. Promising to tackle corruption, he quoted Confucius, “He who rules by virtue is like the North Star, which maintains its place and the multitude of stars pay homage,” and placed responsibility for integrity squarely on official shoulders. His most sensational political gesture was lunching at the communal table in a Beijing dumpling restaurant and chatting with customers for twenty minutes without security.

Though not as precocious as his father, he proved comparably effective. The piecemeal, outdated, inconsistent legal code and judicial unpredictability he inherited had undermined people’s faith in the legal system. He reformed the legal system, abolished laogai re-education through labour, eliminated local government interference in the courts, called for transparency in legal proceedings and professionalization of the legal workforce and the Supreme People’s Court agreed to broadcast its proceedings live. He formed cross-jurisdictional squads of officials to coordinate corruption investigations, gave them independence, filed a million disciplinary cases and prosecuted a hundred ministers, generals, senior executives, university chancellors and private CEOs.

Abroad, he turned the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, SCO, into the largest political confederation on earth, uniting half the world’s people and four nuclear powers–Russia, China, India and Pakistan–in a single security zone. In 2013 he offered to finance the Belt and Road Initiative, BRI, a ten trillion dollar program of roads, railways, telecommunications, energy pipelines and ports integrating the Eurasian continent from Barcelona to Beijing into a seamless, secure, integrated market.

In 2017 he broke ground on Jing-Jin-Ji, an 82,000 square mile green megacity with the population of Japan. It will integrate Beijing’s financial, regulatory and research strengths with Tianjin’s port and Hebei’s technology using seven hundred miles of new rail lines, scheduled completion in 2020. In 2017 he initiated the transition to a dàtóng society by endorsing Social Credit, a transparent, publicly owned system ranking the creditworthiness of government departments and officials–from President down–businesses and citizens. More carrot than stick, it provides increasingly valuable benefits, from low-interest loans and no-deposit rentals to visa-free travel, with rising public reputation.

In 2018, the system blocked a developer’s attempt to fly first class to London and provided a tourist-class seat because he had persistently ignored court orders to pay his subcontractors.

The Future

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ecause 2020 will mark the successful conclusion of Deng Xiaoping’s 1980 Reform and Opening program, it will be Xi’s responsibility to “Paint his vision of the future to his people, translate that vision into policies which he must convince the people are worth supporting and, finally, galvanize them to help him implement them,” which Lee Kwan Yew described as the primary responsibility of government leaders.

A month after becoming President, Xi described his Goals for Two Centennials: to spend 2020-2035 fixing inequality (‘socialist modernization’) and spend 2035-2049 transforming China into ‘a great modern socialist country, prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful’. According to American Nobelist Robert Fogel, China will certainly be prosperous: in 2049 its economy will be twice the size of Europe’s and America’s combined.

Because he must paint China’s new vision, colleagues granted Xi ‘core leader’ status in 2017 and amended the constitution in 2018 so he and Premier Li could serve more than two five-year terms, a move was greeted with some alarm. Li Datong⁠, a prominent Party member and real estate developer, wrote, “I am a Chinese citizen, and a voter in Beijing. You are delegates chosen by us, and you represent us in political deliberations and in political action–and you represent us in exercising the right to vote. As I understand it, the stipulation in the 1982 Constitution that the national leaders of China may not serve for more than two terms in office was political reform measure taken by the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China after the immense suffering wrought by the Cultural Revolution. This was the highest and most effective legal restriction preventing personal dictatorship and personal domination of the Party and the government and a major point of progress in raising the level of political civilization in China in line with historical trends. It was also one of the most important political legacies of Deng Xiaoping. China can only move forward on this foundation, and there is emphatically no reason to move in the reverse direction. Removing term limitations on national leaders will subject us to the ridicule of the civilized nations of the world. It means moving backward into history, and planting the seed once again of chaos in China, causing untold damage”.

Wang Ying, a businesswoman and government reform advocate, called the proposal “An outright betrayal, against the tide of history. I know that you (the government) will dare to do anything and one ordinary person’s voice is certainly useless, but I am a Chinese citizen and don’t plan to leave. This is my motherland too!”

Chinese are always reluctant to judge current leaders; it takes decades, they say, to discover if their policies were beneficial, but what can we make of Xi at this stage? Lee Kwan Yew, who knew him personally, said, “I would put him in Nelson Mandela’s class of persons. Someone with enormous emotional stability who does not allow his personal misfortunes or sufferings to affect his judgment. In a word, he is impressive”.

Neither his character nor his track record has spared him the burdens of everyday government: in 2018, Xi was still trying to merge China’s provincial retirement funds into an American-style Social Security system–which he pointed to as a model–and making slow progress towards a national land tax. Politics is universal.

Sources

1 In a 2000 interview with the journalist Chen Peng. Chinese Times

2 The Book of Filial Duty.

3 Born Red. New Yorker

4 How China’s Leaders Think: The Inside Story of China’s Past, Current and Future Leaders by Robert Lawrence Kuhn

5 Li Datong’s Open Letter

From: China 2020: Everything You Know is Wrong forthcoming 2018, read a sample here.

 


About the Author
SPECIAL EDITOR for Asian Affairs Godfree Roberts (Ed.D. Education & Geopolitics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1973)), currently resides in Chiang Mai, Thailand. His expertise covers many areas, from history, politics and economics of Asian countries, chiefly China, to questions relating to technology and even retirement in Thailand, a topic of special interests for many would-be Western expats interested in relocating to places where a modest income can still assure a decent standard of living and medical care. 

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.



 

 
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




What is Venezuela’s Petro? It’s socialism to bitcoin’s rescue


horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

"The Petro is immune to inflation, because like all good cryptos it has a fixed total: 100 million petros. Inflation is thus impossible..."


A supporter of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro holds a poster with a picture of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that reads "Vote for Chavez" during the last campaign rally with pro-government candidates for the upcoming parliamentary elections, in Caracas. The Chavista process has hit some serious snags, but a revolutionary process has many surprises and the battle is not yet done.

The simplest way to answer that question is: The Petro is a bond sale for foreign investors, with the proceeds going to pay the infrastructure costs required to implement the first-ever mass national adoption of crypto-currency.

Now that is a government taking on “good debt”, unlike the West’s banker bailouts….

It should be no surprise that Venezuela will be the first to unleash the democratic, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist capabilities of bitcoins: it’s not as if 25-year old California capitalists ever saw bitcoins as anything other than a way to make untaxed profits and to retire early.

The difference between Venezuela and other socialist-inspired countries - Cuba, Iran, China, etc. - is that Venezuela never had a revolution to sweep out the feudal-inspired aristocrats and their limited, bourgeois/West-European democracy. That’s why the creation of the Petro appears like the most revolutionary, progressive and combative move that Venezuela has ever made.

On February 20 they will begin the pre-sale of what has the potential to be the largest ICO (Initial Coin Offering) ever, multiplied by 10. It has the potential to raise $6 billion, which would almost equal the sum of all ICOs in 2017. It would instantly become a top 10 crypto.

Newsworthy? Oh yes, and on far more than just the business page.


The difference between Venezuela and other socialist-inspired countries - Cuba, Iran, China, etc. - is that Venezuela never had a revolution to sweep out the feudal-inspired aristocrats and their limited, bourgeois/West-European democracy. That’s why the creation of the Petro appears like the most revolutionary, progressive and combative move that Venezuela has ever made.

Ponzi scheme untethered from reality? Hardly: A total of 100 million Petros will be created, which will be tied to the price of oil (currently around $60 per barrel). This will keep the price stable.

If it works, the results are quite serious: Venezuela, shut out from the bond market due to immoral American sanctions and international compliance with the blockade, will have a way to raise funds…and thus stop starving.

Not quite as important as avoiding starvation - which the ancient Greeks called the cruelest death - Venezuela could potentially wind up with 5% of the world’s supply of Ethereum: that’s not just the best long-term investment currently available, probably, but they would help secure the overall crypto market by becoming one of the most powerful controllers of Ethereum’s price.

Wow, that’s big for Venezuela…and we haven’t yet discussed the global implications.

The Petro is specifically backed by 5 billion barrels of the Ayacucho block in the Orinoco reserve. Venezuela has 300 billion known reserves, so this is a drop in the bucket; also, acquiring $6 billion, in a country which owes $140 billion in foreign debt, is another drop in the bucket. So the Petro will not “save” or “break” anything (let’s try to hear the word “bitcoin” and not immediately begin thinking so over-dramatically…). Looking at the cash and the oil totals misses the reason why the Petro is so important.

It’s not that the Petro is the first crypto-currency to be backed by a resource (other than gold), but that is interesting, it’s true.

The key is that the Petro is the first crypto which has all the power of being backed by a sovereign state. Venezuela is legitimising crypto currency.

Government backing is worth more than oil, surely, at least domestically. Any government can issue a crypto just based on that, alone. If a government slaps “In Crypto we trust” on a piece of paper and you can pay your taxes with it? Voila, you have a legal currency.

Cryptos are valued on what’s backing them: usually it’s technology, sometimes it’s just functionality. For the very first time - it’s the state.

It’s my opinion that Caracas is backing the Petro with oil to allay the fears of investors (as well as for price stability). Are you holding stock in oil with the Petro? Yes, technically, but you are also holding stock in the 30-million strong Venezuelan nation, and the backing of the People is - by definition - revolutionary and progressive.

Crypto-currency has a love-hate relationship with governments: simultaneously hating their regulations and taxes but also greedily craving their acceptance (which would also confirm their fortunes).

What the Petro shows - to the near-complete befuddlement of the average capitalist/libertarian bitcoiner and bitcoin media - is that only capitalist governments should be feared; and also that the root of bitcoin is leftist: bitcoin should exist to help the People, and not just the individual. And it will…starting with Venezuela.

One can easily see how a successful government backing will give mucho legitimacy to the entire crypto asset market - crypto clearly works. Yes, the Jamie Dimons of the world look down on the Venezuelas, but he forgets that we’re not all rich White men: most of us in the world actually side with the Venezuelas because we’re aware of a little dynamic called “class”.

All of the above is really rather incredibly important, no? It clearly marks a major shift in crypto, in finance, in the use of money, in politics, in history.

Venezuela is going full-crypto…as a domestic currency

That’s actually the biggest bang here, which is being ignored by most bitcoin media: Venezuela is not simply creating a new type of bond, it is going to foster a new, complementary monetary system based around crypto-currency.

Petro's White Paper - the intellectual foundation provided by every crypto - was just released on January 30, and it has gotten mostly-admiring reviews (what, hard-working civil servants aren’t so much dumber than greedy 20-year old capitalists?). All it lacks is a “road map” to contain everything a good white paper needs. Here’s the main thing to take away from it….

The white paper says, and these are the magic words: “You’ll be able to pay taxes and state fees with Petros….The Venezuelan government will pay you in Petros….You can maintain your books in Petros….If you accept Petros, you will get tax credits and/or rebates. That, right there, is the creation of a currency. Not a fake one you can use with your gamer-nerd friends, but a true, national, sovereign currency.

Venezuela will thus undoubtedly be the first closely-watched test case for the use of cryto-money as a daily currency. Not Bitcoin, not Litecoin, not Vertcoin or Ethereum - Venezuela. Supremely intelligently, Caracas is spurning the free market in favor of socialist central planning: they are going to encourage and subsidise the use of the Petro as a domestic currency in order to promote mass adoption.

This is also hugely important: 45% of the ICO will go towards building the “Petro Project”, its “Ecosystem Development” and “Technological Development” (with “special emphasis on applications of the blockchains to improve productivity and transparency in companies and state agencies”).

So we are talking about potentially $3 billion of foreign investment going to create the infrastructure Venezuela needs to establish a permanent, government-backed crypto-currency. No other nation can claim that. The other 55% will go the national sovereign fund.

Creating and fostering crypto as a sovereign national currency as well as massive crypto ecosystem development on a national scale? That sound you are now hearing is the Doppler Effect produced by these two enormous velocity surges on the theoretical “mass adoption of crypto” timeline.

It is also revolutionary progress, because crypto will free Venezuelans from the feudal [financial] bonds of neo-imperialism. (If you are interested enough to read this article I assume you already know that Bitcoin was specifically created to declare war on high finance…is the pin for all their different bubbles…crypto aims to unbank the (usuriously) banked…to force central banks to break with neoliberalism and re-institute pro-99%, socialist-influenced economic policies…to end the US dollar’s imperial dominance, etc. (and it’ll give you fresh breath, too!))

On a philosophical level, the Petro is the first crypto which is not just a way to make money or transact money: The Petro is a way to safeguard the money of the Venezuelan people.

Finally, a country is using their head with crypto: This is not something to be primarily used in China or Poland or to buy sushi in Japan - it’s to be used in Venezuela as a safe, controlled, anti-inflationary currency. It is not trying to change the world - it’s trying to change Venezuela for the better…and Venezuelans can thank the far-sightedness of the Maduro government.

For those who write absolute nonsense about the Petro in order to demonise Maduro, Venezuela and Chavismo - “dictator”, “totalitarian”, etc. - I include this key line in the white paper: “The payment of extraordinary labor commitments and benefits in Petro will be encouraged, as well as accumulated social benefits, provided they have the expressed individual approval of the benefited worker.” (bold mine)

You’re a government worker who still wants to get paid in good old bolivars? LOL, really? Well, it’s your right to be a luddite….

All in all…the first state-backed crypto-currency is an amazing development, and one which arrived much faster than most expected. Wartime conditions will do that….

What benefits will mass domestic adoption bring Venezuelans?

Because, again, the Petro is primarily for the benefit of the Venezuelan People.

First of all - for all those rigid, absolutist thinkers - this is not “mass adoption” in the sense of “Venezuela has no paper money anymore”. That’s ludicrous - 85% of global transactions are done in cash. Hard-headed bitcoin-naysayers don’t realize that if crypto takes just 3% of all global transactions in the future…wow, that’s a great investment in 2018.

But I can actually make a nearly-perfect estimate of what “mass adoption” means in the Petro’s case: 3% of Venezuela’s population.

That’s because the only way to access or use the Petro was to have signed up with the The Registry of Cryptocurrency Miners, and nearly 1 million people did (registration is now closed). Therefore, in a country of 31 million people there will be 3% of the population who are authorised to use Venezuelan crypto (and who will be monitored, thus preventing illegal activity (sorry, anti-social libertarian bitcoiners)).

Let’s estimate that all of Venezuela’s government transactions and spending - taxes, wages, subsidies and credits, etc. - take up one-third of all GDP. One-third of 3% (the population authorised to use the Petro) - is 1% of all GDP.
Venezuela’s GPD is roughly $350 billion. Therefore we can guess that the Petro will handle 1% of that - which comes out to about $3.5 billion in its first year.

This passes the common sense test, at least: you can’t go fully-crypto overnight. It has to be rolled out slowly, tested, etc.

What’s $3.5 billion worth in hyper-inflationary Venezuela, though? Well, duh - that’s exactly the point of the Petro! To fight their inflation!

The Petro is immune to inflation, because like all good cryptos it has a fixed total: 100 million petros. Inflation is thus impossible. LOL, there will be no massive printing of Petros and called “Quantitative Easing”…and thus you find yourself paying 4 euros for a can of orange juice on a privatised toll road (as I do in France). You cannot mine Petro: it is “pre-mined” and totally controlled by the government. In the modern age of high finance, price inflation and the value of the national currency is something which governments no longer have sovereign control over - thus the Petro.

The Venezuelan government is essentially creating a new, secondary currency which only they control. You don’t have to be a government worker to use it, but you do have to work with the government on this radical initiative.

So the Petro is the best of both crypto arguments: it is both a store of value and a currency. Case closed.

The only way to destabilise the Petro would be to destroy the price of oil; even then, this only ruins the foreign investors, because as long as the government accepts the Petro as taxes it has a definite, immutable use inside Venezuela. This is called “economic sovereignty”, which has become a foreign concept in the post-Soviet world of Anglobalization.

Inflation has been artificially stimulated in Venezuela by US-based websites such as DolarToday, which is accused by even Venezuela’s right-wingers of lying about the value of the Venezuelan bolivar in relation to the US dollar, thus increasing inflation, fomenting instability and discrediting the government. Speculators launch attacks on the bolivar in order to send the price up or down, profiting from volatility - that’s all traders want, after all - while simultaneously discrediting the government, Chavismo and socialism in general.

Financial speculators have obviously wreaked havoc on governments for centuries in numerous countries; illegal black market supporters like Miami-based (the heart of reactionary thought for the Spanish-speaking world) DolarToday criminally leech away the power of the Venezuelan People - to control their very own currency via their government and the authority of their central bank. With the Petro, the government obviously regains control over exchange rates on the crypto currency, at least. They determine what is worth, because they control it all. Thus the Petro.

So this new currency will likely be limited to something like 1% of the economy at first, but this is an amazing development which will allow the Venezuelan people to regain democratic control over the economy - neoliberalism is the enemy of such control, of course.

In short…the Petro is an obvious solution, and is a guaranteed success. The government says it’s a currency…therefore it is. It cannot be manipulated. It’s only weak spot is poor management. How could it possibly fail?

And that’s why it is being attacked, and why people are saying that Maduro, LOL, is going to use this as a way to line his own pockets. Yeah, it’s the socialists who are the biggest crooks to fear, not the capitalists…. And I hardly think Venezuelans care what CNBC thinks of the Petro, either.

I’m not aware of what private goods can be bought with the Petro, but the government obviously needs to create “Petro supermarkets” so government workers can buy goods at controlled prices. This is stealing a page from capitalism - the “company store”. But instead of rampant inflation, high prices and being an object of detestation, there should be low, subsidised prices, stability and control for the benefit of the workers. This is obviously temporarily elitist in a sense, as it is not open to all, but such concerns have to be temporarily disregarded: it is certainly the most cost-effective use of the People’s taxes, and its success will inspire more demand for adoption of the Petro.

Venezuela has had a massive advertising campaign to support the Petro, so their people are ready and waiting. We know they are needy, after a 2017 with Ukraine-level foreign destabilization which was courageously fought off by die-hard Chavistas, who are never going away. Given their hyper-inflation, the certain success will the Petro will mean mass adoption - at a pace controlled by the government (i.e. the People), of course.

So, beyond the “test case” aspect of interest to the entire world, the Petro is an obvious solution to Venezuela’s inflation problems. At just 1% of all transactions this is not an immediate savior, but it’s a start….

How does this affect Venezuela in a foreign policy sense?

As I have described, the immediate use of the Petro is to raise foreign money in order to create the world’s first crypto ecosystem, and then also to provide an alternative to its hyper-inflated currency.

So international trade with the Petro - when they are the only country with a national crypto - is obviously down the line, no?

But just to examine that question: Just like Iran and other bold, proud nations, Venezuela is subject to banking sanctions which aim to cripple their economy. ANY solution which aids Venezuela in avoiding US banks and the SWIFT payment system is a Godsend. Thus the Petro.

Venezuela wants this to be an international project: Maduro has called on all the 10 countries of ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) to “…assume the Petro as the integration currency of our peoples.” These countries include Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Grenada. Nevis is a tax haven - they steadfastly refuse to sign any taxation treaties with other countries.

Why is that important? Because the weak point in bitcoin remains the point of interface between the bitcoin world and the real world: i.e., when you cash out. A government can ban cashing out…but ALL governments, LOL, will not. Nevis is a place where capitalism has created a situation where anything goes - if they undo places like Nevis, they necessarily have to also undo the non-crypto accounts…and that is not going to happen. It’s a fantasy to talk of “invading” such places - another one will simply sprout up to meet demand, and they cannot invade them all. I bring this up to say: one day Nicaragua and Venezuela can exchange Petro back and forth, exchanging goods and services without being controlled by the Americans, and then when they need to “wash” it for use outside of the ALBA Petro-zone they can send it to places like Nevis…or Luxembourg, Isle of Man, and probably Delaware, shortly.

But imagine the Petro tied to not just ALBA, but a Russian crypto-ruble?

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ussia literally sold out to the Americans in the 1990s, and it was a social catastrophe. They want to keep their sovereignty now, so they are supporting bitcoins, which is why Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev just called on the Eurasian Economic Union countries to jointly develop a common approach to cryptocurrencies - and it’s not going to be to ban it. The EEU will certainly have their multinational version of ALBA’s Petro, because why on earth would a country under Western financial sanctions eliminate this unthinkable miracle to get around them? Russia is a superpower and a democracy (and with a true leftist force in politics) — they are not some weak US/French/UK puppet politically, culturally, militarily, financially, etc..

The EU cannot stop trading with Russia…unless they want to ruin their own economies, and also freeze in the winter. So Venezuela is a big stepping stone, as would be Iran, but a Russia or China makes national cryptos unstoppable. Heck, I’m excluding Japan and South Korea simply due to their political alliances…but those change, and those two nations are 2 and 3 in commitment to bitcoins (behind Venezuela). But Japan and South Korea are under US military occupation, after all….

Again, we are not talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in Venezuela’s crypto market in 2018, but - long-term - increased crypto usage will obviously allow Venezuela to evade the murderous blockade/sanctions against their foreign trade.

I proved the (mostly ignored) leftist utility of bitcoin in the very first sentence of this article: evading Western sanctions means sanctioned nations can buy medicines.  It’s that simple, and it’s as real and immediate as a heart attack. Supporting the Petro is thus a moral issue.

I certainly hope Iran is watching closely and is ready to follow up with an Iranian Petro. Safety in numbers…. The vast amount of news from Iran is positive, and a policy should be issued in a few months.

The Petro is not a ‘true’ Crypto

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ibertarian-style, voluntarism-espousing, tax-avoiding bitcoiners - the ones who despise all government (which must include me, as I am a civil servant, and paid by taxes) - say that any bitcoin which is backed by the government is “not a true bitcoin”.

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

What a dumb, ivory-tower conversation to have! For countries like Venezuela, under literal attack, such conversations can remain confined to the imaginary cyber-realm. What can the Petro do for the Venezuelan people now, that’s a practical, tangible question. Why do cyber-geeks who got into bitcoin because they played video games 6 hours a day get to decide what is “real crypto” and what isn’t?

But fine, on a theoretical level I’ll agree: The Petro is essentially fiat, theoretically.

Well…printing money is what governments are supposed to do. Why can’t they print crypto, too?

My problem - everyone’s problem - is not with the printing of money, it’s that Western central banks have used their fiscal policy in a neoliberal capitalist way to enrich the 1%, instead of the masses, in a socialist way.

On a practical level - stable store of value, daily use, local control, deflationary, tool against high finance - the Petro is most definitely crypto. It doesn’t tick all your boxes, though? Go complain to someone who cares, nerd, Venezuelan socialism rolls on!

What’s undeniable is that socialist-supporting Venezuelan citizens have been targeted with an international campaign of destabilization to create economic turmoil and foment regime change: if they want to retain their sovereign right to pursue Chavismo - or, socialism with Venezuelan characteristics - they need both radical steps and innovative solutions, and they remain unconcerned with your labels. Venezuelans want to win, not just debate.

Still oppose the Petro? Well, you’re standing alongside the 1% of Venezuela. Their Senate voted to stop the creation of a crypto. It’s not as if those in the Senate are suffering, so why not prolong it? Without a vanguard party supported by a modern popular revolution…these rich, status quo-maintaining sellouts are your leaders, wherever you are reading this.
What if the Petro works, I mean really?

LOL, mass adoption in your own country ASAP.

A way to regain control of your nation’s currency and prices away from high finance’s speculators? Fuggetaboutit. Refusal to do so would prove that your country’s politicians are working solely for the 1%, and thus undemocratically. What populace wouldn’t demand their own crypto, if it brings down the price of a can of orange juice?

Sweden, Estonia, Singapore - all are studying national cryptos, but Venezuela is forced to move fast. Sweden can take their time - that’s the luxury you gain by making your fortune through aiding the Nazis….

Sweden has the money to pay $2 billion for crypto infrastructure, but Venezuela does not - it needs some foreign investment. Sorry, communists who are misguided: the tools of capitalism are to be used to create socialism, and the key is controlled foreign investment. Getting money into the country is simply a must sometimes (on the People’s terms as much as possible) - and what’s more effective to raise money in 2018 than a crypto? Thus the Petro.

I don’t see any risk for the Venezuelan people: after all, they can’t buy it. The ICO will only be open to foreign investors, so if anyone “gets robbed” it will only be foreigners. After the initial sale the Petro could be sold in exchange for local bolivars, but definitely not before. That’s why this is best termed as a “foreign bond sale” (usually in socialist countries it’s the opposite).

Can you redeem your Petro for a barrel of oil? LOL, why would you? But this lack of easy convertibility has some people uneasy. I guess they also cash in their securities for bushels of soybeans? As I stated, the Petro is in reality backed by the authority of the Venezuelan people more than oil, so be clear on what you are investing in: humanity.

There’s another issue: The price of the Petro is tied to a reference price of the Venezuelan barrel price of the previous day. What their white paper didn’t make clear is: so what determines the price of oil? Is it dollars, bolivars, or the price of ethereum, which they’ll be accepting for the ICO of the Petro, because all three of those fluctuate as well? My bet is that it will ultimately be the US dollar. I don’t think this is that big a deal - the government will choose the most stable price tie possible.

Will the Petro make you money as an investment? You and your crass concerns! Me, I live on high-minded thoughts….

The ICO will, as always, give discounts to the early investors. I can’t say what it is, but that means it will be less than $60 per Petro, obviously. When the ICO is over and it goes public, you’ll see an instant valuation upwards to $60, the price of oil, thus you make money.

When the ICO is over, and you can use cash to buy a Petro, then you are partially investing in oil futures. But a bet on the price of oil increasing or remaining stable, as opposed to your inflating currency (which is gaining almost zero interest in a private bank, which is charging you fees while they invest your money)…is still a much better bet, both financially and ethically.

However, you are also investing in the Venezuelan People in the sense that you are betting that the Petro will be used, and thus can be exchanged for goods and services in Veneuzela, and thus has a steady store of value…once again, unlike your inflating Western currency. It seems to me that the stability provided by the use of the Petro in Venezuela would, theoretically, give it some value-added above the price of oil, no?

Domestic opposition exists: "I remind President Maduro that the hydrocarbons law prevents him from using the country's oil reserves without parliamentary approval," wrote opposition legislator Angel Alvarado on Twitter earlier this month.

Lousy bourgeois/West European aristocrats givin’ democracy a bad name…I say, “Roll on, Chavistas!” Time to cut ties with bourgeois/West European democracy!

The biggest threat obviously comes from the US. Ghadaffi’s “gold dinar” and other efforts to break free of dollar domination are not met with lightly, history proves. But what does Venezuela - and Cuba, Iran, Russia and others - have to lose? They are already at war with the US, or rather, the US and their Western allies are at war with them. Venezuela, as 2017 proves, cannot dither - they must implement radical changes to survive ongoing imperialist attacks.

Buying the Petro is a way to support not just socialism, but also anti-imperialism and the right to local sovereignty. Indeed, the Petro is the first chance provided by a bitcoin to clearly support a leftist government or cause.

In the US you might be subject to prosecution for breaking US sanctions on Venezuela if you buy Petro. That alone will inspire many people worldwide to buy a Petro or two.

Bitcoin’s history has not been all right-wing capitalism - not hardly - but that has been the phase it has been stuck in since August 2017: the Petro inaugurates a new phase.

Crypto-currencies can be used for private benefit, ok, but they must be used for pubic benefit. The public comes first.

That is what the Petro is doing, and why socialism is fulfilling the true promise of bitcoins: liberating the People from the bonds of capitalism. Thanks goes to Venezuela for leading the way.

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris • Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.


 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


horiz-long grey


black-horizontal




The Counter-Revolution

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

 


Young Freikorps members executing a young revolutionary during the Spartacist uprising in Berlin. The victorious counter-revolution was—as usual—brutal.

The polarization of our country isn’t between left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. It’s between richer and poorer, elitists and proletarians, over-educated and under-educated, globalists and localists. The line between the two is a shifting one, depending on where you live, but the consistent difference is the ability to participate successfully in the economy.  Successful participants are able, without onerous labor, to accumulate sufficient income, assets, and benefits to provide for security for themselves and family–a comfortable home, useful education, vacations and travel, health care, a few luxuries, and comfortable retirement. This was the reality once made possible for most middle-class Americans by competent public education and high-paying industrial jobs.

Those days are long gone. Fewer and fewer people can maintain an upwardly mobile life-style; more and more are falling behind. A recent survey conducted by the Federal Reserve revealed that half of Americans (49%) could not come up with $400 within 24 hours. How this shift to relative poverty happened over a generation is perhaps the central story of our time. A series of political decisions beginning in the 1970s successfully dismantled the middle-class state in favor of the plutocratic oligarchy under which we now live. Deregulation began under Jimmy Carter; Reagan busted unions and ingrained a hatred of “big government;” the Bushes and Clinton gutted welfare programs, repealed long-standing financial regulations, like the Glass-Stegal Act, and promoted globalization after the fall of the Soviet Union; Obama pursued identity politics while failing to reform Wall Street after the 2008 crash; Trump has focused on tax cuts for the rich (justified by trickle-dow economics) while dismissing scientific standards of truth and playing on racial and xenophobic fears.

Most of this can be understood as a reaction to the revolutionary politics of the 1960s. The young generation of the time, dismayed by the injustice of the Vietnam War and unaccountable corporate-military power evident the wake of the Kennedy assassination, threatened, for a time, to overthrow the social and political norms of American society. Blacks in inner cities, inspired by the civil rights movement, rose up in unprecedented revolt in a cry for social justice, contributing to the chaos.

So here we are. Social justice has been reduced to identity politics, with economic justice left in the dustbin of history.

These disruptions were not to be tolerated. Wealthy establishment leaders put their heads together and launched a top-down counter-revolution. They funded think-tanks, conservative media, and right wing politicians–most of whom preached a libertarian politics derived from Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand. The catchword was “freedom” and the idea was to remove all impediments to making or sharing money. Crucial to their success was the co-optation of the Democratic party leadership, beginning with the Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. With the Democrats firmly on board, and with financial deregulation and globalization in the works, the counter-revolution swept all before it.

So here we are. Social justice has been reduced to identity politics, with economic justice left in the dustbin of history. Progressives on the political fringe are left begging for crumbs from the corporate table that will never come under the current dispensation: free college education, universal health care. The consolation prize is the apparent victory of gender politics in a now endless series of media exposes of powerful men abusing women–a victory perilously vulnerable to backlash.

The upshot is that our current politics is largely irrelevant. Odious and horrific as Trump may be, and he is, the liberal opposition lost most of its credibility when it sold out to the counter-revolution. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have little hope of restoring the old prosperity of the middle class. Globalization and a financialized economy with little benefit for ordinary people remains the order of the day.

Those benefiting from the status quo, even marginally, are unlikely to champion real reform. The only hope, if this analysis makes any sense, lies with the poorer, under-educated, proletarian localists. So far they have been enthralled by Trumpian rhetoric, the only blunt instrument they’ve been offered with which to beat up the establishment. But it’s not working for them. Trump is not a globalist, but he is committed to a financialized, growth-dependent  economy. The problem is that trickle-down economics–global or local–isn’t going to work any more. Pollution, climate change, resource depletion, technology, population increase–all these conspire to frustrate future economic growth and to render increasing numbers economically irrelevant.

Trumpian economics is bound to turn sour. When it does his constituency will be up for grabs. Its members have been fed the red meat of racism , xenophobia, and sexism. Can they rise above prejudices which they may share, but which have also been foisted upon them? If globalization has a virtue, it’s multi-culturalism–a universal vision of humanity. Can multi-culturalism survive the end of globalization? What sources can inform a generosity of spirit for proletarian localists? Will they be kind to their elitist neighbors, or will they persecute them?

These are the questions of our time.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Adrian Kuzminski is a scholar, writer and citizen activist who has written a wide variety of books on economics, politics, and democracy.  

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors

The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




The fascinating People’s account of how the Russian Revolution was actually won


horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


(This is the third part in a 5-part series which examines the Russian Revolution and relies upon the new book A People’s History of the Russian Revolution.)


Lenin arriving at Finland Station in St Petersburg. The main revolutionary journey begins.

According to the Mainstream Media, Lenin rode in on a white horse…before putting on a black hat and postponing the West’s capitalist gutting of Russia by 75 years.

This is the third article in a series on this year's book, A People's History of the Russian Revolution. The book is going to be a real part of the new canon on socialist literature, along with books like China is Communist, Dammit!

This new book is less like the China book, which relies on a Red Army of facts, statistics and anecdotes which redound with tremendous honor to the Chinese People’s Revolution, in that it prioritizes technique/ideology: it examines those who composed then Russian movement rather than the leaders of the movement.

There has been a lot of of predictably terrible journalism regarding the 1917 October Revolution, which is more accurately termed the October Celebration, as it was a largely bloodless, triumphant installation of the world’s first true government of the people via the first emphatic rejection of bourgeois (West European) democracy.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 has always been poorly-named: It was most certainly two revolutions. The book includes a fascinating section on the more-common “revolution” - the February Revolution - when absolute monarchy was toppled.

I thought I would condense February’s events here, because they so overwhelmingly prove the thesis of my 5-part series and of this book, as well as disproving the idea which has been pushed this year by mainstream western media: that the 1917 Russian Revolution was the work of a tiny, radical Bolshevik party, instead of an expression of decades of work by tens of millions of everyday peasants, workers, soldiers, women and otherwise ordinary people.

What this new book also proves emphatically - and in a far shorter time then Trotsky’s 3-volume History of the Russian Revolution, on which it draws heavily from - is how the February Revolution was not guided at all by the Bolshevik party (or any party), in a clear rejection of the mainstream media's repeated, uniformed contention of dominance by Lenin.

"There has been a lot of of predictably terrible journalism regarding the 1917 October Revolution, which is more accurately termed the October Celebration, as it was a largely bloodless, triumphant installation of the world’s first true government of the people via the first emphatic rejection of bourgeois (West European) democracy..."

Again, the October Revolution was such a joyous cakewalk that, in 2017, we don’t really have anything to learn from how it actually occurred on the ground; but the February Revolution provides us all a model of what to expect and how best to react if a revolution hits our own countries.

Ladies first, in revolution as well

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] have repeatedly lamented the fact that in protest-loving France it is Antifa at the front of the most important demonstrations - causing useless problems, tarnishing the image of protesters and infested with undercover cops. In that article detailing my many years of standing shoulder to shoulder - and across from - Antifa, I lament that it's not Frenchwomen at the front, and preferably holding babies. (We can also ask senior citizens to join them.)

Because that is what works, and the first day of the February Revolution proves this: It was the working women of Petrograd (St. Petersburg) - doubly oppressed by unfair conditions at work and at home - who sparked the first day of the Russian Revolution on February 23, 1917.

Amid World War I shortages, a totally spontaneous protest - not organized by any Bolshevik Party (or Social Revolutionary Party, Meneshevik Party, etc.) - to demand bread was started by 7,000 female textile workers. Where women go men will certainly follow, and by the end of the day there were 100,000 people smashing open food shops.

February revolution—The women workers hit the streets. Putilov factory up in arms.

Notably, the region’s male engineering workers - numbering 40,000 and the most militant workforce in Russia - did not demonstrate, in a sign of how unpremeditated the uprising was. Petrograd was the political, military and proletarian centre of Russia, and yet it was women who took the lead.

The Left will never win in any country if they don't learn what has worked before, so please pay attention to Day 1, ladies and organisers: your presence at the front of protests gives the best chance to avoid violence and to actually win. No state can retain legitimacy if it is seen smashing the faces of women (or old people), and especially in today's age of mass media. Instead of relying on male aggression, female activists must be willing to receive the first hits, because much stronger than male aggression is the male sense of justice, defense and righteousness.

I will quote often from the book, which does a superb job describing the blow-by-blow account of the February Revolution:

“What did it mean? No one could be sure….(most) consider the day’s events just an ‘ordinary sort of hunger riots’.”

‘Everybody hates the police’ - common protest slogan in 2017 France, 1917 Russia & everywhere else

On Day 2 the Bolshevik Party took the reins and whipped the People head-on into the ranks off massed police….not at all true! Day 2 only became “Day 2” because the average person, worker and woman - the rank-and-file of life, not the party bureaucrat - insisted on it.

Though the call had not come from their leaders, grassroots activists had worked through the night, agitating for strike actions and mass demonstrations on the morrow.”

What everybody knows - especially activists and grassroots leaders who have their ear to the ground - is that formal political parties are always behind the mood of the average person. This is a recurring theme of this book, and it certainly makes sense: political parties exist to express the formalised will of the People (or formalised interests, in modern bourgeois democracies), and this makes them inherently conservative; but nobody smashes open a shop for bread or demolishes a police station based on a formalised anything - the People are too busy experiencing/living reality to have time to formalise it.

If I may jump ahead to clarify this point: Lenin himself repeatedly pulled the Bolshevik Party back from taking power throughout 1917 because he knew he had not received a formal, elected, democratic-majority mandate in the worker Soviets (councils) or anywhere else! This would not occur until autumn; Lenin waited until the people moved left, and thus the left became what it should be - centrism (the common agreement). But the Bolsheviks were quite behind the People. This lag-time is best expressed by a vignette from July when Trotsky had to rescue a Social Revolutionary cabinet minister from an angry crowd, and a sailor cursed at Trotsky: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when they give it to you!”

So back in February the Bolsheviks were certainly not telling the People to attack the police - but that is exactly what happened.

The book has a superb passage which can never be uttered in the Western mainstream media:

“The police never go over to the crowd. They are recruited from the most backward section of the working class….Their daily work is a matter of hostile collisions with activists, workers, and the poor. Their hatred of the repressed is reinforced by what is nowadays called ‘canteen culture’. So they become a hardened reactionary caste, immunised against any appeal for solidarity by a psychic armour of indifference and prejudice. In revolution, the police cannot be won over; they have to be physically confronted and routed.”

In America the mainstream media lionises just this caste, and to a disgusting degree. Of course, there are no Black or Latino people in power in mainstream media or politics, and the few who get there do so thanks to totally selling out their race, like Barry “no more cold Popeye’s Chicken breakfasts” Obama. In France polls show that 60% of active police voted for the far-right Marine Le Pen, and it was not for her protectionist economic policy, I am certain; the “canteen culture” is even stronger in France where all urban police are mandated to travel in groups of four, making them little insular gangs trolling the streets and looking for Muslims to harass.

All of this is not a juvenile “F-— the police” sentiment - this passage relates exactly what the People everywhere will certainly face if they demand reforms. It is not at all hopeless, because the police are just one caste, after all.

And I have seen the police beaten with my own two eyes:

In 2015, and almost exactly two years ago, a group of serious activists refused to accept the French’s state ban on demonstrations following a series of horrific terrorist attacks in Paris. It had been one week since the bloodbath, and that was enough mourning and reclusiveness, so we gathered at the Bastille in the name of migrant rights. France’s riot police - with more padding than American football players - licked their chops, because they were intent on keeping us from marching, as RT footage from that day proves, and had every ok to use extreme force. What they didn’t realise is that we were not only just as tough, but twice as committed to our cause: this report I made shows exactly how we were able to break through their police lines. Yes, we did not topple the 1% - we only busted through a police line in order to prove our commitment to the People’s hard-won democratic right to march - but it was a battle and we won. I love to watch and re-watch the demoralised police give way at the 1:12 mark from my report that day!




Just like 1917 Russia, it was the army who saved the People in 2011 Egypt (and me too!)

I can report the exact same anti-police sentiments existed in revolutionary February 2011 Egypt. The detested black-sweatered police were the ones Hosni Mubarak used to attack the demonstrators in Tahir Square with camels and cudgels. Their police force was no different: hated, reactionary, propping up an unjust regime/phony democracy.

But I can tell you that nobody at Tahrir Square believed that the army would open fire on the demonstrators. I did not meet a single one. The army was drawn from the class of everyday people, and they were not habituated to violence and hatred like the Egyptian police. The mantra of Tahrir Square from protesters and soldiers was the same - ashan - “peace” or “easy, easy”. These rank-and-file soldiers held and deserved the esteem of the People, and their faith in the everyday army was rewarded. (Sadly, the commanders were the typical 1% betrayers of the revolution and the elected-but-now-jailed Morsi, as we all know.)

I recall my arrival in Cairo back then. With a video camera and a satellite phone there was no doubt what we were there to do, but we actually made it through airport customs anyway. My criminally-selfish cameraman at the time insisted on going from hotel to hotel until he found a price which would allow him to pocket even more of PressTV’s expenses/taxpayer dollars… this is despite the police oppression that the whole world had already witnessed. Given the atmosphere and the very real risks we were facing, I told him his greed was making him incredibly reckless, but could do nothing.

And I was right - finally, at yet another checkpoint in downtown Cairo, a black-sweatered policeman pulled us over, went through our luggage, and was not at all happy at our military-looking satellite phone. His eyes were bloodshot red and he was clearly loaded to the gills. Nighttime had fallen and we should've been done for.

But a perhaps 19-year-old army soldier came in, took control of the situation, and allowed us to leave.  His authority was not questioned by the drunk policeman more than twice his age, and the smiling soldier gave the impression that such an usurpation would have been impossible. In just a moment, our fortunes and our futures radically changed.

I imagine this type of story was probably repeated over and over among the Egyptian population?

Back in 1917 World War I had radicalized the entire population, which was also on the brink of starvation. The Russian protesters had taken on the police on Day 1, boosted by many former soldiers who were also habituated to violence after fighting in the war.

But behind the police there was a class which did not exist in Egypt: the Cossacks - minor landed gentry, conservatives, disciplined soldiers. 

But these Cossacks were not thug policemen, just as the Egyptian soldiers actually cared for their fellow citizens in 2011. Some Cossacks did attack the protesters on Day 2, but apparently not many. From Trotsky:

…the Cossacks did not hinder the workers from diving under their horses. The revolution does not choose its paths: it made its first steps towards victory under the belly of a Cossack’s horse.”

So we see that the average person and demonstrator was getting closer to the heart of monarchy’s protectors, and breaking through the barriers put up by every state which exist only to prevent a popular revolution by the 99%.

Victory comes from the common person and common soldier, not from Lenin’s order

Day 3 - there is still no formal declaration from the Bolsheviks or anyone else! Yet the strike becomes general.

I will spoil the surprise because it is so important: this call never comes, not from the Bolsheviks or anyone - it was all the Russian People. The mainstream media has deceived you by elevating Lenin and the Bolsheviks - you must not defend them, because then you are just putting down the People. 

“But the elemental social forces unleashed in the February days could not be held back. No-one summoned them…. Many of the revolutionary leaders - Menisheviks, Social-Revolutionaries, and especially the Bolsheviks - were abroad. Second-rank figures filled the gaps. But no call to the streets had come from any of them. One rank and file Bolshevik reported: ‘absolutely no guiding initiative from the party centers was felt.’… This is confirmed by the testimony of the Okhrana, the Tsarist Secret police…’the general attitude of the nonparty masses is as follows: the movement started spontaneously, without any preparation, exclusively on the basis of the food crisis.’”

The mainstream media seem to believe that the People are as pliable to politicians (Bolshevik or otherwise) as they foolishly believe. Will they be thinking the same thing in their own country, when their people start to wear padding against the police whips, as in 1917?

The Russian People start to win over Cossacks, one of whom is tossed in the air when he kills a policeman with his sabre. The next and final line of defence is the soldiers.

“The workers approached them, getting close, posing questions. Why have you come? Who is your enemy? Which side are you on? Where do your interests lie? (Trotsky) ‘The soldiers are sullen. A worm is gnawing them, and they cannot stand it when a question hits the very centre of their pain.’

These were soldiers who had been battle-hardened, but this was not warfare against the Germans. “There were many women in the crowds. Women who were mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends of the soldiers.”

Just as the Egyptian army forced out their leader Mubarak, so the same occurred in February 1917. Indeed, it can never, ever be otherwise: the state has the monopoly on legal violence, and a near-monopoly on weaponry.

This is echoed by Trotsky: “…the fate of every revolution at a certain point is decided by a break in the disposition of the army.”

In short: On Day 3 the barriers are opened in Petrograd, the police are routed and the police stations are wrecked.

“To do these awesome things - to suddenly and completely burst the iron bands of military discipline - the solider must be certain that he will become part of a victorious mass able to protect him.”

I include that quote to illustrate that the army must be won over; when the Mainstream Media fêtes everyday army privates as chivalrous knights who are different from the People and above them, we should understand how this serves the interests of the 1%.

But we clearly see that - unlike the mainstream media’s recounting in 2017 - this had nothing to do with Lenin: this was a completely spontaneous mass movement which started in Petrograd. It is only “spontaneous” in the sense that there was not formal organization, but it was certainly based on decades of oppression, organization and resistance to the Tsarist system. 

Day 4: The state militarizes the crisis but total revolution is now demanded, as is the end to the hated capitalist war. For the first time the army fights against the police.

“For this detachment to take aim and open fire on the people it had been conversing with was unthinkable, and no one in the crowd believed for a moment that it was possible.”

Again this is exactly the same sentiment as in Tahrir Square in 2011 Egypt - the army proves to be the guarantor of the people, while the police exist only to aid the oppressors and join in the oppression.

These lessons may not fully apply in capitalist-imperialist strongholds like the United States and France - where arrogance, aloofness and militarization are the most extreme - but there are many readers in other countries who can learn from these events; how they have a tendency to occur, and how they can be anticipated and treated in favor of the People and progress.

Day 5 - “The soldiers are now helping to hunt down the police, break into the arsenals, and find arms for the workers…The regiment simply disappeared and was never heard from again….Entire military formations were dissolving. The once rock-solid human material of the Tsarist state had turned into a social fluid that seeped away in all directions.”

There was only sporadic shooting in the next few days. This process moved far beyond Petrograd.

“… the story was everywhere the same… the workers left the factories, marched to the city centre, and gathered round the Council chamber. The soldiers joined them there.”

That’s who won the Russian Revolution - too many people to count

Now compare all that with the description of Petrograd on October 25, 1917:

“They had debated, voted, and given their activist vanguard a mandate…. There was no looting or rioting. Theaters, cinemas and shops remained open…. The climax was anti-climax…. It would all look far more impressive in Eisenstein's 1928 movie.”

Knowing what you now know, and what the Mainstream Media will never tell you…think of how nonsensical their depiction of a “wild-eyed, armed to the teeth, radical, Bolshevik cult led by cunning uber-genius Lenin” truly is? A small sect, no matter how rabid and violent, simply could not take over the enormous mass of Russia in just five days. They didn’t even have access to arms until day 5!

It should be overwhelmingly clear: the February Revolution was the work of the People in the north, south, east, west and center.

The great thing about these “peoples’ histories” is that it sets the record straight. This article aims to re-emphasize that the Russian Revolution was not the work of one man, or even just the Bolshevik political party [critical as it was at many junctures, including Lenin's clear-eyed understanding of the rapidly changing situation], or even all the left-to-far-left Russian political parties working together: the monarchy was finally overthrown without their involvement whatsoever.

“This does not mean there was no leadership: it means that the leadership was from below. All mass action has to be organised. No meeting, march, or street battle lacks its leaders. In answer to the question ‘Who led the February revolution?’, Trotsky gave an unequivocal answer: ‘conscious and temporary workers educated for the most part by the party of Lenin.’

But even Trotsky suffers from a bit of Mainstream Media-type arrogance here: He leaves out the Narodniks of the 1860s who schooled Lenin and who Lenin adored. Trotsky also leaves out the peasant occupying the town square in hillbilly towns throughout Russia - those who did not have access to political tracts (and who could probably not read them), and who certainly did not need one V.I. Lenin to tell them that the social order they knew intimately was unfair.

There is no such thing as a self-made man, nor a one-man revolution - these are both capitalist myths.

The opposite is what is presented in this book: The People’s story of the February Revolution, and how they ended their millennia of rank tyranny.

However, the Russian People covered themselves in a truly rarefied glory with the October  Celebration, when the People instituted a modern revolution far beyond the timid bourgeois (West European) model.

The list of countries that have had this Revolution, Celebration and actually sustained it is relatively small: the many brother countries of the USSR, Cuba, China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, and a few others.

And all of these countries are considered absolute dangers by Western mainstream media: they distort, defame and slander the People of these countries, and thus do the same to their own fellow citizens, ancestors and People. Indeed - it is “every person for themselves” in such nations….

“The battle has been waged entirely through the mass action of the Narod, the common people of Russia.”

We can argue about what came after, but never that it was anyone but the People who led, organised, staffed, demanded and installed the February Revolution.

The next article in this series tries to rectify the proper role of Lenin in the October Revolution - official notary is a good designation; and also to explain how his effectiveness was due to his willingness to humbly serve as a conduit and not as a catalyst. [In fact a capable, flexible and genuine revolutionary leader should be both: catalyst and conduit, as circumstances dictate. The two qualities are not mutually exclusive.]

******************************************************

This is the third part in a 5-part series on the 1917 Russian Revolution which aims to put the role of the People first.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

A People’s History of the Russian Revolution pits new scholarship vs. Mainstream Media

Who was not responsible for the Russian Revolution, and who was?

The fascinating People’s account of how the Russian Revolution was won at street level

Why anti-socialists talk more about Lenin than even socialists

Iran’s 1979 Revolution picked up the People’s torch first lit in 1917 Russia

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

RAMIN MAZAHERI—There has been a lot of of predictably terrible journalism regarding the 1917 October Revolution, which is more accurately termed the October Celebration, as it was a largely bloodless, triumphant installation of the world’s first true government of the people via the first emphatic rejection of bourgeois (West European) democracy.


 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

black-horizontal




Who was not responsible for the Russian Revolution, and who was?


horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


(This is the second part in a 5-part series which examines the Russian Revolution and relies upon the new book A People’s History of the Russian Revolution.)

The idea that a small Bolshevik intelligentsia was entirely responsible for foisting and securing an unwanted revolution on the world’s largest country is…obviously fundamentally unsound thinking.


Workers at the Putilov plant listening to Bolshevik organisers.

And yet, this is the intellectual basis of Western Mainstream Media coverage surrounding the 1917 Russian Revolution, and also the recent coverage of the nearly-bloodless October Revolution (better termed the “October Celebration”).

In the first article of this series I gave the primary reason for this faulty interpretation: the “great man” theory of history, which is the only theory capitalism can promote or understand. Bourgeois (US/West European) democracies and capitalist systems always foster individualism over collective harmony, and private interests over public good.

But there is a new type of history which is openly socialist in outlook and thus which necessarily puts the average person at the forefront. The jumping-off point for this series is the new book A People's History of the Russian Revolution, which dismantles the prevailing capitalist orthodoxy that Lenin and a tiny, armed intelligentsia unexpectedly and bloodily seized power in a coup.

The mainstream media cares nothing for this “People-first” form of historical analysis; indeed, they view the culminating October Celebration completely divorced from not just the 1917 February Revolution, but the wider scope of Russian history as well. After all, it is well-known that for capitalist media anything beyond year-on-year (growth) comparisons is considered no longer relevant.

In another sense, elevating the role of the intelligentsia is a case of the Mainstream Media overvaluing their own power: they think that via a relentless hammering on what they prefer to focus on they can “make the news”, i.e rewrite history - journalism is the “history of yesterday”, after all. This is a recipe for bad propaganda, and inaccurate journalism.

As for me, I always say: The news writes itself - but I decide what order to put it in.

Yet I absolutely do not believe that - being a journalist and thus part of the intelligensia - me and my band of keyboard-tapping peers have any chance at all to seize power via a coup and install ourselves as leaders, LOL! The idea of intellectuals truly leading the charge is as laughable in 2017 as it must have been in 1917! Who on earth in the US would storm the White House if Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh was at the head?


Workers at the Vulkan factory—defending their new socialised property with weapons in hand.

Thankfully, a People-centered approach to history verifies that the intelligensia/media had no such power in 1917 Russia:

“The popular movements of the 18th-century had lacked leadership: but the radical intelligentsia of the 19th-century lacked a movement. The intelligentsia is not a class…. The intelligentsia is merely a social layer defined by occupation, education and a lifestyle. Mass mobilization of an entire social class - the peasantry or the proletariat (the industrial working class) - can transform society. The intelligentsia has no such power.”

If the Mainstream Media would realize that popular revolutions are just that - broadly popular, meaning not just popular among one social class - they would also realize that the Bolsheviks succeeded because they were content to simply be instruments of the common will; they were not the “will” itself.

Of course, denying that the Russian Revolution was broadly desired by the populace can never be admitted….

To be a capitalist is to be without history, living only in the present

The basis of the 1917 revolution is epitomised in the work of Nikolai Chernyshevsky, author of the inspirational work What Is To Be Done, from which Lenin cribbed the title for his famous book, in homage. In his diary, Chernyshevsky crystalised - again, not “created” - the mood of the 1860s “social revolutionaries” who were more mature than the “liberal romantics“ of the 1840s:

“I do not like those gentlemen who say ‘Liberty!’ ‘Liberty!’ and do not destroy a social order under which 9/10 of the people are slaves and proletarians.’

(One safely infers that Chernyshevsky would not have said “Je suis Charlie”….)

So why did Chernyshevsky and his peers fail - the ideas for October 1917 were clearly there?

Well, the ideas were there, and the intelligentsia was there - but the People were not. Lenin’s great articles, or my humble articles, can only succeed if the People are ready to democratically transform society via collective action. All noble ideas:

“…cannot be acted upon unless [they] connect with social forces powerful enough to overcome the resistance of vested interests.”

In 1860 these social forces - a united majority of the People - were not there.

They did not coalesce until 1917, when the People instructed Lenin - not vice versa - to adopt the society the People wanted. Lenin had been “instructing” for decades with few results! In the same vein, the fight against European capitalist austerity, for example, has not succeeded - despite years of my efforts (!) - because the People’s social forces have been divided and weakened for a myriad of reasons.

The point here - which the Mainstream Media can never say - is that the real groundwork of the 1917 Revolution had nothing to do with Lenin: it had everything to do with the debt-inducing, poverty-creating chaos that is inherent in capitalism.

Slavery, to debt slavery, and then to socialism. Or, then to…nowhere by 2017

[dropcap]E[/dropcap]xamine the emancipation of the serfs in 1861: just like the emancipation of the slaves in 1863 America, the emancipation was limited only to ending the most extreme human bondage; just like in America, the rights of Russian slaves were only upgraded enough to turn them into White Trash/sharecroppers - the social bondage enforced by capitalism was untouched.


“In consequence, the post-emancipation peasantry was crippled by both land shortage and debt repayment…. The effect was to deepen the poverty of the villages….it hastened the development of capitalist farming, widening the division in the villages between a minority of rich peasants (kulaks) and the rest…. Instead of the village commune being a shortcut to socialism, as the Narodniks (literally: “People-promoters”, or “populists”) envisaged, ‘the new economic organism which is emerging from the shell of serfdom in Russia is commercial agriculture and capitalism’.’”

Therefore, seeing that the inherent evils of modern capitalism were the true catalyst, the roots of the Russian Revolution are not so hard to understand. We don’t have to explain these societal trends by returning all the way back to the dawn of man’s dwelling in the North Caucuses region, but the Mainstream Media cannot be permitted to only turn the page to October 1917 and point at one man among more than 125 million - Lenin.

The last part of that quotation is from Lenin, but he was totally divorced from this 50+ year Russian historical process that fuelled the foundation for the October Celebration far more than any of Lenin’s writings. It would be far, far more accurate for the Mainstream Media to say “Lenin had nothing to do with 1917” than their mantra of “1917 was all because of Lenin”. This must be trumpeted loudly and clearly, and I would imagine that Lenin would gladly consign himself to historical oblivion if it meant we focused on the role of The People, debt and the endless, certain cycles of capitalism.

This analysis does not require extreme sophistication, but it is clearly of an ideology which is banned in the Western mainstream media. This is why they look for a bogeyman to explain anticapitalist events, just as they look for a great man to embody capitalist successes (instead of crediting those who did all the heavy lifting).

Also absent from mainstream media is the barest mention of the Russian Revolution of 1905 revolution and repression, known as the “great dress-rehearsal” for 1917. That crucial story on the building of the 1917 Revolution was the changing of a despotic monarchy into a bourgeois (West European) monarchy, which was wholeheartedly supported by a new agribusiness class and the nascent industrialists. These exact same bourgeois monarchies still exist all over Western Europe, and they are certainly still propped up by modern corporate agribusiness and greedy industrialists.

But progressing from autocratic tyranny to sharecropping/feudalism in 1905 was not enough for the Russian People, who insisted on more rights and equality than what bourgeois (West European) democracy can ever offer. Tsarist Russia was undoubtedly European - in its imperialism, methods, high-court culture, intellectual culture and much more - but 1917 is when Russia started to return to being/become more Asian than European.

And perhaps that is why there has been a century-long war against Russia, which the loss of Hillary Clinton reignited. Xenophobic war is a hallmark of modern West European history, whether it be against Muslims, aboriginals, or any Colored non-West European people. Xenophobia was used to turn nations against each other (and studying socialism) in 1914. The 1917 revolution - like the anti-xenophobic modern revolutions in China, Cuba & Iran - broke with this West European tradition.

Of course, nothing ever makes sense without any context. For self-centered, ambitious young, low-paid journalists in the Mainstream Media, the 1917 Revolution can only make sense within their current anti-Putin Russophobia which they personally understand. Their real goal is not to defend the average Russian foreigner, the average person worldwide, or a truthful retelling of history - the real goal of Mainstream journalists is to advance their own career and join the upper class. Become respectable men of property. 

I have a lot in common with Lenin: namely - powerlessness

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]o who was responsible for the 1917 revolution?

Let's start with who it was not - people like me.

If you believe in the romantic idea that a solitary, intellectual journalist like me represents the strength, force and heroism of the class struggle…enjoy your debt servitude.

Indeed, it was the previously-mentioned romantics of the 1840s who mistakenly believed that individual acts could do more than the collective movement of the masses. A self-flattering idea, indeed, but it proved to be quite outdated within a generation. Perhaps it was a necessary developmental step, but one the non-individualistic parts of the world - like Russia - was happy to have moved past from. Western Europe is still fawning over itself in the mirror in a capitalist self-embrace, and have yet to embrace the People via socialism.

One the problems of the Mainstream Media is that most intellectuals simply aren't staunch socialists or revolutionaries - in terms of status I believe it’s considered an upper-class job compared to most (although in 2017 most don’t realise journalism now truly has twice the unemployment and twice the instability of most crafts (journalism not being a profession, of course)). This is why Lenin said, “I should be strongly in favor of having eight workers to every two intellectuals on our committees.”

This new book shows who the real Vanguard was: people who have been lost to history. Lenin may have written some of the important tracts, but it's the faceless people who - for decades - printed these tracts in basements, smuggled them in the linings of their coats, and organized and staffed the police-evading network needed to promote the idea of social change to the point that it actually succeeded.

“In this way, the exiled leadership reach deep into the Russian proletarian movement. But success depended upon a painstakingly constructed top-down network. On this foundation (of committed class-conscious workers in factories), through careful selection, was constructed an edifice of district, regional, and citywide committees…. There was no other way. The risks were too high. Any open organization would have been penetrated by informers.”

After starting in the factories, it spread to the countryside; World War I radicalised the soldiers to the idea that they are fighting for land which they won’t even own when they return, IF they return.

What we should increasingly understand is that 1917 actually occurred not thanks to the intellectual - even a non-solitary one like Lenin - but thanks to the decades of grassroots organizations which defied the state police who then found their ultimate catalyst in the soldier unwilling to fight for a Tsarist, and then also a Bourgeois (West European) state.

We must remember that common soldiers are - for all intents and purposes - an organised, “grassroots” group…especially once they rebel from state authority and transfer allegiance to the People, who were increasingly represented by worker and share-cropper councils.

That is precisely what happened in 1917 - the confluence of massive groups which discussed, agreed and then carried the People’s will and placed it - fully formed - into the hands of a Bolshevik Party which promised to implement Their will.

In revolutionary Iran, we can replace “mosques” for “factories” as one of the main avenues of spreading political enlightenment. Just like Russia, deadly cat-and-mouse games with the Iranian monarchy’s police continued for decades before being finally fulfilled in 1979. Of course, if you read the western mainstream media, it was all the work of one man exiled to Paris: Khomeini.

Again, its’ the “lone gunman theory” versus scientifically-verifiable reality; the individual versus the collective; history in isolation and magnified on one person, or history in a broad view and taking in as many perspectives as possible. 

The role of the journalist is to not just give voice to the People, but to magnify their role

“Here, in the lower depths of the social order, the mole of history was at work….The effectiveness of this vanguard is incomprehensible if we imagine them to be the cult-like groupies of a remote guru - as the caricatures of Bolshevism would have it.”

So, we modern socialists must insist: It was not Lenin’s faith in the power of the 99% which produced victory - it was the faith of the many in the 99% itself. In the age of identity politics - how can such a faith be fostered?

Regardless of our modern problems, this is the unshared reality of 1917: that Lenin was not at all a catalyst but a conduit.

He reflected and fought for the People’s will, which he (among other Bolsheviks) understood a bit faster than most Russian politicians. This was his “genius”, and as 1917 progressed the People recognised that Lenin and the Bolsheviks understood Them, and that is why - as 1917 progressed - the Bolsheviks were democratically elevated from the 3rd-most popular political party to the most popular political party, and thus awarded power.

Indeed, in February 2017 the People democratically preferred the bourgeois Social Revolutionary Party and Cadet Party. But the People kept moving leftward, seeing that bourgeois (West European) democracy provided an inadequate amount of democracy and equality. Lenin (and his Bolshevik colleagues) merely kept listening and seconding what the People were demanding, and thus by October the People permitted them to take power.

Lenin’s ability to act as “conduit, not catalyst” - a socio-intellectual approach open to everybody - is the basis of the 4th article in this series, which is a necessary effort to bring Lenin, “the great man”, down from his pedestal in order to properly raise up the average person.

The next article in this series - The fascinating People’s account of how the Russian Revolution was won at street level - shows just how amazingly uninvolved Russia’s intelligentsia was in actually achieving the February Revolution in 1917. That article truly stands Mainstream Media history on its head!

Who was responsible for the Russian Revolution? It was absolutely NOT the intelligentsia - it was the People, the average person, the collective.

The problem is not that the People keep pulling us intelligentsia down from our perch - it is that many intelligentsia keep trying to climb back up: instead of remaining humble regarding their approach and influence, they assume a sense of superiority and thus cannot be Their conduit.

******************************************************

This is the second part in a 5-part series on the 1917 Russian Revolution which aims to put the role of the People first.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

A People’s History of the Russian Revolution pits new scholarship vs. Mainstream Media

Who was not responsible of the Russian Revolution and who was?

The fascinating People’s account of how the Russian Revolution was won at street level

Why anti-socialists talk more about Lenin than even socialists

Iran’s 1979 Revolution picked up the People’s torch first lit in 1917 Russia

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.


RAMIN MAZAHERI—The basis of the 1917 revolution is epitomised in the work of Nikolai Chernyshevsky, author of the inspirational work What Is To Be Done, from which Lenin cribbed the title for his famous book, in homage. In his diary, Chernyshevsky crystalised – again, not “created” – the mood of the 1860s “social revolutionaries” who were more mature than the “liberal romantics“ of the 1840s


 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


black-horizontal

Who was not responsible for the Russian Revolution, and who was?